Is the "Battleship" obsolete?

[Oozlefinch]

Now first of all, I invite everybody to notice that the word "Battleship" is in quotations. And that is for a very good reason which will be explained further along.

One thing that often confuses people is how to classify ships. For example, what is an "Aircraft Carrier"?

Well, most people hear those words and think a ship like the USS Midway or USS Nimitz. A ship who's primary role is to carry aircraft into combat where they take off and do battle with ships and fighters. But is that enough? Were not the WWII era "Escort Carriers" also aircraft carriers? While their true mission was to ferry aircraft from one location to another and provide some coverage to convoys they would also occasionally participate in more major battles.

Then let's get murkier, like the case of the Liaoning. Now even when the Soviets launched this ship as the Varyag they did not call or consider it an "aircraft carrier". It was a "tyazholiy avianesushchiy kreyser", or "Heavy Aircraft Carrying Cruiser". It had a small number of aircraft, not intended to conduct actual attack or strike missions, but to defend the ship and it's fleet from attacks from the aircraft of other nations. So is it really an "aircraft carrier"?

Or the USS Makin Island, LHD-8. This is part of a class of amphibious warfare ships, primarily designed to take Marines to the shore in either helicopters or on LCAC hovercraft, LAVs, or other amphibious vehicles. But they can also carry 6-8 Harrier or the future F-35B fighters. Are these "Aircraft carriers"?

Well, the argument can be mode both ways. Technically any ship that can launch and recover aircraft is an "aircraft carrier", but a true aircraft carrier has that as her primary role and mission.

So it is not the ship itself that determines it's name and nomenclature, but the mission to which it is assigned.

Now in covering roughly 200 years of modern Naval Warfare, the "battle ship", no matter what it was called, had one primary and one secondary mission. First off it was attacking other "ships of the line". Broadsides and boarding parties, cross the "T", sink the other before they sink you. But at least as far back as the North American War of 1812 we saw a secondary mission start. And that was providing direct assault capabilities upon shore installations. And as the decades progressed, that became a greater and greater mission for the main ships.

Ironically, this reached it's peak in WWII. With the advancement of aircraft, the role of surface ships in attacking other surface ships quickly vanished, and they then took up their previous secondary role as their primary role. Now instead of attacking other Battleships (like in the Battle of Savo Island), they now became primarily used in providing off-shore bombardments. In short, huge mobile artillery positions.

None of the island hopping campaigns in the Pacific during WWII could have been done without battleships. Nor the invasions of Italy or France. And this did not stop there, in battles from Korea and Vietnam to Lebanon and Iraq battleships did excellent service destroying shore positions and supporting the troops on the ground. It was so effective that even the roar of the USS New Jersey would send attackers fleeing even if they were not the actual target of the rounds. They knew that a single shell could lay waste to over 1,000 square meters of land and wanted to be nowhere near one when it landed.

So what is my primary definition of a "Battleship"? Well, it is not necessarily a BB USS Iowa class ship. However, it is a ship with many of those same capabilities. Primarily, the ability to send large amounts of firepower downrange in direct support to either troops on the ground, or removing any weapons or concentrations of personnel within range of their guns.

So right here it has to be recognized that when I talk about the "need for battleships", I am not talking about bringing back the Iowa class ships, no matter how good they were during their time. But the mission that they fulfilled has not gone away. Cruise missiles may be great, but if you have to land a bunch of people either on a hostile shore or to take a location within 15 miles of the shore are they really a good use of assets to support the people on the ground?

Not really. They have to be programmed in advance, they are expensive, they have limited capability to damage the enemy, and they are limited to things like weather and attack from defensive systems. Even a grunt with a MANPAD can shoot down a cruise missile. But I wish them a lot of luck trying to shoot down a 1 ton shell screaming in at MACH 6.

 

[Oozlefinch]

SO just to be clear once again, I am talking about a combat ship with the capabilities of a battleship, not an actual rebirth of the USS Iowa class ship.

ANd in reality, the actual needs can be met with a ship that has largely been considered obsolete, the Battlecruiser.

In the interwar years between WWI and WWII, the Washington Naval Treaty limited the number and sizes of battleships. And this was to be known as either the "Battlecruiser" to the English, or "Pocket Battleships" to the Germans.

