Dare I even say the word “battleship”?
06 Dec 2005
Big Guns Go Silent (also cross-posted at Defense Tech)
Jason Sigger the Armchair Generalist has a post up on battlewagons. First, he points out a Robert Novak column called Marines fear scuttling battleships which includes:
The Navy’s anti-battleship bias began Dec. 7, 1941, when the Japanese surprise attack destroyed the U.S. Pacific Fleet’s battleships. Although admirals in 1946 vowed never to bring back battleships, they served effectively in the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf wars. Congressional pressure brought the USS New Jersey to Vietnam for six months, leading the Marine Commandant, Gen. Leonard Chapman, to conclude, “Thousands of American lives were saved.” The Marines calculated that 80 percent of 1,067 U.S. planes lost in Vietnam could have been saved had battleships fought the entire war.The admirals moved to get rid of battleships forever when GOP Rep. Richard Pombo proposed sending the USS Iowa to Stockton, Calif., as a museum. The Navy supports that as well as making the USS Wisconsin a museum in Norfolk, Va., and repealing the existing requirement to keep two battleships in reserve. The Navy’s anti-battleship campaign began March 15 when Adm. Charles Hamilton briefed the House Armed Forces Committee. It is no coincidence that Hamilton has been the Navy’s point man promoting DD(X).
Never has it been clearer how the military-industrial complex functions.
Jason writes:
These battleships are old, they’re expensive to maintain, and the industry doesn’t support manufacture of the ammunition for the big guns. The Marine Corps does have air support and field artillery systems for fire support. I don’t see the justification to keep battleships just so you have an option to fire on North Korean military structures, as Novak alludes. Maybe it’s time for the big guns to go silent.
Vietnam was a great place for battleship fire support because, geographically, so much territory was within the New Jersey’s range. That’s not the case with Iraq and (obviously) landlocked Afghanistan. But Korea and that other big country with all the people to the south both fit the bill rather nicely. It’s no secret that I’m a bit of a DD(X) critic, and I think that there’s a place in the Navy for battleships. At the same time, I realize that they are old girls and that the manpower requirements (even with full-modernization plans) are pretty significant.
Another factor against the battleships is that precision munitions have taken the place of artillery barrages for the most part. One reason that 16 inch naval fire is so valuable is because it just plain levels everything. But a perfectly-placed smaller round can often complete the mission without cratering the neighborhood. Yes, I know that there are proposed precision shells for the 16 inch guns, and that the large size makes cramming the guidance system easier than it is on smaller rounds, but developing that program would add considerable expense to the battleship scenario. And one of the prime attractions of the battleships is the relative cheapness of reactivating them.
Still, Murdoc is a traditionalist in many ways and would sure like to see these monsters at least remain on inactive inventory. You can bet that ten minutes after they’re signed over to become museums crews of workers will be boarding to make sure they’re incapable of reactivation. I like having the option available.
One thing I’d like to point out, though, to battleship critics is that the “vulnerable to modern weapons” claim is pretty much rubbish. These girls were not built only to fire 16 inch guns. They were built to fight other ships with comparable weaponry and survive. They were built to take hits from 16 inch guns. Back then, in the good old days, capital ship vs. capital ship fights were extended slugfests. Getting pounded by the enemy was part of the plan.
Just because virtually every ship built since WW2 relies on compartmentalization and damage control parties to survive hits to the tinfoil hull doesn’t mean that “ship killer” missiles are going to have the same effect on a beast like an Iowa-class battleship. A couple of days ago I noted that some spies for China had managed to steal, among other things, sensitive information about the survivability of battleships. Here’s what I said about it:
I haven’t seen the document, but I imagine it says “Real damn survivable. I mean, really, really survivable. When planes with bombs crashed into them, they cleaned up the mess with a broom and a can of gray paint. Use the missiles on other ships.”
These things were designed to go toe-to-toe with others like them.
Finally, here’s an article that a reader pointed out some time back about the battleships that I meant to post about but never got around to it: Marine Corps and Naval Surface Fire Support
Follow the links. Read. Discuss.
December 6th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
Like you said they should be at least kept in reseve ready to go.
December 6th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Yes! I sincerely hope their are enough members of Congress not on the take from Lockheed Martin to see through the Navy’s ploy. Yes – Most of Korea and Taiwan are within range of battleship guns. So is a good chunk of China. Yes – The battleships are the last heavyweight brawlers. They can take a hit and continued to administer a beating unfazed. Precision munitions are overrated – especially when you are talking about 16 inch shells. All they would save is a little time and a dumb round or two. Even back in the Gulf War, the battlewagons were using UAV’s to locate targets. The UAV’s gave the fire control people back on the ship a look at where their rounds landed and allowed them to adjust fire very accurately. I serve with a couple soldiers who have direct experience with battleships. One was a Sailor on the Wisconsin during the Gulf War. He has great stories about the ship blasting at everything that moved on the shore and miles inland. Another was a Marine who landed in Kuwait and went through areas where Iraqi units had been obliterated. His recalls being on a transport ship going full speed through the Gulf. From behind, the USS New Jersey sailed by them like they weren’t moving. The Marines all stood on deck in awe as 50,000 tons of whup-ass blew by.
December 6th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
http://www.raytheon.com/products/ddx/ watch the video… very propogandish. But i think, overall, we need to stop living in the past. 1. In GW1991, the BBs did not fire their guns in support of any marine assault. 2. Since then, the BBs havent been needed. The DD(X) offers alot compared to the BBs. 1. Less manpower. 2. Stealthy. 3. Firepower support, while not equaling one BB, is equal to a USMC fire support battery. 4. Supposedly fuel efficient. Sure, it costs alot… but new high tech stuff always does. In the long run, all these advances will add it up in savings. Primarily in crew size, maintenence, and usefulness. Also, 20 DD(X)s can be in 18 more places than 2 BBs. This is the same exact deal as the F/A-22. We need as many as we can get. We also need to be building more ships. Not because we have any enemys, but to keep an industry alive and efficient. -Adam
December 6th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
oops, didnt mean savings in usefulness… hehe
December 6th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
Also, 20 DD(X)s can be in 18 more places than 2 BBs.‘ They’re going to build a max of 8 DD(X). Maybe as few as 5. And I’m not suggesting cancelling the DD(X) because of battleships. There are enough other reasons to cancel DD(X) if that’s what we’re talking about…
December 6th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
Wait? They’re arguing that a DD(X) is /more/ survivable than an Iowa-class? The Iowa class displaces 3x as much and has armor up to a foot thick? (data from globalsecurity.org as well as http://www.microworks.net/pacific/ships/battleships/iowa.htm) I do agree with Adam’s point that 20 DD(x) can be in 10x as many places as 2 BB. Also, if a ship is damaged and needs to return to a port, less firepower is lost due to losing 1/20 of the DD(X) rather than 1/2 of the BB. However, I feel like we need /both/ ships. Today’s military seems to think that one technology/vehicle can accomplish everything as well as a whole set of specialized vehicles or vessels and that’s just not that case. Theoretically their setup is more cost effective, but not when it takes 20+ years and billions upon billions to implement. And do we really want a cheaper military or a better military?
December 6th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Skip – I have to disagree. ‘In GW1991, the BBs did not fire their guns in support of any marine assault.’ They certainly did. The Marine Amphibious into Kuwait assault turned out to be a ruse in terms of timing. We even told the BBC the Marines had landed a day early. The Iraqi units that came out of hiding to oppose the Marine assault that did not happen were met with barrages of 16′ shells. A day later, the Marines landed basically unopposed. That is when my buddy hit the beach. They moved through 50′ wide craters that made the landscape look like the surface of the moon. Along the edges of the craters were strewn pieces of equipment and body parts. They found evidence of dug in Infantry units but nothing living in the areas that had been shelled the BB’s. To be clear, however, the Battleships did fire many missions in support 1st Marine Division units as they moved (assaulted) up towards Kuwait City. Like the beach missions, the battleships did a great job blasting a path for the Marines – that’s why they want to keep them. The Navy doesn’t give a damn and wants new toys. I don’t oppose the DD(X)’s – I just can’t stand the B.S. that they can replaceme a battleship. As far as savings are involved, they better get real good gas mileage if they are going to make up the at least $4 Billion each they cost over an updated battleship.
December 6th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
2. Since then, the BBs haven’t been needed.’ I can think of some Rangers who would have appreciated a little battleship fire support in Somalia.
December 6th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
The DDX is supposed to have 1, I repeat, 1, 5 inch gun mounted on deck. how is that supposed to be the equal of a marine battery? Even if it has a high rate of fire, they have never gotten it to the range or ‘danger close’ diameter they wanted. The DDX has the same thickness and materials that armored the Cole. I’d take my chances on the Iowa, thanks.