In short, you place a smaller number of battleship guns (or near battleship guns) onto a cruiser that has the same armor as a battleship. This is kind of a hybrid, not as big and expensive as a battleship, but with many of the same capabilities. Thick heavy armor, and some large caliber guns.

So for a "modern Battleship", what is really needed is simply a new class of Battlecruiser. And the US actually made a fine one in the Alaska class of WWII.

808 feet long, she was 80 feet shorter then the Iowa class. And with a displacement of only 30,000 tons instead of the 45,000 tons of the Iowa, she was also much lighter. With 9 12" guns as main armament instead of the 9 16" guns of the Iowa.

Now when the BB class was brought back into service in the 1980's, one of the primary reasons was that they were to modern threats unsinkable. This is due to the thickness of armor since WWII.

Ships sinking ships died in WWII, and so did the threat of hits from large caliber shells. Now the threats were aircraft with bombs and torpedoes and later missiles. So ships got lighter and faster.

The Alaska class had from 9-11 inches of armor in her hull. The Iowa class has 11-19 inches of armor on her hull. A more modern ship like the Arleigh Burke class destroyer only has from 1-5 inches of armor. This is why a rubber raft with 400 pounds of explosives or an inexpensive missile like the Exocet with 350 pounds of explosives can cripple or sink our most advanced ships.

And that is the hull that modern anti-ship missiles are designed to penetrate. Rather thin armor, the ship relies upon the defensive systems to destroy the threat, so there is little put into actually making the hull able to withstand such damage in the first place.

The USS Stark was almost lost because of an Exocet missile, and spent almost 3 years undergoing repairs. If this missile had hit a ship like the USS Iowa or even USS Alaska, it would have done little to no damage because it could not have penetrated the hull.

So in addition to providing shore bombardment capabilities, it is also useful to have in our fleet at least some ships that are impervious to missile attacks simply because missiles are not designed to penetrate that thickness of hull.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The 21st Century Battleship:

Now what it is called I largely could not care. Battleship, Battlescruiser, Heavy Cruiser, it is the ship mission that needs filling. A heavy ship capable of providing direct fire onto shore installations.

My idea had long been a modern melding of the Alaska Class ships, with the refit that almost happened to the USS New Jersey when she was brought back into service in 1981.

Many do not know that the BB-62 almost lost her rear turret. The Navy almost replaced the turret with a VLS system with 48 Harpoon or Tomahawk missiles. If a new ship is to be built, that would be the best way to do it. 2 triple turrets with 12" guns, and in the rear a modern VLS missile system.

And yes, for most missions the 12" is more then suficient, along with some secondary 5" guns. The Arleigh Burke class only has a single 5" gun, the Ticonderogas have 2 5" or 25mm guns, ranges are in the neighborhood of 10-13 miles. Not much help if you have people on shore screaming for fire support and they are 15 miles away.

And with the advent of the Advanced Gun System, this can be "super sized" and put some real teeth into a modern ship.

The AGS is an amazing concept, and the USS Zumwalt already has it. A 6" gun that can fire either a conventional shell (range 15 miles), or a rocket assisted shell with a range of 83 miles. Now double the size of the caliber and multiple by 6 and you can put a huge amount of hurt onto a target at least 80 miles inland.
ANd with much less cost then doing the same amount of damage with conventional missiles, with a much shorter rounds on target time. Add to it a laser tracking system and you can have either troops on the ground or in an observation aircraft or drone actually walk this round onto the target like a PGM.

In all weather, day or night. That is a devastating capability. And for deployment, simply build one ship to operate with each of our Amphibious Assault forces. This has a second benefit by giving more defensive capabilities to our amphibious transports.

 

[Declan]

If any ship that carries an aviation asset is technically an aircraft carrier, then isn't any ship that fires a weapon technically a battleship in your analysis, including our CVN's?

Anyways, no we should not bring back battleships. With missile technology being what it is, and the number of platforms capable of firing them, the big gun concept is obsolete. If you want to call subs battleships just for nostalgia for the term, then feel free, but nomenclature is largely irrelevant.

 

[Oozlefinch]

If any ship that carries an aviation asset is technically an aircraft carrier, then isn't any ship that fires a weapon technically a battleship in your analysis, including our CVN's?