December 6th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
The DDX will have 2, remember 2, 5 inch guns. That is a lot of fire support considering that the gun has already been tested over 60 miles. I’m sure the marines would love that kind of early response if say the destroyer hasn’t reached it’s staging position or if the marines are pressing deeper inland. And what about all this armor deal? It doesn’t mean so much anymore. CIWS and jamming have made up for the armor bit. And with the stealth, it will be hard for a missle, say the Sunburn or Yakhont, if it cant find it’s intended target AND it has to deal with jamming, decoys, and the CIWS. The DDX is much more needed that the battleship. With stealth it can provide fire support without being seen by enemy sensors, while the battleship will get a whole range of incomin
December 6th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
I’ll have to quote skrip00 here… The DD(X) offers alot compared to the BBs. 1. Less manpower. 2. Stealthy. 3. Firepower support, while not equaling one BB, is equal to a USMC fire support battery. 4. Supposedly fuel efficient. 5. Does not exist yet. Any bets as to which of those points I think is most significant? :)
December 6th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
Yes, it doesnt exitst. But it will soon. As for cutting it down to 8? Worst decision ever. We’ve already put the expense in. Thats the point. Why abort the project at birth? No matter what, the navy’s next ship is going to cost a bundle. Thats the case of everything. But in the case of DD(X), the cost is automation. Automating everything to cut down manpower costs alot. But once youve completed the one-time costs of design and testing, youll have a ship run by 95 people! 95! This frees up more sailors for other ships. Survivability: Murdoc, it seems to me the armor of the Iowa is a bit too much for today’s ships. The threat it was supposed to take on: The Imperial Japanese Navy, is long gone. SM-2s, ESSMs, CIWS, RIM, Can stop threats way out there as well. Suicide boats can be dealt with by using better security measures. Firepower: DD(X) uses 2 155mm cannon analagous to what is used on land. They both fire at a rate of 10round/min. Coupled with PGMs they can pack a very accurate whallop. Someone earlier said Army Rangers wouldve preferred a lil 16′ action. Too bad we went into Somalia to feed people, and not level entire city blocks. We cant afford to use 16′ swimming pool makers near civilian populations. That kind of fire is just unneccessary. I mean, look at aerial bombs! We’re moving from 2000lb to 250lb SDBs. More firepower while being more accurate is the way to go.
December 6th, 2005 at 6:26 pm
Curses! I need to use the preview feature… But in general, im sad to see the BBs go, seeing as i have a USS New Jersey liscence plate. But sometimes. -Adam
December 6th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
The DD(X) is an extreme example of theory being presented against the reality of combat. Stealth – in operation, the vessels stealth is nearly useless. A) As a successor the AGEIS system, its radar would give it away. b) As a gun support platform – its weapon fire would negate its stealth- as would its feature of ‘reloading while firing capability’ Firepower – The 155mm guns have an effective range of 30 miles or so. With special rounds, you have a range of 60-70 milies but you only have 24 rounds. With standard ammo – the DD(X) cannot support ground troops as the Navy requires an over the horizon deploymnet (25miles) from the shore. This is to stop the mark I eye ball – and artillery bombardment. Protection – ECM and close support weapons and so on…. They only work if you turn it on. Remember the Stark? Next – a dirty little secret – no one has ever tested the CIWS system vs a saturation attack. (under a saturation attack – IMO say 6-8 missiles would defeat any existing defenses) The next point – without armor and with only 95 crew men – the defenses have to work perfectly everytime – a single hit (say on the peripheral missile launchers- litterly ringing the DD(X) with explosives – How anyone thought that was a good idea, must be nuts. That system turns a minor hit into instant disabled vessel) The Navy has real issues – however the DD(X) even if we made the 20 originally planned, would not of addressed these issues. The combat projection power of the navy is carriers, the sea control is the subs, the surface fleet is to protect the carriers, escort the transports, and provide firesupport. The DD(X) does not really fit any of those needs & due its extreme cost – drains the funds available to the navy to address its needs.
December 6th, 2005 at 7:46 pm
In my opinion, fitting submarines with 155mm artillery pieces would be a more sensible move. Submarines are more stealthy than any surface ship when they’re submerged, and they can be made pretty stealthy while surfaced too, most of them can remain below water. They can pop up, open some hatches, fire off a few rounds, then run away… ’shoot and scoot’. I don’t think it would require too much modification to a boomer design to fit artillery and shells inside instead. IMO this would be cheaper and better than the DD(X). They could more safely sit closer to shore too, since they’re harder to spot and their exposure is so much less. Oh well, it’s a crazy idea, nobody will ever go with it. Almost as crazy as my submarine SAM platform idea (imagine the surprises that could generate). If the DD(X) is so great, how come there are no DD-based proof-of-concept vessels, mating an existing DD hull to some of the new concepts like the 155mm guns, to show how accurate and effective they can be? Basically, I’ll believe it when I see it. Who knows, it could turn out to be really good (if really expensive). But for now the DD(X) seems like vapourware to me, and in some ways sounds TOO good to be true.
December 6th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
Stealth: While operating in a Carrier Battle Group formation, the vessel will be in EMCOM relying on feeds from the Hawkeyes. However, this is the case with any warship’s radar. Its stealthy features also assist versus imbound missiles or even enemy search radars on shore batteries. Firepower: For someone who brought up the issue of the ‘reality’ of warfare, the whole point of sea-based fire support is to get the USMC on land. After that, as they go inland, they rely on their own artillery. 10 rounds/min for 2 guns is 20 shells landing accurately for a sustained period of time. Fact of the matter is, you probably wont need that many anyway. Also, from what I understand, those guns can shoot 100 miles. They arent regular land based 155mm cannons. But the ship also has missiles too. Stark affair: Wasnt the Stark an ASW frigate? With limited AA capabilities? Not to mention caught of gaurd? But good point that these systems havent been tested for real. Peripheral Launchers: Good Idea. Have you heard of Explosive Reactive armor? If a missile happens to hit one of those VLS cells, the explosion would flow outward and upward as the inner lining is thicker than the outer one. Better than having them in a cluster in the center of the hull. One goes, they all go. Bye bye ship. LCS deals with the littorals. DD(X) deals with enemy missiles, fire support, and enemy subs. CVN(X) projects power. Overlapping systems that do more or less the same job, but in different ways.
December 6th, 2005 at 8:15 pm
I would point out the shells can be made again. In fact, making new GPS guided shells would be a big boost to capability. Also, new rocket boosted shells (typical for other types of arty) would further extend range. People say they are expensive, but a re-fit is still less then cost of many new navy ships. The operating costs are higher, but then again so are the capabilities. Coming close to a shoreline is a very dangerous area for ships and airlines, because its much easier for things to hide. Blue water capabilities like fancy sonar and radar mean a lot less when you get close to the shore. Anti-ship and anti-air installations are to ships, like a IED in a Urban Area for a hummvee. The solution for the Navy has just been to avoid the shore. This is not a option for the Marines which are going to have deal with coast line sooner or later. Its true V-22s can go much farther inland, but they too have to deal with anti-aircraft installations along a costal area. Unless these are taken out, its a turkey shoot. As long as you can do this with aircraft, your fine. However, having a battleship around gives another option. Immune to all but the larger ships missiles, a battleship can lead up landing invasion and wipe the shore with 406 mm of destruction. With GPS shells, landing troops can have pin-point strikes within seconds, rather then minutes or hours. Also, they would not have to worry about endangering pilot lives, or rely on the Air Force to actually have any aircraft available. Granted the range is limited to dozens of miles- but by the time there is that much land covered they have already done their job. One you have enough new combat vehicles on the ground you push the enemy back more traditionally. Even for blue-water combat the battleship offers advantages. Part of why modern fighting ships can have so little armor is that most of the ‘battle’ is how good of a radar you have, and how good/many missiles you have (Throw in a CIWS for good measure too). However, what is rarely pointed out about the iowa’s is that they are excellent radar platform. Because they are big, and heavy, and have lot of space for generators they can put a much bigger radar higher up then other ships. Higher radars are good because you can see farther over the horizon. The more wattage you put into a radar, the bigger signal you can send out. A big mobile radar is also very handy for when you get close to the shore also. AWACs type aircraft are very good in a blue-water situation, but they have drawbacks too (some obvious, some less so). Ships radars remain important part of fleet detection. Comparing to the DDX is not the best comparison, as have to build a ‘next gen’ blue-water navy either way. The question is what capability we want for a coastal invasion- and brown water operations. Putting lightly armored blue-water ships next to the shore and expect them bombard with 150 mm is not a good risk when for about the same tonnage per dollar you can first risk a couple of 50 year old relics that can take more damage, and deal more tons of explosive then any other ship in the fleet. Its always nice to think you can detect and destroy from affar. However, in the case of brown water operations, often its the coastal hideout that gets to strike first. In this scenario, having armor, and having big guns, starts to matter in a way it does not on the big ocean. In a amphibious assault and costal operations, it has the potential to save many Marine lives and avoid risking many types of aircraft. The Navy is always talking about how it wants to get its hands dirty- well here is a ship that can actually get into a brawl. The sad fact of battlship lives, is that they have often not been risked because they were ‘too valuable’. To many designs spent their days at the rear, in harbors, or scuttled out of fear they would be lost. Nations seemed so afraid of risking them, that they are scrapped out of embarrssment the moment they are to expensive to keep for the jobs they were never let to do. The iowa’s have at least gotten to buck the trend somewhat, but there is no reason to stop here. For a trivial amount of cost, they offer a lot of capability for rainy day.
December 6th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
Why does everyone just look at it as Battleship versus DD(X) in a head to head competition in terms of capability. This isnt a video game. AAA, SAM sites fall under the domain of EW aircraft, smart bombs, and missiles. We have the very stealthy F-35, F/A-22, B-2, and F-117 to deal with these obstacles. So marines in V-22s will be safe. Not to mention theyll have AH-1Z escorts. And the F-35B. Also, the USMC has its own land based artillery. So once it establishes its beachhead, it doesnt need to rely on ship based artillery. Also if theyre on the beach, Naval vessels can come closer to shore. As for going near the coast? LCS deals with this. It is designed to sweep the littorals and make it safe for the big boys to come in. Also, DD(X) has something Battleships dont, and thats two SH-60 as well as sonar platforms. The SPY-3 radar system is also very awesome in power. You cant just stick one on top of a Battleship, and throw some generators on board. That just ludicrous. Modern radar systems require a vessel built from the ground up. Also, they require power. Something the electric drive and distribution system DD(X) aimed to deal with. Also, as for fire support… Technically we have 1 and 2/3 Battleships as the Iowa still has a broken turret. And just like how they dont make 16′ munitions, i doubt they make new turrets either.