Anyways, no we should not bring back battleships. With missile technology being what it is, and the number of platforms capable of firing them, the big gun concept is obsolete. If you want to call subs battleships just for nostalgia for the term, then feel free, but nomenclature is largely irrelevant.

No, because with the exception of the 5" guns none of our ships have the ability to put any kind of ordinance on target. CVNs only have defensive weapon systems (anti-air missiles and PHALANX), or their primary offensive weapons are missiles. And missiles are expensive, long launch times, limited number on board, and can only be launched a few at a time.

And if the "big gun concept" is obsolete, why were the returned BBs so effective during the 1980's and early 1990's? Specifically in Lebanon and Iraq.

In fact, the imminent arrival of the USS New Jersey off the coast of Lebanon was enough to cause militia forces attacking Marines and Lebanese forces to greatly reduce their attacks and call for a cease fire.

I would call that pretty important, and something the presence of US ships in the same location for almost a year had been unable to do (as well as a multinational force of both US and French personnel).

 

[Gaius46]

If any ship that carries an aviation asset is technically an aircraft carrier, then isn't any ship that fires a weapon technically a battleship in your analysis, including our CVN's?

Anyways, no we should not bring back battleships. With missile technology being what it is, and the number of platforms capable of firing them, the big gun concept is obsolete. If you want to call subs battleships just for nostalgia for the term, then feel free, but nomenclature is largely irrelevant.

Missiles cost way to much money to be used in the manner Oozlefinch is suggesting. Cruise missiles are in the ballpark of a million or a million and half dollars a pop. I don't know what the typical shell fired from big gun costs but it's a fraction of that.

Save the missiles for targets that out of reach of guns.

 

[Declan]

No, because with the exception of the 5" guns none of our ships have the ability to put any kind of ordinance on target. CVNs only have defensive weapon systems (anti-air missiles and PHALANX), or their primary offensive weapons are missiles. And missiles are expensive, long launch times, limited number on board, and can only be launched a few at a time.

And if the "big gun concept" is obsolete, why were the returned BBs so effective during the 1980's and early 1990's? Specifically in Lebanon and Iraq.

In fact, the imminent arrival of the USS New Jersey off the coast of Lebanon was enough to cause militia forces attacking Marines and Lebanese forces to greatly reduce their attacks and call for a cease fire.

I would call that pretty important, and something the presence of US ships in the same location for almost a year had been unable to do (as well as a multinational force of both US and French personnel).

The big guns are obsolete because they can only fire so far. Planes and missiles can reach anything a big gun can and big guns cannot reach everything a plane or missile can. There isn't a square inch of ground we can't hit with a plane or a missile and there are lots of square inches the battleships cannot reach. I think battleships were very cool, but the money is better spent elsewhere.

 

[Declan]

Missiles cost way to much money to be used in the manner Oozlefinch is suggesting. Cruise missiles are in the ballpark of a million or a million and half dollars a pop. I don't know what the typical shell fired from big gun costs but it's a fraction of that.

Save the missiles for targets that out of reach of guns.

pretty sure the ships and crews themselves cost a dollar or two beyond the cost of the shells.

 

[American]

The big guns are obsolete because they can only fire so far. Planes and missiles can reach anything a big gun can and big guns cannot reach everything a plane or missile can. There isn't a square inch of ground we can't hit with a plane or a missile and there are lots of square inches the battleships cannot reach. I think battleships were very cool, but the money is better spent elsewhere.

You just here to listen to yourself or what? Did you even read Gaius46's post? Cost is the problem with missiles.

 

[Declan]

You just here to listen to yourself or what? Did you even read Gaius46's post? Cost is the problem with missiles.

Apparently you are here to troll. It doesn't matter what the cost of the shell is. Battleships need to be built and maintained and crewed and fed and do you even know what we pay Egypt to send 1 aircraft carrier through the Suez canal? A million dollars EACH way. More boats=more tolls, and even if all that were not the case, battleships had serious safety issues as was evidenced by one just about blowing itself apart because of of a probable static discharge.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The big guns are obsolete because they can only fire so far. Planes and missiles can reach anything a big gun can and big guns cannot reach everything a plane or missile can. There isn't a square inch of ground we can't hit with a plane or a missile and there are lots of square inches the battleships cannot reach. I think battleships were very cool, but the money is better spent elsewhere.