December 6th, 2005 at 10:05 pm
Okay. Let’s have both. We’ll see which one sails first – and which one makes the bad guys cringe when it shows up offshore. I’ll take a battleship at the other end of my call for fire radio freq any day. If you really want to make a battleship a shore bombardment monster, install several Multiple Launch Rocket Systems on deck, and develop a 16′ round capable of releasing Rockeye type submunitions against armor. We make laser guided mortar shells now, it shouldn’t be too difficult to transfer some guidance technology to a shell the size of a car. The battleships in their last tour of duty had long range (100+ miles) sabot shells still capable of sinking any ship afloat – other than their sister battleships. They also supposedly had nuke shells just in case the Russians decided to really throw down. With the improvements in weapons guidance and UAV’s, a modernized battleship should be able to almost instantly swat anything out of the water out to 150 miles.
December 6th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
I would point out I said ‘Comparing to the DDX is not the best comparison, as have to build a ‘next gen’ blue-water navy either way. The question is what capability we want for a coastal invasion- and brown water operations.’ As for going in close to the shore- yes there is many ways to kill stuff. Aircraft, LCS, etc. are all options. The battleship is more options. Sure, once the LCS and Aircraft magically kill everything, a beach head and arty base can easily be established. This CAN work, but if it doesn’t. For the money the BS offers a lot more firepower and surviabilty for a beach invasion and coastal support. Saying aircraft can do this is convient- but there is a lot hidden espense. For AF aircraft it means long missions tankers and actual bases. For Navy aircraft it means having a carrier battle group around. As for the 406 mm munitions- guess what- they can make them again. Never mind there is still 16000 stockpiled. Either way, some serious new capabilties can be gained if they do make some new types (e.g. GPS guided and Rocket boosted). When you get close to the shore the reality is you cant always detect first and see first. The result is you have to take casulties or be able to take damage. Aircraft strikes will always have a role to play, as would sending in the V-22 to secure forward objectives. However, having a battleship around means being able to not HAVE to send in a aircraft. It also means being able to dish out more and take more damage- which translates into saving lives. Re-fitting old battleships is a way to get a lot of capability for a minimum of cost. Keeping two ships around just that much longer has the potential to save a lot of lives and money.
December 6th, 2005 at 10:29 pm
For my money the Navy made a tragic mistake when it scrapped Alaska and Guam in 1961. Smaller, cheaper, and a bit newer than the Iowas, their 12′ guns would be more the sufficient for shore bombardment operations, and their armor more than enough to survive ASM attacks.
December 6th, 2005 at 10:39 pm
Yes, I agree. Plus that would free up the iowa’s for more dramatic changes, like replacing the rear turret with a heli-deck or more missile launch space.
December 6th, 2005 at 10:55 pm
Stealth – EMCOM? not likely. Not with all the money making its vaunted dual band radar. ‘10 rounds/min for 2 guns is 20 shells landing accurately for a sustained period of time. Fact of the matter is, you probably wont need that many anyway.’ Er? Name one opposedlanding that only required a few minutes of fire support. ‘Also, from what I understand, those guns can shoot 100 miles. They arent regular land based 155mm cannons. But the ship also has missiles too.’ Actually they are a lot like the land based 155mm’s. The orginal AGS system was quite different, but after several years and a billion or so, the program fell flat on its face. So the navy revised its plan and installed navalized 155mm’s to take advantage of the army’s guided shells. The 100 mile range as advertised is with special rocket assisted shells. Of which the ship will carry only 24. It could carry more, but the shells cost is extreme. Peripheral Launchers ERA armor is especially designed to disrupt and deflect shaped charges. To the best of my knowledge the Tactical Tomahawk Block IV missile is designed to be an ERA explosive. The solid rocket propellant burns at several thousand degrees which some might call a fire hazard. Not to mention most anti-ship missiles are kenitic energy AP missilies, so your comparision to ERA armor is off track. So you are going to have two senarios 1. The antiship missile is going to blow through the magazine, then detonate. In this case the magazine design is helpfull as the magazine will blow up but will not take the ship with it. 2. Some yahoo is going to shoot the ship with a RPG. The RPG is going to penitrate the outer hull and most likely ignite the magazine. The magazine will catch on fire, and the warheads will cook off. The ship should survive but will be crippled. The bottomline remains the same – we have a 3 billion dollar ship that can take only one hit. ‘Also, DD(X) has something Battleships dont, and thats two SH-60 as well as sonar platforms.’ Battleships have a great big landing pad at one end. If you wanted to get snarky, remove the rear turret and you have carry 10 helos. The sonar? – towed array anyone? The SPY-3 radar system is also very awesome in power. You cant just stick one on top of a Battleship, and throw some generators on board. That just ludicrous. Modern radar systems require a vessel built from the ground up. Also, they require power. … actually you can. The BB’s have plenty of room and in fact have the generators on board. (though you most likely would want to upgrade the existing generators – to reduce maintence costs. ) WIth respect to the Iowa. A the turret is 90% repaired already. b) The remaining parts needed to repair it are already made and are stored with the Iowa. c) We have several thousand 16 inch shells in the inventory.
December 6th, 2005 at 10:58 pm
Isn’t the Heavy Cruiser USS Des Moines still in mothballs? It has 9 – 8′ auto cannons capable of firing 10 rounds a minute each.
December 6th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
I had an interesting Idea. In order to make the BB’s more fuel efficient, why not replace the boilers with nuclear reactors? And a modernization program to digitize the BB could reduce manpower requirements. And let’s not forget that the BB itself is a very powerful psychological weapon as well. Also, the number of the DD(X) ships planned for production has been getting smaller each year and some suggest that there could ultimately be as few as 5 DD(X) ships so with so few ships we may want as much bang for our buck.
December 6th, 2005 at 11:35 pm
Somone mentioned using MRLS to highten capabiltiy- have to say this a interesting option. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mlrs/ Check out the ATCMS- 160, 300 km range models. These could be a nice cost/range between the 2(?) million a pop tomahawks, and stock-piled 406 mm shells. Granted they would need a seperate launcher (perhaps that damaged turret)- but 186 miles strike range out of box is impressive. If not for the BB, maybe for DD(X) or a next gen cruiser.
December 7th, 2005 at 12:30 am
The point is the USN wont replace battleships with new battleships. DD(X) is a destroyer mind you. DD(X) has 2 – 155mm guns. Firing at a rate of 10 round per minute. The ship can carry a total of 920 ERGM rounds. This equated rougly to sustained fire for 46 minutes. This means the ship is putting 1 shell in the air every 3 seconds. So its 920 rounds, not 24. I do not see how you could need any more firepower than that. If you do, call up 4 more DD(X)s. The peripheral launch system is much better than a centralized missile pack. 1. On the stern section, it means a larger helicopter pad. Easier on pilots. 2. Less chance of catastrophic ship loss. The PVLS are primarily above water. If they all go, youll lose alot of the external hull, but water-tight integrity is retained. Plus, i very much doubt an RPG can cause a catastrophic loss. OR that some yahoo can get close enough without being engaged by LCS or the DD(X)’s autocannons. Most naval warships, while having AEGIS, dont actually use it all the time when in a CBG. The E-2C Hawkeye provides the same picture an AEGIS or SPY-3 can. In general, its the computer systems that count offering greater resolution and tracking over long distances. Even so, if the enemy sees the SPY-3 in action, its a good bet whatever they shoot at it will be intercepted. The Battleships are still useful, but in no way do we need their firepower anymore. I say, give DD(X) a chance. The biggest advantage is its small crew size, allowing the USN to man more ships more easily. -Adam
December 7th, 2005 at 1:25 am
Risking a ‘billion’ dollar destroyer for brow-water coastal support is a waste of money-they belong out in the ocean looking for commie subs or escorting carriers. Keeping two old battlships around for a rainy day, never mind re-activating them, should have nothing to do with our next gen desttoyer.
December 7th, 2005 at 4:07 am
I’m not sure about that, but I’d say doing both would be called ‘hedging one’s bets’ and it’s something the US Navy doesn’t seem to be a big fan of, while they really ought to be. It seems to me the cost of modernising the two BBs is pretty much chump change compared to what’s being thrown around these days. Call it ‘insurance’. Murdoc, are you sorry you said the word now? ;)
December 6th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
CIWS and jamming have made up for the armor bit. Tell that to the families of the 37 sailors who died on the USS Stark when it was hit with two Exocets. It had CIWS. And jamming. The only saw the missiles seconds before they hit and by then it was too late to do anything. Look, arguing that the DD(X) is like the F-22 and is going to replace battleships is kind of like saying that the F-22 is a good replacement for the B-52. How many 5 inch shells do you need to fire to do as much damage as, say, 10 16 inch shells? My guess would be… hundreds. A BB can fire 10 16 inch shells in one shot. How long will it take the DD(X)? How long until it has to reload? When will the DD(X)s be built? Do we even KNOW they’ll work as advertised? As I heard someone else say recently ‘that’s way too many ifs, ands and buts for my liking’.