Current guns can now fire over 80 miles, that is a pretty good range.

And planes and missiles can not operate in times of bad weather, and are greatly degraded at night. Not to mention that missiles are pretty much useless in a supporting role for troops on the ground. Missiles are great for striking a set target, useless against a moving target, and also useless when being fired against forces in the open. That is the role of artillery.

Tomahawks are not used if a base is being attacked by a hostile force, or if a patrol is cut off. Artillery on the other hand (and such ships are basically large artillery) work perfectly in that role. Also remember that I said the best place to put these ships is with Amphibious groups. We do not have carriers with such groups, they only have a few Harriers primarily for giving limited air defense to the group. The only "air support" they really have are not airplanes at all, but old AH-1 Cobra gunships.

To give a better idea, this is the current layout of an amphibious force, known as the "Expeditionary Strike Group":

3-5 Amphibious ships (primarily loaded with Marines and their equipment), a single attack submarine, 2 Arleigh Burke class destroyers, and a Ticonderoga class cruiser. And remember, the TICOs are on their way out the door as we speak, 5 are already gone and the entire fleet is expected to be retired in the next 10 years. But with this ship with the AEGIS system it can replace the TICOs, giving it a more potent anti-shore weapon, but still retaining missiles as a part of the fleet's defensive systems.

 

[joko104]

You just here to listen to yourself or what? Did you even read Gaius46's post? Cost is the problem with missiles.

So what? Deck guns can be mounted on lesser ships if the goal is deck guns.

Battleships are astronomically expensive to build, maintain and operate. Gun ships have to come so close to shore they are VERY vulnerable. For the cost of building and maintaining one battleship MANY other weapons platforms can be built and maintained.

In your analysis of battleships, you leave out that before they could really be used the air had to be dominated and large shore guns eliminated. It no longer takes a shore gun to attack a battleship. Missile technology did not exist in WWII. It does now.

The US battleships only became highly usable when the USA already essentially controlled the air and the sky. One aircraft, one torpedo or one missile has the potential to take out a battleship.

Since you used WWII as example, until the air could be dominated, battleships were slaughtered and for the most part had to be hidden, rather than used. Because of missile technology, it is no longer possible to completely dominate the sky in a major military conflict. The only thing that could be done with a battleship in a major military conflict is hide and protect the battleship from attack. Any foreign adversary lacking any attack aircraft and missile attack capacity doesn't required such as a battleship response anyway.

Cost of missiles? Do you REALLY think that cost more than the cost of building, operating and maintaining ONE battleship - which can only be one place at one time and takes a long time to relocate elsewhere in the world. Missiles can be moved to anywhere and used anywhere in the world before the same time the next day - and generally within hours. Nor is possible to do a fast sneak attack with a battleship.

 

[Declan]

Current guns can now fire over 80 miles, that is a pretty good range.

And planes and missiles can not operate in times of bad weather, and are greatly degraded at night. Not to mention that missiles are pretty much useless in a supporting role for troops on the ground. Missiles are great for striking a set target, useless against a moving target, and also useless when being fired against forces in the open. That is the role of artillery.

Tomahawks are not used if a base is being attacked by a hostile force, or if a patrol is cut off. Artillery on the other hand (and such ships are basically large artillery) work perfectly in that role. Also remember that I said the best place to put these ships is with Amphibious groups. We do not have carriers with such groups, they only have a few Harriers primarily for giving limited air defense to the group. The only "air support" they really have are not airplanes at all, but old AH-1 Cobra gunships.

To give a better idea, this is the current layout of an amphibious force, known as the "Expeditionary Strike Group":

3-5 Amphibious ships (primarily loaded with Marines and their equipment), a single attack submarine, 2 Arleigh Burke class destroyers, and a Ticonderoga class cruiser. And remember, the TICOs are on their way out the door as we speak, 5 are already gone and the entire fleet is expected to be retired in the next 10 years. But with this ship with the AEGIS system it can replace the TICOs, giving it a more potent anti-shore weapon, but still retaining missiles as a part of the fleet's defensive systems.

Strange that most of US surprise attacks occur at night then.