December 7th, 2005 at 9:09 am
What ever happened to the cruisers? They had some great shore bombardment capabilities, and decent armor to boot, yet had decent sprint speeds. I think it was Newport or some such that gave the NVA fits about 35 years ago. Just sailed it up the coast, hammering everything it’s guns could reach. The DDX class ships have a lot of propaganda going for them, but I have yet to see anyone telling me how they would accomplish in-shore bombardment BETTER than a battleship. Oh, I’ve seen the rate of fire, and I’ve heard about the ‘extended range’ shells, but how much of that has worked properly. Do a little searching, and you’ll find that the cost of those shells is so prohibitive that the DDX ships will only receive 24 of them at a time. Which means that if I’m 28 miles inland, I only get 2 dozen shots to support me when that brigade of Iranian or Syrian armor rolls out to hammer me into paste. Bad weather has limited visibility so the planes are useless, and the artillery pieces that have come in over the beach are busy helping to hold other parts of the line. Who do I call when those 24 rounds have all been fired in the first 2 minutes of the engagement? This battle could take all day. You have 2 minutes of support fire. How do you hold the line? You call the Iowa, and you watch the bastards go up in smoke.
December 7th, 2005 at 9:50 am
Chad, It was the USS Newport News, which was a Des Moines class Heavy Cruiser. The Salem and Newport News are gone but the Des Moines is still in mothballs in the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. It has 8′ Auto Cannons that can fire 10 rounds per minute each. There were also a couple of banks of 5′ inch guns. The armor belt is only 6 inches, which would make it the most heavily armored ship in the Navy right now, but a lightweight by battleship standards. Right now the Navy is trying to get rid of the Des Moines quickly and quietly – just like the battleships. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/butowsky1/desmoines.htm
December 7th, 2005 at 10:01 am
Ooops. I responded earlier to Bram’s first comment on the Des Moines but it seems to have been lost. What sor of nutjob poser is running this joint, anyway? Anyway, the Des Moines was going to become a museum (there we go again with the museum thing…) in Milwaukee, but the plan fell apart. Last I heard she’s still just sitting there rusting. I noted the Des Moines here. At the time I hoped that they’d get her for a museum. Now I’m wondering if she might not come in handy in the fleet. One thing, though, is the upgrades to the Iowas will have the benefit of building on previous upgrades. The Des Moines is pretty much as she was in 1946. Cool if you’re building a museum, not so cool if you’re trying to come up with a modern warship. And, no, I’m not sorry that I mentioned ‘battleship’ again. But, geez, guys. Is this a hot-button issue or what???
December 7th, 2005 at 11:13 am
Look, im just going to end on this note as this has been a great discussion. Firstoff. The DD(X) is a destroyer. Not a battleship. Its not a direct replacement for those leviathans. However, it is a replacement for previous classes of destroyers, like the Spruance and Arleigh Burke. It offers greater stealthiness, greater protection, and uses far fewer crew to operate. In addition to which, it departs from traditional warship design, and offers greater potential in terms of sensors, computing technology, and automation. Secondly, the need for sea-based firepower is a bit overblown. As I said earlier, 1 DD(X) != 1 BB. However, the plan was to have multiple DD(X)’s with the fleet, and to have them provide fire support together. As for the range? DD(X) wont need to go up to the beach to provide fire support, its range will be good enough for long shots thanx to ERGMs. In fact, looking at the numbers, ERGMs can go up to 100km out. A 16′ can only shoot 38km?! Im not too sure about this. But if DD(X) can fire more accurately, further out, then the BB’s may have an issue. Also, lets not forget about air power as well. Today the military has the capability to put a bomb anywhere from 30 mins, to 38 hours when needed. Where the DD(X) cant reach, an aircraft can. All in all, we cant keep the Battleships forever. And I seriously doubt we’ll need a huge gun ship like that again, nor will it ever be built. Im going to give the DD(X) a chance. Sure, it costs alot, but in the long run, it may be the best buy.
December 7th, 2005 at 11:29 am
Arguing the relative merits of the BBs versus the DD(X) is all beside the point. Functionality has nothing to do with it, it all has to do with politics. Program Managers who don’t get their programs into the fleet might as well pack it in. Congressmen look at whether some piece of the program will be built in their district or state. Defense contractors want to get rid of any competitor that could possibly do the job cheaper, threatening their program with cancellation, or perhaps even worse, cost restraint. This last factor is particularly important. The cost of maintaining the BBs in mothballs until the DD(X) comes on line is insignificant. Why get rid of them now? Because as the cost of the DD(X) continues to escalate, they don’t want to have the BBs sitting there to threaten the cancellation of the program. Once the BBs are gone, it will be IMPOSSIBLE to cancel the program, no matter how expensive they become. We’ll be lucky to get a one-for-one replacement of the BBs out of the program. The best reason for keeping the BBs, at least in mothballs, untill the DD(X) comes on line is to force at least some measure of cost restraint and minimal functionality on the DD(X) program, although I think the fact that the Marines seem to want them should count for something. What’s the marine equivalent of a warthog?
December 7th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
The issue of politics is a good one. Keeping around the BB’s for coastal support- what the Marines want- is essentially a navy favor for the marines. It certainly seems of late there has been more tension between the two, so perhaps this is just a extension of that. The marines on one hand becomine larger and more independent, and the Navy trying re-establish a ‘new’ marine force (e.g. master at arms, Naval Expeditionary Combat Command, etc.). If the marines can keep the BBs around, it will be something of test of there clout in washington. I guess what im trying to say is coastal support is to the navy for the marines, what close air support is to the air force for the army. Neither wants to foot the bill to actual do it, yet they refuse to let the other force have the mission. Well I say if the marines want the BBs, give them the funding and let them operate them rather the Navy. The Marines AFAIK use the Harrier for close air support, and eventually a JSF version. A navalized A-10 version would be superior in many ways to both. Both the AF or Navy would never let that happen though.
December 7th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Hey Navy, thanks for the favor of helping the Marine Corps project power in the world. Wouldn’t want to interrupt the Navy’s other mission of– Hmm– Protecting our maritime fleet from pirates? I don’t think the Navy is going to allow the Marine Corps to operate a battleship. Would be funny if the Corps called their bluff.
December 7th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
I do agree we should keep the BB’s around until the first few DD(X)s come off the line. -Adam
December 7th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
As a military guy, I understand the points that all of you are making. I’m not saying the DDX class isn’t worth making. I’m just saying we can upgrade both of the BB class ships for the cost of one DDX, and still make 7 DDX destroyers. Makes perfect fiscal sense to me. I think one of the biggest things going for the BB class is their size. You can put in Command and Control suites, a new radar, rangefinder and gunnery control (if you need it), and still have room to cut down the size of the superstructure, add a hangar deck (helicopters) by removing the rear turret (maybe even marine harriers). The big thing is still survivability. You can hit a BB class ship with a saturation attack, sure, but will it sink it? You’d better have one hell of a missle, and hit it below the waterline, or it’s just a fart in the wind. Shooting it’s main guns puts more wracking stress on the ship than most missles can impart. Yes, I think we need to build the DDX class ships, but I think we need to modernize the BBs too.
December 7th, 2005 at 3:10 pm
I think the marine equivalent of a warthog is a dugong. The Marine equivalent of an A-10, at least politically, might be a battleship. There’s more pork in a warthog, though. The answer to getting the BBs reactivated would be to make them more expensive. Throw in $100 million worth of radar, maybe replace their 5′ turrets with the guns from the DD(X), get some fancy new PGM shells. Just find a potential prime contractor with deep enough lobbying pockets to put together a pork barrel, and make sure that the upgrades impact the maximum possible number of congressional districts.
December 7th, 2005 at 3:57 pm
So it’s decided. We will modernize a couple of Battleships and do a cost benefit on the Des Moines. When the DD(X)’s hit the water we’ll re-evaluate. Somebody get Rumsfield on the phone for me.
December 7th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
Wish it was that easy, Bram. I do like tw’s idea on a mod program for the BBs.
December 7th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
Upgrade for a need. Unless the US really has a legitimate use for the BBs, they should remained mothballed. Spending money on upgrades when there is no mission to fight is a much larger waste of money than building a DD(X). At least DD(X) can do other things as well. Heh, i see it as an intel issue too. Itll be no secret if the US brings those boats back online. Everyone will know the US intends to use those 16′ers on someone. =) But this is political and economical. Firstoff, Upgrading BBs wont make nearly as many jobs as the DD(X) program will. Its a trickel down theory, several dozen contractors and subcontractors benefit. Whereas the BB-upgrade just isnt popular to the powers that be. Is it wrong when a senator pushes a program to bring more jobs to his constituents? If the system is total crap, yes. But for the most part it is all good political fun.