The whole argument would be comparable to saying we should equip troops with muzzle loaders and only allow them to use M-16's some of the time because black powder rifles are cheaper.

 

[Oozlefinch]

You just here to listen to yourself or what? Did you even read Gaius46's post? Cost is the problem with missiles.

Cost, and what they can be used against, and how long it takes to launch.

And let me say this one more time, the place for this ship is with Amphibious warfare groups. Not Carrier groups, they have absolutely no need for any kind of guns other then the 5" for close surface protection. It is the Amphibious ships with their Marines that would be the users for these.

Your typical Marine Amphibious force typically does not go ashore with artillery, just their 60mm and 81mm mortars. If they need anything more then that they need to scream for help, today in the form of Vietnam era AH-1 helicopters. Time on station is generally 5-15 minutes, and they can not operate in bad weather.

So if you have 35mph winds, the choppers stay on the flight deck and it is just SOL for the Marines. Sorry Charlie, no gunships coming, how about a couple of 5" rounds? Your Battalion is being engaged by a Division sized force? Gee, that sucks to be you!

And missiles can not provide any kind of assistance to troops on the ground. Period. If you have a unit under fire there are no missiles that can be launched from ships to help them. Period. The only help they can get once again are those 5" guns, a grand total of 2 (one on each Burke class destroyer). Hell, a single Battery of artillery can lay out more firepower then that. And odds are the enemy artillery can do a hell of a lot more damage to the Marines then our ships can do to their artillery.

Which brings us back to another crucial mission of artillery, be it ship or ground based. And that is providing counter-battery fire. With a single gun, you have to take each gun out one at a time. With a 6 guns of 12" shells, 2 salvos would probably take out an entire Battery (if not Battalion) of enemy artillery.

 

[Oozlefinch]

pretty sure the ships and crews themselves cost a dollar or two beyond the cost of the shells.

Yea, they do.

And the SGLI for every Marine killed is $500,000.

 

[Mark F]

1. In both form and function the "battleship" is pretty well defined with little ambiguity.

2. Yes the "battleship" is obsolete, hence why no one has built one in 70 years or has any intention of building one and why no one has operated one for nearly a quarter-century

3. If someone really wanted to design and build a new ship with the ability to send large amounts of firepower downrange in direct support to either troops on the ground, or removing any weapons or concentrations of personnel within range of their guns it would bear little, if any resemblance to the classical battleship as we know it.

Why?

Because the battleship is obsolete.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Strange that most of US surprise attacks occur at night then.

The whole argument would be comparable to saying we should equip troops with muzzle loaders and only allow them to use M-16's some of the time because black powder rifles are cheaper.

When we are on the offensive, and things are in our favor and we call the time and place.

Enemy counterattacks typically happen at times of bad weather, rain, snow, strong winds, and the like. Because they know it greatly reduces our technology advantages because out aircraft are grounded.

 

[Oozlefinch]

1. In both form and function the "battleship" is pretty well defined with little ambiguity.

2. Yes the "battleship" is obsolete, hence why no one has built one in 70 years or has any intention of building one and why no one has operated one for nearly a quarter-century

3. If someone really wanted to design and build a new ship with the ability to send large amounts of firepower downrange in direct support to either troops on the ground, or removing any weapons or concentrations of personnel within range of their guns it would bear little, if any resemblance to the classical battleship as we know it.

Why?

Because the battleship is obsolete.

Notice I said battleship as mission, not as a specific class of ship.

Was the Bismarck a "Battleship"? Well, most people would say "hell yes"! But no, it was a heavy armored cruiser. Was the HMS Hood a "Battleship"? No, it was a Battlecruiser. My base for the class, the USS Alaska sure looked like a Battleship. 3 turrets, each with 3 guns of 12" caliber. I bet 90% of the people who looked at it would call it a "Battleship". But it was not, it was a cruiser.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

I think the battleship is a good asset.

5-10 inches of armor should be fine for any missile threats.

I think 6 guns that are at least 12 inches to 15 inches should be enough firepower.

If there is space there should be some active defense systems because even though the hulls have much more durability I'd still, if possible, rather not take the chance.

I would really like the idea of battlecruiser/support ship hit squads in which the BATTLECRUISER has a small squad of some sort of support ship near it complete with almost nothing but active defense systems and small arms in case small enemy ships try to get near.