December 7th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
The idea of doing re-fit that includes DD(X) tech on the bb’s (As TW suggested)- shall we say ‘BB(X)’ reveals a lot for a comparison. It also makes we wonder if the DD(X) is the wrong kind of ship entirely for the future- and if we should be building something more like the existing BB, and not a computerized tin can. The suggestion of a BB(X) with 12- 155mm ddx guns in place of the 16 inch guns is interesting. Yes, reduction from 406 mm to 155 mm seem a waste, but it puts the dd(x) firepower in perspective. Plus, if it were actually done it would ease logistics between the BB(X) and new DD(X)’s. Granted were missing out on a lot stealth for the two hulls, but the reality is once you start firing shells (thats what this is about isn’t it) your going to give away your position. A large sonic signature is going to be detectable for many miles- even after you’v killed enemy radar. To provide coastal support for day long invasion, your going to have just sit there and keep firing anyway- even if you want to run. Leave the stealthy suprise and quick exit to the aircraft- a coastal support ship needs to hang around. Which brings me to my next point–the ‘BB(X)’ in addition to potentially having 6 times the number of guns as DD(X), isn’t going to be put of action anywhere as easily by mines, enemy coastal arty, or all but the largest anti-ship missiles on the market. This brings up the issue of DD(X) survivability and endurance. Its seems downright foolish to spend 1-2 billion a pop on a overburdened destroyer hull that is going to have turn tail once it ‘detects’ the enemies. Im sure the marines asking for fire support as they fight there way inland will be overjoyed to hear their ‘advanced’ fire support ships needs to leave the area because its ‘detected’ the enemy. Granted it could stick around, but its going to end up like the USS Cole. Regardless of if we want to keep the BB’s around, lets stop pretending the DD(X) is a good idea. Forget multi-role, build a solid blue-water destroyer (Goodness knows we need it for the Taiwan straight). In the long run we should have a ship thats at least as survivable, as fast, and has as much firepower as proven coastal support platforms. In other words, our next-generation coastal support ship needs to have more of the qualities of the BBs, not less.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:33 am
… My comment on the weapon load of the DD(X). My bad, I said 24 – should of been 70. LtGen Mattis and LtGen Magnus stated: ‘Each ship will be designed to carry 600 long-range 155 mm munitions plus 70 long-range land attack projectiles to provide high volume support.’ Thus DD(X) will only carry 70 LRLAP Rounds. The other 155mm Rounds are conventional rounds with a range of 24 miles* By way of comparision the load out of a battleship is A Battleship Carries 1,220 16′ Rounds (any mix of conventional and long range) weighing up to 2,700lbs each and 8,000+ 5′ Rounds for the Battleships Secondary Armament. Back in the 70’s the airforce had a great idea. Build the F-15 as a top of the line fighter with the F-16 as a low cost slugger. Personally my only objection to the DD(X) is cost vs capability. Now, a DD(X) and a Battleship together would make an excellent combo. The Battleship plays point and the DD(X) plays cover. That way the two ships can cover each others weaknesses. If that was the plan – then I think the Navy can create viable surface action groups (minus the carrier) that have enough power to dominate a sea zone. This would help cover areas where a carrier is not available.
December 8th, 2005 at 1:42 am
Hmm, a very interesting discussion. So far I see lots of good arguments for having BOTH the DD( x ) and the BB (the arguments against either one seem a little nuts to me). A BB(X)? So we’re talking a beefed up DD(X) with say 4ft Ceramic/Kevlar/Titanium armor 16 rapid fire 16′ guns, with ERGMs, 20 CIWSs plus all the other features of the DD(X) – stealth ect.? Boy, you think the DD(X) is expensive, just wait till you see the price on this baby. $$$$$$ The two debates seem to be: 1 Survivability — Stealth vs. Toughness Granted were missing out on a lot stealth for the two hulls, but the reality is once you start firing shells (that’s what this is about isn’t it) your going to give away your position. Well, lets see: you know when a B-2 is around when your city gets blown to bits that doesn’t mean you can hit it with anything. Not the perfect analogy I know but ya get the point. You can hit a BB class ship with a saturation attack, sure, but will it sink it? Umm, Yeah. Hello, WW2 aircraft could sink them. So you say armor is better now, well so are warheads. When it comes to the aspect of survivability that involves being able to take a hit it’s a matter of degrees. Nothing is indestructible. Does anyone think the designers of the DD(X) have relied totally on stealth and ignored being able to take a hit? The way some of you are talking you’d think you could kill one with an AK-47. Computerized tin can – please. Obviously a BB(X) (see above) would be more survivable but hey. Anyway there is more than just the brute force method (add armor inches) to make a ship tough. their ‘advanced’ fire support ships needs to leave the area because its ‘detected’ the enemy. Why? The enemy hasn’t detected you and you’re about to blow him away. it could stick around, but its going to end up like the USS Cole. Oh please. That attack should never have happened. No one was on guard cuz we didn’t want to offend the locals by pointing guns at them. That attack could have been stopped by an M-16 – sheesh. The best argument for the BB is that Littoral combat is the naval equivalent of urban warfare. Meaning you can’t avoid the possibility of being engaged first and hit. So maybe we need something out there (be it modified BB or BB(X)) That’s got enough punch to make it a magnet for enemy fire and enough armor to survive it. Now, a DD(X) and a Battleship together would make an excellent combo. The Battleship plays point and the DD(X) plays cover. That way the two ships can cover each others weaknesses. Exactly! 2nd Debate – Cost: is it Pork or Capability? Goodness knows we should spend our limited defense dollars as wisely and efficiently as possible. But the goal is to get the best POSSIBLE defense capability, not balance the budget. It always ticks me off that when anyone begins to get a conscience on gov’t spending it’s the military that gets cut first. That’s the last place we should skimp on spending. Having the best equipment and the best training and the money that it takes is NOT PORK!! Hence the DD(X) or the BB(X) 8) , are not pork. Building a ship (whether it be upgraded BB or BB(X) or DD(X)) is a total waste of money if its designed for a use that we don’t need right now. RIDICULOUS! The ship needs to be built before the mission becomes necessary or else you’ll find that you need a ship that hasn’t been built yet. Same goes for things like the F-22. The goal (in terms of desired capability) isn’t to just barley counter the threat and accomplish the mission (so as to save money). The goal is maximum overkill (so as to save lives and WIN).
December 8th, 2005 at 3:35 am
In practice it seems as if the main replacement for the battleship has been the B-52. A B-52 has repeatedly been used to dump large quantities of big, dumb bombs (similar in size to a 16′ shell) on targets. No, you don’t use it the same way as a battleship. Rather than spending a day bombarding a coast in something approaching a tactical capacity, the B-52s spend a week or two bombarding several counties worth of territory. But, if the basic idea is to fill a large area with big craters until nothing moves, B-52s do that, while putting far fewer people in harm’s way than a battleship does. Indeed, really what the military has mostly done is use a combination of cruise missles from cruisers and destroyers and heavy air based bombardment for weeks or months, until it decides that the situation is secure enough to move in ground troops. This was the primary strategy in the Gulf War, Kosovo and the Iraq War. It would likely be the strategy in any other major confrontation — say a Syria or Iran invasion. The concern with a battleship’s vulnerabilities is not so much that a suicide speed boat or naval gun could penetrate its hull. One of the biggest concern would be a diesel powered coastal submarine from say N. Korea or China using a torpedo to, at least, cripple it and take it out of action. As far as the DD(X) goes, the big question in my mind is why one needs to spend $3 billion a shot on a boat whose primary armament is a couple of glorified howitzers. Wouldn’t it be possible to mount a couple of Army self-propelled howitzers on landing craft, ditching the wheels or tracks, have the landing craft approach shore so that you didn’t need 100 miles of range, and keep the ship deploying those landing craft safely over the horizon for considerably less $$? Or, alternately, why not build a cruise missile for much less than $2 million that has a 60 mile range and less precise guidance systems, instead of a several hundred mile range and sophisticated guidance systems of existing cruise missiles.
December 8th, 2005 at 4:04 am
Well, lets see: you know when a B-2 is around when your city gets blown to bits that doesn’t mean you can hit it with anything. Not the perfect analogy I know but ya get the point. I see your point, but I think you missing a couple of factors. 1) The B-2 is a 3d area traveling 500 miles an hour. So a for sensor system that does not have precise location and has a processing time lag, forces a blind. Now a DD(X) is moving no more then 35 miles an hour. So if you have a sensor system that limited initial precision and a processing lag, the target box is small enough that LADAR or visual based target seeker will have enough endurance to find and hit the DD(X). So you can use the DD(X)’s wake, near real time satilight immagery or radar, passive EM radiation, passive sonar… and so on to give you an approximate location (even if it had as small RCS as a B-2. Which it does not) Does anyone think the designers of the DD(X) have relied totally on stealth and ignored being able to take a hit? The way some of you are talking you’d think you could kill one with an AK-47. ummm actually yes, they are depending on stealth to keep the ship alive. Yes it has automated damage control – but most any hit is going to be a mission killer. And yes, you can sink or disable a DD(X) quite easily with a RPG. The peripheral launch system, is designed to blow outward – away from the ship. So this precludes it from being armored vs external attack. (Otherwise – it does not blow outward ) An RPG can penitrate 400mm or so of armor. (under ideal conditions)So the RPG plasma jet is going to slice through the external wall and ignite the rocket fuel or set off the warheads and or both. And yes, a battleship can be sunk. The Yamamto: Near Okinawa three attack strikes a total of 13 torpedoes struck the ship within 2 hours she was beginning to sink. After she had listed 120 degrees, one of the magazines back aft exploded. The Musashi: After 20 torpedo hits and 17 bomb hits the Naval career for the Musashi had come to a bitter end. So how many hits do you think a DD(X) can take?
December 8th, 2005 at 7:47 am
James beat me to it. Battleships can be sunk by massive concentrated attacks with heavy weapons. The Nevada, the Bismarck and the Japanese battleships were sunk with torpedo hits below the water line and / or bombs from directly from above – which is not how modern anti-ship missiles attack. Today’s anti-ship missiles are designed to open tin-can destroyers like the Cole and the HMS Sheffield by approaching from the side at high speed. They would have relatively little affect on a battleship which were designed to take far more massive hits to the sides. Two battleships, armed with close-in defenses like phalanx, and part of a fleet that includes screen of missile cruisers, destroyers, and subs, would force our enemies to spend time and money trying to figure out how to deal with them.