Support ships secure battleships for as long as possible (again, I understand the hull is survivable, but chances shouldn't be taken if possible) while battleships rain hell.

And with how incredible automation is, the battleship's Fire rate per gun would be unparalleled and we would be able to deliver tons of firepower down range. The massive bombardments would hardly cost anything compared to TOMOHAWKS and if you need to be smart we can always make a bigger EXCALIBUR smart shell which I still believe is cheaper than a TOMOHAWKS while also having incredible accuracy as well as the ability to correct itself mid flight if fired off target.

Our new technology today will undoubtedly be able to create one hell of a battleship, I'm with oozlefinch, there is a lot of potential. We don't even need to make that many battleships either and even if we did the costs of maintains and building battleships is a TON cheaper than carriers. Also, since battleships are very simplistic in terms of munitions small savings begin to grow exponentially over huge periods of time since we don't have to use TOMOHAWKS EVERY SINGLE TIME we need something close to the shore wiped out (which is inefficient and hilariously expensive).

Also, 6 guns firing 12+ inch shells deliver easily over 50 times more firepower over a period of 15 minutes than a whole bunch of TOMOHAWKS, TOMOHAWKS siply cannot compete when it comes to sheer firepower. Especially with, as noted before, the advancements made in automation and automated loading.

 

[Mark F]

Notice I said battleship as mission, not as a specific class of ship.

Was the Bismarck a "Battleship"? Well, most people would say "hell yes"! But no, it was a heavy armored cruiser. Was the HMS Hood a "Battleship"? No, it was a Battlecruiser. My base for the class, the USS Alaska sure looked like a Battleship. 3 turrets, each with 3 guns of 12" caliber. I bet 90% of the people who looked at it would call it a "Battleship". But it was not, it was a cruiser.

Nobody ever called the HMS Hood a battleship (well, not anyone with basic naval knowledge - upgrades which would have effectively converted her to a fast battleship having never been completed) nor did anyone ever call the Bismark a "heavy armored cruiser". None of which really addresses the main point: No one has built anything even resembling a classical "battleship" in 70 years and there is no prospect anyone will into the foreseable future because any ship meeting modern requirements would be fundamentally different. What isn't obsolete about that?

Now if someone wants to build a Minesweeper and call it a battleship then fine, more power to em'.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Notice I said battleship as mission, not as a specific class of ship.

Was the Bismarck a "Battleship"? Well, most people would say "hell yes"! But no, it was a heavy armored cruiser. Was the HMS Hood a "Battleship"? No, it was a Battlecruiser. My base for the class, the USS Alaska sure looked like a Battleship. 3 turrets, each with 3 guns of 12" caliber. I bet 90% of the people who looked at it would call it a "Battleship". But it was not, it was a cruiser.

Who do you know who says the Bismark was a heavy armored cruiser? That really defies reason.

8 x 15" guns?
Its armor was equivalent to other nations battleships!
41000 tons
Heavy cruiser? pshaw.

In my opinion, the Alaska was more of a 'pocket battleship' than a heavy cruiser but I guess you could make the argument for a heavy cruiser.
With 9 x 12" guns though...

As for your question, yes it is obsolete, as a ship to ship weapons platform. And the 16" shells are overkill for a fire support mission. Do you have a source for the range you gave for a battleship's guns?
For the price tag of operating one, you could field a huge number of other weapons systems.

 

[Killing Floor]

So what is my primary definition of a "Battleship"? Well, it is not necessarily a BB USS Iowa class ship. However, it is a ship with many of those same capabilities. Primarily, the ability to send large amounts of firepower downrange in direct support to either troops on the ground, or removing any weapons or concentrations of personnel within range of their guns.

So right here it has to be recognized that when I talk about the "need for battleships", I am not talking about bringing back the Iowa class ships, no matter how good they were during their time. But the mission that they fulfilled has not gone away. Cruise missiles may be great, but if you have to land a bunch of people either on a hostile shore or to take a location within 15 miles of the shore are they really a good use of assets to support the people on the ground?

Not really. They have to be programmed in advance, they are expensive, they have limited capability to damage the enemy, and they are limited to things like weather and attack from defensive systems. Even a grunt with a MANPAD can shoot down a cruise missile. But I wish them a lot of luck trying to shoot down a 1 ton shell screaming in at MACH 6.