December 8th, 2005 at 9:08 am
I think the points have been made, and you all know I’m the last one to step out of an argument. I’ll just leave this discussion with one last note. It’s illegal for the navy to decommission the BB class ships. They’re trying to do it anyway. Damn squids.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:24 am
http://wizbangblog.com/archives/007746.php
December 8th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/B.20041030.SmlCmbtShips/B.20041030.SmlCmbtShips.pdf
December 9th, 2005 at 1:44 am
Skrip00 – A lovely letter to the demise of the battleship. The only problem is that the 5 points as stated are not true. 1 & 2 – Spare parts and gun liners. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_logistics.html 3 – Crew hog. Firepower wise the battleship as currently configured has the firepower greater then aany 8 current surface (non-carrier) ships and arguably has the firepower equal to 2 carriers. That said, you could par the crew down to 1000 by installing the modular ACS guns on the BB. (replacing the old 5 inch gun decks) 4- Iowa as damaged goods. The ship is mostly repaired already and the remaining parts have already been made. 5- Military Superiority – Well if we are never going to do an opposed landing because we are so superior – then lets disband the Marines. The superior arguement is a strawman, and if actually used, could justify anything. Why build the F-22, we are so superior that no one is going to challenge us in the air. You could undercut any and all future procurement plans… The bottomline – the battleships represent a unique investment that should not be tossed out because the Navy is looking for its own glammour ship to counter the Air Foces F-22 or the Army’s FCS program.
December 9th, 2005 at 8:01 am
James, thanks for the thoughts. I’m no metallurgist, but do we really have the capability to reproduce a 16′ gun liner? We’re talking about a piece of steel tubing 16′ in diameter, almost 67 feet long, I dunno how thick, and rifled, with very fine tolerances and needing great strength. There’s also the issue of gun rounds and powder. We don’t have any industries that can start cranking them out — we’d have to rebuild that capacity, too. Finally, this one is pure speculation on my part, but it’s drawn from bits and pieces I’ve read and heard. The engines of the Iowas are oil-fired boilers — just how much infrastructure do we have to support that? Do we have tankers that can carry that fuel still? Are there enough other vessels that burn it to keep those tankers from becoming dedicated BB-support? Do we have crews trained in running the engines, guns, and other old equipment aboard? I love battleships as much as any civilian can, and can discuss their history, design elements, and sheer aesthetics with a fair degree of comfort. But I fear that bringing them back is a solution in search of a problem. J. (Who’s surprised that no one’s discussed ‘fixing’ the Iowa’s turret 2 by swapping it with one from the Missouri or New Jersey…)
December 9th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Had a post that hasn’t shown up so I will just mention this, with respect to the 16-inch guns (out of the bottom murdoc link) One extended range munition, the EX-148 munition, a 13′ Sabot round (NAVSEA Project No. S-1894) was developed in 12-18 months and repeatedly and successfully test fired over 100 times from USS IOWA from April 1987 to June/July 1990 reaching an ultimate range of 45nm. During these tests none failed or melted in the barrel as the ERGM munitions tended to do. The 13′ sabot round was designed to carry a 450 lbs. warhead of 555 M-46 sub-munitions which is a warhead 19 times bigger than the new Long-Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) round. So the BB(X) 16 inch guns could have a extra 10 miles range with these. Yes, it was experimental, but then again so is the LRAP and, for matter the entire DD(X) program. If a 155 mm gun really does turn out the be that much better than the 406 mm, then the BB(X) could use a mix of the 406 and 155s, or perhaps 155s exclusively. Somone mentioned the Heli deck size issue one the ‘BB(x)- its quite big AFAIK larger then what is planned for the DD(X). There is a lot of space back there, as before helicopters, there was space for seaplanes, cranes to lift them out of water, etc..
December 9th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
A lot of these arguments for retaining the battleship don’t take into account the overall big picture strategy. Do we want to go around with a large relic as the center of our operations? Does it fit into our current situation and mission? With all the money being wasted by the DOD, do we need to be spending money on this? Even if DD(X) were not an issue, the BB remains outmoded, outdated, outclassed and unaffordable. Brute force is no longer the solution, why anybody continues to insist on sledgehammers to perform surgical operations is beyond me. Tying up even a ’slimmed down’ 1000 sailors to man a glorified gun platform is preposterous. An entire modern amphibious landing usually doesn’t land more than 2000 marines. It is smart to want a number equal to 50% of the landing force to support just the naval gunfire portion? And all the anecdotal evidence of blown up Iraqis is not going to change the fact that it does not make sense strategically, operationally and even tactically. All I’m hearing is nostalgia. The M-1 Garand was a great rifle, why don’t we just issue those out again? In a comprehensive approach to naval operations, one must consider the threat posed to the platform. By air, the BB is very vulnerable regardless of its armor. Sea-skimming ASCMs also do a pop-up maneuver and penetrate ships from the top down. Historically, in the armor vs weapon race, armor is usually one step behind. Something always comes along that can defeat it. By sea, the greatest threat is underwater. The navy has a hard enough time as it is trying to do anti-submarine warfare. A big target like a BB, especially with it’s vulnerability below the waterline (as was pointed out) would be no problem for subs. Diesel submarines are everywhere, they are quiet and they are not that expensive. Even Iran’s got some. Most of the countries in the Pacific ocean have some. Even cheaper than subs are mines. Sea mines pose a real problem for the US Navy. They are show-stoppers. Even one will halt any progress until mine-clearing assets can be used. How much progress have we made in mine warfare? Almost none since the Gulf War, where it was a huge problem. If I can use Iraq as an analogy, the US is finding assymetrical warfare very difficult over there. I don’t see anyone suggesting bigger artillery, bigger tanks to solve the issue there. It’s about distributed systems, pushing decisions down to the tactical level, precision, flexibility and adaptability. The battleship is none of those. It is a giant hunk of metal challenging all comers to ‘bring it on’ and waiting to be humbled by a single missile or explosive laden boat. You don’t have to sink it to render it ineffective.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
Just calling something a outdated relic doesn’t actually make it one- a updated BB(X) (e.g. new missiles, radar, and sonar), is going to be faster, more surviable, and have more endurance then any ship in the fleet. The BB’s are more surviable, not less in regards to all those weapon system. Entire class of Anti-ship missiles and torpedoes aren’t going to be effective. With any defense spending the question is how much capability do we get per dollar. Its valid point defense systems need to adaptble, and more of the ‘the network’, but a BB(X) could just as easily be a part of that network as any other ships in the fleet. Descriptions of the cost and crew estimates tend to be subjective. Its true its more expensive then smaller ships, but then again it can offer a lot more to host of situations. If we are building a ‘peactime navy’, that only does small support opertions and doesn’t have to worry about getting shot at- yes its not justified. However, if going to build a peace time navy, rather then one that can fight a real war- say one with China- then we mines well get rid of a lot other stuff too. The ‘big picture’ is that we can’t have a peace time navy if China is going to take us seriously about taiwan, and to a lesser degree NK. In that scenario, the the BB give them a lot to worry about for what amounts to a bargain in the world of defense spending. As for the fielding heavier weapons in Iraq and Afghan- yes people have suggested more armor and bigger/harder hitting weapons, and they are much in demand.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
I should clarify a typo- ‘Entire class of Anti-ship missiles and torpedoes aren’t going to be effective.’ I meant classes- as in the smaller ones designed to take out smaller displacment hulls. (e.g. destroyers)
December 9th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
Chad why would it be illegal to decommission the BB class ships?
December 9th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
Steve, There is a real lack of understanding of naval warfare in many of the arguments you make. Just plunking on new technology to an old hull doesn’t make it new or capable. Adding a new radar, missiles, sensors, C4I equipment-oh yeah, that’s called a DDG or CG or even the DD(X). Calling something a relic doesn’t make it a relic, being a relic makes it a relic. Survivable does not mean heavy and slow. Progress means avoiding getting hit in the first place. Do you see the air force designing planes that are bigger and more armored to counter the missile threat? Or bigger bombs? Do you see them using the MOAB everywhere we go? I don’t see how that would work for ships. When there are bunkerbuster munitions that penetrate dozens of feet of concrete and steel protection and are dropped from small jet fighters, you propose that some a few extra inches of steel will help? It’s a sitting target! It takes an entire air wing and a group of escorts just to defend a carrier. And even that’s a concept left over from WWII. I would really like to see anybody realistically try to operate a battleship out there by itself. I personally would not want to risk thousands of lives like that. I mean, for example, your suggestion of adding sonar to a BB is laughable. No one in their right minds would try to prosecute an ASW problem with a ship like that. For one, it’s prohibitive to get something like that quiet enough and for another, it’s just too big. Heavy armor cannot protect against 90% of torpedos. Torpedos do not work by penetrating ships’ hulls. They work by causing a pressure differential underneath the hull of the ship and causes the ship to break under its own weight. And the BB has plenty of weight. The bigger the ship, the more vulnerable they are. Historically, battleships could not fight tin cans because they were too fast and had torpedos. Big battleships were scared of little old destroyers! And that’s without modern missiles (which by the way are not classed by small ship killers and big ship killers, they are just designed to cause damage regardless of size). I’m not trying to get into specifics, that is just an example. I’m just saying look at the cost vs. benefit. Not only is it more expensive than smaller ships, it will require more smaller ships to help it. The navy is having trouble filling the need for ships that it wants now. Where are they going to get the money to retrofit, operate and support/protect a battleship group? You make the point of capability per dollar, and you are not getting much bang for your buck. Yes, it would be impressive. Yes, it may survive attacks other ships may not. But to what end? It looks like 16′ guns are the only real advantage. It’s just a fetish for big guns. They do not serve our purposes. It’s time to move on. Look, read up on naval warfare, technology, strategy. Then you can make a coherent argument. And I don’t mean that as a personal attack. I just detect this same lack of knowledge in most arguments for BB revival.
December 10th, 2005 at 2:28 am
Just plunking on new technology to an old hull doesn’t make it new or capable’ Navy ships have a life span of around 50 years. It is common practice, to continually upgrade a ships various systems and provide additional capabilities.For example upgrade the AGEIS system for anti-ballistic missile defense. ‘ Do you see the air force designing planes that are bigger and more armored to counter the missile threat?’ No, but significant armor on a plane is not possible (unless you are an A-10). That said, plane have multiple redundant systems for control battle damage. ‘When there are bunkerbuster munitions that penetrate dozens of feet of concrete and steel protection and are dropped from small jet fighters, you propose that some a few extra inches of steel will help?’ The Iowa is armored against 2700 lb armor piercing round moving at far higher speeds then a bunker busting bomb. Its basic physics. Only the heavier GBU-28 would have realistic chance of penitrating, and its only carried by the B-2. Sonar- Installing a hull sonar unit on the Iowa’s is not worth the cost. That said, a towed array would function just fine. In general, any surface ship makes a poor sub hunter, that is what the attack subs are for. Amy Iowa upgrade should include anti-torpedo torpedo’s. ‘Torpedos do not work by penetrating ships’ hulls. They work by causing a pressure differential underneath the hull of the ship and causes the ship to break under its own weight’ A rather simplistic description and one not entirely incorrect. A warhead, capable of breaking a Iowa’s keel, would destroy any ship in the fleet. However, I doubt that there is a non-nuclear torpedo with a large enough warhead to do what you propose. (as a side bar – battlships have survived being targeted by nuclear weapons) That said, the Iowa’s have significant protection from the torpedo overpressure damge. Size, compartmentalization, alternating areas of void and oil, is a defense against torpedoes. This is one reason why Battlships often took several torpedo hits before sinking. ‘Historically, battleships could not fight tin cans because they were too fast and had torpedos. Big battleships were scared of little old destroyers!’ That is a historically innaccurate statement. http://home.att.net/~wellsbrothers/Battleships/obsolete.html
December 10th, 2005 at 5:59 am
James, three points about that page you cited: 1) The Yamato and Musashi were, in all likelihood, ‘overkilled’ by bombs and torpedoes. I believe (and so do a lot of others) that they were doomed earlier in the attacks, and the remainder of damage merely hastened their end. 2) There’s no mention of the Prince of Wales and Repulse — an old battlecruiser and a brand-new, modern battleship caught at sea, in full fighting trim, and sunk by land-based aircraft. 3) There’s also no mention of the Bismarck — true, she was sunk by surface ships, but had she not been crippled by a torpedo attack launched from an airplane, she could have used her superior speed to escape. That air attack cost her fuel and the use of her rudders, dooming her to being run down and destroyed. And on a point you raise, not that page: the Iowas were designed to resist ‘dumb’ torpedoes, that would impact the ship directly. Modern ones are smarter, and detonate below the ship, assaulting the vulnerable bottom. It’s a shame that none of the scrapped fast battleships were subjected to a SinkEx from a modern torpedo, but it’s the opinion of many that they would have a hard time withstanding an attack of that type. As much as I love the battleships, I just don’t see bringing them back. It strikes me as a solution seeking a problem. J.
December 10th, 2005 at 4:21 pm
Jay Your right, the page does not list everything. For example – after Pearl Harbor, no american battleship was ever sunk. In any event, there is no cliam that the battleship is unsinkable. Only that in comparision to everything else, they are lot harder to sink. For example their torpedo defenses. Direct vs indirect contact torpedoes. The ship has to survive 1) the overpressure wave that buckles the hull, 2) The keel strain due to the buoyancy differentials. The Iowa’s defenses are geared to the 1st. To my knowlege, no one has come up with solution to the 2nd. The point remains, that a Iowa is far more resistant to a torpedo hit then other ships. The other point remains, that a battleship can and has taken damage that would sink other ships and still continued with its mission. Modern ships rely on ECM, anti-missiles, and other active defenses. The passive defenses are virtually non-existant. A dirty little secret is that all the damage control activity – is militarily useless. A modern ship that is hit – is out of combat. Damage control at best allows you to save most of the crew, and allow the ship to limp to port. Now with respect your statement about the Iowa as a solution to seeking a problem. There is a real problem. The lack of naval gun support. To date we have been able to cover this difficency with massive use of air power (ironically the 50+ year old B-52 has been saving our collective asses) However, BUFF’s can only really be used in uncontested enviornments. Ok senario time – North Korea / China. At issue is range. The tactical fighters lack the range to provide cover for the BUFF’s. The Navy carriers normally would fill this gap, but the F-18 is a second rate fighter and high end russian made fighters will blow them out of the sky. The end result is that you are going to have ground troops without heavy firesupport. The DD(X)’s LARP’s are not very effective rounds. They have a small payload, and minimal ability to effect hard targets. (They can kill infantry and unarmored vehicals) More damming is that the LARP’s are glide rounds, meaning that they have long delivery time. So not only do you have ineffective firesupport, its late too. Missiles at million per copy are too expensive to be firesupport. The DD(X) LARP rounds cost 196K per shot – also to expensive. Tactical fighters have limited endurance and limited firepower. A battleship, provides firesupport that is continous, affordable, and has the bust chance of surviving in hostile zones. In accounting parlance – the battleship reflects a high but predicable & inelastic cost curve. That is what the navy is crying about. However, the DD(X), reflect a low but highly elastic cost curve. Once you build it, the mainence cost is relatively low, but once you use it, its like throwing money out window. Unfortunately, the Navy budgeting system does not take this into account. Fixed costs are seen as a negative and variable costs are encouraged. Why, in wartime, you basically have unlimited funds, so the high mission (variable) costs can be ignored. The net result of this accounting insanity is that we build ships that are disposable. You want to have as low continous cost as possible (read small crew) so as to maximize you ability to have multiple ships. Conversely, investing in ships that have real, substancial ability to survive combat damage is viewed as negative. Why, those ships have a higher build cost and a higher continous cost (larger crews – more maintence) In addition you would have to build a larger infrastructure to handle repairing those ships. (if a major war ever breaks out – keep in mind that any Navy that is hit, if not sunk will be out for the duration) Ironically, buy throwing out the passive defenses, the Navy is encouraging greater costs in the form of electronics. In the past, the most expensive part of a ship was the hull and propulsion. Now, hull and propulsion costs are secondary to the huge electronics cost. In end result is the DD(X) a disposable ship costing as much as Nimitz aircraft carrier. Yet firepower wise, is only marginally more effective then the current destroyers.(a missile is a missile reguardless what ship fired it) Actually from a firesupport standpoint, we would of been better off with the Arsenal ships – the Navy’s Carrier lobby killed that concept. The DD(X) is has low maintence costs, thus looks attractive to the navy as procurement and upkeep costs use different budgets. However,from the view of guys depending on the fire support from the navy – the DD(X) is the great white elephant. Thankfully to all involved, its also a stealthy – so we don’t have to see the white elephant. Take a poll of any 100 Marines and ask them which would they prefer – a battleship or a DD(X).
December 10th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
Great post there james! Jay Tea: I would point out that torpedo that detonate under ships have been around at least since WW2. This type of detonation has advantages, but its not all gravy. For this type of attack to be effective on a BB you need a very large warhead. The shockwave has to a magnitude more energy to be effective than with smaller ships. Just like other types of ordinance, there are, not suprisingly, different size warheads on torpedos. A great many torpedoe models fielded by modern navies are simply just not big enough to do ship-threating damage to a ship the size of a BB. There are indeed torpedos that are only good for small ships. Not to mention a whole host of other weapons like limpets mines, regular mines, and AS missiles do not have warheads that are effective enough. Also, unlike during WW2 and for a time after, there are viable anti-torpedo systems that can offer further defenses against torpedos even after there in the water.
December 9th, 2005 at 10:09 am
The last time we made a opposed landing was in the gulf war- and the BB’s did a excellent job wiping out iraqi positions. As for the liners, I would not underestimate the ability of industry to supply even these. Also, there are still a lot spares stored for these- part of deal when they are not stricken. Barrel is much less of issue anyway, for firing HE shells. http://yarchive.net/mil/barrel_liner.html As for the oilers- no they burn current fueld just fine. Its just another way of burning fuel. Newer gast turbine engines still burn oil. Here is the iowa refueling a frigate. The DD(X) would be bit bigger, but not much. http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016183.jpg I would take a moment to point out that bigger and longer ships are more effecient and can be made faster than smaller ships. This is because the displacment hulls bowline speed is a function of length. Ships cannot just keep going faster and faster- one they hit their bowline speeds they top out. Speed boats avoid this by having planing hulls, which, for a number of reasons is not usefull for very big ships. The other is that that the volume of a ship increases by the cube, but the drag increase by a area. The result is that all else being equal, bigger ships are more effecient for the amount of cargo they carry. This is why everbody kept making bigger and longer cruiseliners and transport ships- you can go faster and carry more cargo for burning less fuel. It also effected BB development, as its very hard to make a smaller BB compete with a bigger one. Newer Radars and missiles can be added to a BB(X) design. If the new 155 mm are reall so great-heck they can added to the BB(X) to. However, there size means that there is speed and effiency advantages that are very tough for smaller ships to compete with, even when they have dangerously thin armor and newer engines. The Cole should be a wake up call to how little damage Navy ships can withstand. Never mind whatever tactical lessons about speed boats and harbors can be learned- that amount of explosive should have left a brown smudge, not put the ship out of action. Granted, that ship was designed for different purpose than brown water operations- but its good predictor of what we can expect from the new thin-skinned brown water if they actually have to fight.