Sounds like you want to build a ship with a singular purpose for a mission which honestly we haven't done since the Korean War when we landed at Incheon. That's 50+ years of never needing to force open a beachhead. I think if the day ever came when we had to do that again it would be smarter and more cost effective to rely on rotary-wing aircraft to provide for heavy firepower which could be launched from ships already in the amphibious assault force. And if there truly is just so much enemy on the beach that big naval artillery could be useful I think traditional naval airpower would fill that need just as well.

It may be something "nice to have" but I could think of other things that would be more useful to spend the money on.

 

[Oozlefinch]

None has built anything even resembling a classical "battleship" in 70 years and there is no prospect anyone will into the foreseable future because any ship meeting modern requirements would be fundamentally different.

Actually, even the US has built them much more recently.

The last "Gun Cruiser" the US built was the USS Salem CA-139, a Des Moines class Heavy Cruiser, in service from 1949-1959. She is now a museum chip in Maine. Other ships of this class was the USS Des Moines CA-134, 1948-1961 and the USS Newport News CA-148, 1949-1975.

And you also have the first generation of Guided Missile Cruisers also being gun cruisers.

The Boston Class (2 built, 1955-1970) featured 9-11" armor on the hull, and in addition to the missile launchers also had 3 triple 8" turrets (the design was modified from that of the Baltimore class Heavy Cruiser).

The last that would probably be considered would be the Galveston class of light guided missile cruisers (CLG), a class of 3 ships in service from 1958-1979 (the USS Oklahoma City was commissioned in 1960). Today these would be classified as frigates, they still had a single triple turret with 3 6" guns.

So yea, they built similar ships for over a decade after WWII ended, and served well into the 1970's.

Heck, the Brooklyn class light cruiser USS O'Higgins (with an impressive 15 6" guns in 5 triple turrets) was still in service in Chile until 1992! In most of the "Third World" gun ships are still very common.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Who do you know who says the Bismark was a heavy armored cruiser? That really defies reason.

That is my bad, was thinking of one ship and typed in the name of another.

I meant to say the Deutschland and the other 2 ships of her class. Officially known as "Heavy Armored Cruisers", but more popularly known as "Pocket Battleships".

 

[Oozlefinch]

Sounds like you want to build a ship with a singular purpose for a mission which honestly we haven't done since the Korean War when we landed at Incheon. That's 50+ years of never needing to force open a beachhead. I think if the day ever came when we had to do that again it would be smarter and more cost effective to rely on rotary-wing aircraft to provide for heavy firepower which could be launched from ships already in the amphibious assault force. And if there truly is just so much enemy on the beach that big naval artillery could be useful I think traditional naval airpower would fill that need just as well.

It may be something "nice to have" but I could think of other things that would be more useful to spend the money on.

Look into the Gulf War, and the amount of time wasted because Saddam was positive that the "Marines were going to come ashore". And having Battleships pound the shore positions and the amphibs doing practice drills to prepare for such an assault only made him pour more of his resources into defending the beaches.

Which was awesome when the force actually caught him in the butt with most of his forces aimed the wrong way. In war, a convincing distraction and ruse can be more devastation then an actual attack.

And while not having to "force a beachhead", there have been a great many amphibious assaults since the Korean War. From Vietnam and Grenada, to Lebanon and the SS Mayaguez, we have done amphibious landings many times since Korea. The assault on Koh Tang in particular is one that almost nobody seems to know about, but is legend in the Corps. A bloody battle against Khmer Rouge forces in 1975 where aircraft were shot down or unable to provide air support, and even the President ordered air strikes stopped for political reasons. The only things the Marines had for fire support were their 60mm and 81mm mortars, until they ran out of ammo. In all, 15 Marines were killed, 3 MIA.

Just because you have not heard of something, does not mean it has not happened. And trust me, as a graduate of the US Navy Amphibious Warfare School, I know at least a little bit about this subject.

And remember, ultimately this should be a replacement for the TICOs that are leaving the fleet anyways in the next decade.

"Traditional Naval Airpower" is all well and good. But remember, that travels with a Carrier Strike Group, not with an amphibious force.