December 9th, 2005 at 8:32 pm
Jay – Capasity to build 16inch liners. In reality, there is only one part of the Iowa’s for which we do not have the capasisty to reproduce – the Armor Belts. That is one of main reasons for the arguement to return the BB’s to service. Some backround on your concerns- http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/05/0222/art1.html http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_42/b3904112.htm Gun rounds & Powder – The powder is not an issue. There are several plants that currently produce the powder. Then again, there is nothing written in stone that says we have to use the old powder bags. We can use liquid propellants or other propellent types. The rounds – production is not currently needed. We have around 16,000 16inch shells in inventory. The inventory can hold out till production is needed. On the logistics issue – The navy currentely maintains 14 fleet oilers. In addition, the BB’s themselves can resupply other navy ships – this was dune during the Gulf war. Crew training – We would have to do what we did the last time we pulled the BB’s out. Retired sailors could be brought back either to man the ships or train new recruits. Every time the subject is brought up, thousands of sailors volunteer. The Naval Fire Support has a pretty good report on the Battleships http://www.usnfsa.org/Articles/News/USNFSA.PDF Final point – worst case it would cost 3 billion to bring the Iowa’s up to speed. But lets say it costs 6 billion – It basically comes down to 1 DDX = 1 modernized BB. Which vessel, is capable of sitting a couple of miles off the cost and intimidate the hell out of the locals? Which ship gives the best chance to survive a conflict? Personally I see the Iowa’s a bridge force. They can hold the fort – until such time as technology develops so that a suitable replacement can be built.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:18 am
We are the United States. We can afford to keep them in port for now. Let’s keep the BB’s around until we need them. If we ever get in a ‘real’ war again, like a conventional war with North Korea or China or somebody…We can modernize the big ships and send them out for shore bombardments and escorting the carriers directley.
December 9th, 2005 at 10:58 am
The last time we made a opposed landing was in the gulf war- and the BB’s did a excellent job wiping out iraqi positions. As for the liners, I would not underestimate the ability of industry to supply even these. Also, there are still a lot spares stored for these- part of deal when they are not stricken. Barrel is much less of issue anyway, for firing HE shells. http://yarchive.net/mil/barrel_liner.html As for the oilers- no they burn current fueld just fine. Its just another way of burning fuel. Newer gast turbine engines still burn oil. Here is the iowa refueling a frigate. The DD(X) would be bit bigger, but not much. http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016183.jpg I would take a moment to point out that bigger and longer ships are more effecient and can be made faster than smaller ships. This is because the displacment hulls bowline speed is a function of length. Ships cannot just keep going faster and faster- one they hit their bowline speeds they top out. Speed boats avoid this by having planing hulls, which, for a number of reasons is not usefull for very big ships. The other is that that the volume of a ship increases by the cube, but the drag increase by a area. The result is that all else being equal, bigger ships are more effecient for the amount of cargo they carry. This is why everbody kept making bigger and longer cruiseliners and transport ships- you can go faster and carry more cargo for burning less fuel. It also effected BB development, as its very hard to make a smaller BB compete with a bigger one. Newer Radars and missiles can be added to a BB(X) design. If the new 155 mm are reall so great-heck they can added to the BB(X) to. However, there size means that there is speed and effiency advantages that are very tough for smaller ships to compete with, even when they have dangerously thin armor and newer engines. The Cole should be a wake up call to how little damage Navy ships can withstand. Never mind whatever tactical lessons about speed boats and harbors can be learned- that amount of explosive should have left a brown smudge, not put the ship out of action. Granted, that ship was designed for different purpose than brown water operations- but its good predictor of what we can expect from the new thin-skinned brown water if they actually have to fight.
December 9th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
Jay – Capasity to build 16inch liners. In reality, there is only one part of the Iowa’s for which we do not have the capasisty to reproduce – the Armor Belts. That is one of main reasons for the arguement to return the BB’s to service. Some backround on your concerns- http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/05/0222/art1.html http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_42/b3904112.htm Gun rounds & Powder – The powder is not an issue. There are several plants that currently produce the powder. Then again, there is nothing written in stone that says we have to use the old powder bags. We can use liquid propellants or other propellent types. The rounds – production is not currently needed. We have around 16,000 16inch shells in inventory. The inventory can hold out till production is needed. On the logistics issue – The navy currentely maintains 14 fleet oilers. In addition, the BB’s themselves can resupply other navy ships – this was dune during the Gulf war. Crew training – We would have to do what we did the last time we pulled the BB’s out. Retired sailors could be brought back either to man the ships or train new recruits. Every time the subject is brought up, thousands of sailors volunteer. The Naval Fire Support has a pretty good report on the Battleships http://www.usnfsa.org/Articles/News/USNFSA.PDF Final point – worst case it would cost 3 billion to bring the Iowa’s up to speed. But lets say it costs 6 billion – It basically comes down to 1 DDX = 1 modernized BB. Which vessel, is capable of sitting a couple of miles off the cost and intimidate the hell out of the locals? Which ship gives the best chance to survive a conflict? Personally I see the Iowa’s a bridge force. They can hold the fort – until such time as technology develops so that a suitable replacement can be built.
January 3rd, 2006 at 10:50 am
I think that the BB(X) concept posted above would be the best direction. Either gut the Iowa class and use the hull and armor to start, or build from the ground up to a new class of BB. Also, by the time the next conventional war breaks out we may have perfected railgun technology that would allow us to attack targets hundreds of miles away with kinetic energy rounds. Imagine equipping a future BB with railguns of a 7′ or greater caliber, this size allows plenty of room for guidence and payload while keeping the shells at a reasonable size; we could even up it to 10′ if power output allowed.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:26 pm
The one aspect of retaining the BB’s is that they are just plain intimidating. Imagine being a terrorist state, and one day being informed that there is a 45,000 ton battleship sitting 16 miles off of each coast. Not only that it has been upgraded with more lethal weapons since last used. So just two ships can blow you to hell either with 16in guns, perhaps with a rocket assist add on. Or with a tomahawk missle. High tech is not necessarily best. The thousands of 16in shells still in inventory cost us nearly nothing to use. While a cruise missle or a bombing run by the B-52’s are expensive (with a cruise missle at over $1,000,000 per copy) It seems that we have forgotten that war is a nasty, horrible, bloody and messy business. We as Americans want no collateral damage, and basically no mess to clean up. And death of non-combatants even if the non combatants really are, has to be avoided. And if we don’t the lawyers get involved. Plus a 16in shell does a couple of other things. They provide instant foxholes for Marines, and the sound of incoming is very terrifying to those on the wrong side.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Just one point I would like to bring up about the (way) earlier comment about Rangers probably would have wanted BB support in Mog. IIRC, alot of the hostiles, at night, were in abandoned buildings, hence the reason minigun and 4.75′ rocket fire from strafing little birds was used to help suppress them. Wouldn’t it have been more efficiant to use the little birds to suppress street movement and then LEVEL those buildings with a few 16 inch shells? Yes there will be collateral damage, but that is WAR. Second thing I would like to point out is that with as much space as you have in one of those 16′ cannon turrets (and the supporting underhull structures) you can use the BB as a test platform for a variaty of new cannon systems…not to mention the 5 inch platforms along the sides, and we could STILL keep the 16 inch guns in case the ‘uber railgun’ or ‘laser cannon’ or what ever high tech piece of crap they decide to try out. Use it as a battle field test bed. Most weapons systems look great on paper, but after the first week in an operational environment, it goes back to the factory cause it broke and you are breaking out ‘ol’ faithful’. One problem with pulling the aft turret is unbalancing the ship. One solution, stick your nuke plant in the space, to run the ship. Then you have the whole back deck available as a ‘STOVL carrier’. The battleship is not just mobile artillary. Its also mobile replenisment, helicarrier (light), a marine support ship, a hospital ship, and a sensor platform. In reality, because of its size, once you modernize it with less crew intensive systems, you have so much room left over, that you can do alot. A point on speed. You know why they came up with the CGN Nuclear Guided Missle Cruiser idea? Because a big ship like a Carrier with a nuke plant can outrun its support fleet. IIRC Destroyers were designed as picket ships to hunt torpedo boats, which were a threat to the battleship of the day. Of course the destroyers were light, weak hulled, but fast and manuverable, and armed with guns to take out the very light, cheap, and fast torpedo boats, which could harm the battleship. The Cruiser was kindof a compromise between the destroyer and the battleship. I think the guys that came up with the DDX have been watching too much Star Wars. The ‘Imperial Star Destroyer’ is not a destroyer. The equivalent in our ocean going navy would be…yep, you got it, a Battleship…or more appropriately a Battleship/STOVL carrier. THey are trying to replace a large, multipurpose, heavily armored and armed ship, with a small, light, not as fast, thin hulled, undergunned ship.