Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

The article significantly overlooks the cost and associated costs of manning a big ship. The return to service of the four Iowa class BBs in the eighties is considered to be a prime example. The ships proved to be of only marginal value and financially a terrible misuse of funds. Due to their age they were expensive to maintain. More important they each required up to 3,000 crew members which in the modern era proved to be a massive waste of money. You have to consider that these days unlike days of old most enlisted personnel are either married or involved with dependents of some sort. This is a multiplier to the costs of manning a ship that was not the case 50 years ago. Admittedly a modern big ship would rely more on electronic systems and have a significantly smaller crew....

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

The article significantly overlooks the cost and associated costs of manning a big ship. The return to service of the four Iowa class BBs in the eighties is considered to be a prime example. The ships proved to be of only marginal value and financially a terrible misuse of funds. Due to their age they were expensive to maintain. More important they each required up to 3,000 crew members which in the modern era proved to be a massive waste of money. You have to consider that these days unlike days of old most enlisted personnel are either married or involved with dependents of some sort. This is a multiplier to the costs of manning a ship that was not the case 50 years ago. Admittedly a modern big ship would rely more on electronic systems and have a significantly smaller crew....

If fire control in the turrets were automated, would that make a significant difference in personnel numbers, or is a ship that size just too much to housekeep in a leaner, meaner navy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

We have two types of capital ships.  Carriers are one.  Submarines are the other.  Those are our battleships.

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

We have two types of capital ships.  Carriers are one.  Submarines are the other.  Those are our battleships.

Did you mean "... our battle ships"?

quote:

What can a 16 inch shell do that a missile can't do better? The only thing I can think of is that anti-missile systems might struggle to deal with a 16 inch shell, but that's a moot point considering the range limitations and the problem of accuracy.

The only way that the Iowa's would have been of any real use to the USN would have been if they'd ripped the guns and the superstructure out and replaced it with missile launching systems, turning it into a missile a la Kirov, except with armour. Even then it would have been of limited use. There's simply easier ways of doing things now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

There exists a realistic possibility that drones with missiles will replace even today's capital ships. Swams of drones launched from much smaller platforms with the capability to deliver devastating strikes.
The slim and only argument for old school less 'tech' war design resides in anecdotal suspicion that the enemy could 'hack your command control' - nowadays. Even then lower tech combat weapons would hav to be able to protect themselves form the same; swarms of drones.
The argument to depend on such ships is a best an argument that you can defend yourself with slings and arrows if all else fails. It is an unwise argument in an environment of scarcity of dollars.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Could a submarine hide directly under a battleship?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Could a submarine hide directly under a battleship?

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Could a submarine hide directly under a battleship?

There's an idea. Build some battleships (or recommission some) and mount submarines to the bottom in the opposite configuration of the Mistel. The sub crew could lollygag on the deck of the BB in deck chairs drinking piña coladas with little umbrellas in them when not deployed. I will immediately petition DARPA to begin work on the designs.

edit: Actually I've got that wrong. The pilot is in the top plane, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Could a submarine hide directly under a battleship?

One could hide under a container ship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Could a submarine hide directly under a battleship?

There's an idea. Build some battleships (or recommission some) and mount submarines to the bottom in the opposite configuration of the Mistel. The sub crew could lollygag on the deck of the BB in deck chairs drinking piña coladas with little umbrellas in them when not deployed. I will immediately petition DARPA to begin work on the designs.

edit: Actually I've got that wrong. The pilot is in the top plane, right?

I meant to ask if a enemy submarine could hide, for a extended period, just below a moving battleship. Or would it be likely that the sub was detected either by the BB or the escorts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Actually, there never really was a time to get rid of 'battleships' (and cruisers) per say.

If you will all remember, it was the idea in the 50's that the next war would be nuclear - that made the "one-hit" ship seem reasonable, because after all - "everyone is going to shoot nukes anyway..."
But 60 years on, we have clearly seen that all-out nuclear war is not really practical, and anything a lightweight ship can do - a heavier weight & much better protected and armed ship can do better, ...could always do better.

It's rather like sports - there is no penalty for being bigger-stronger-faster....there just isn't a time when that is a liability.

The only legitimate concern is cost.... but in war time there has never been a substitute for more capable & more survivable ships.... this is why aircraft carriers (in the US Navy, who could afford to build them) - NEVER got smaller and cheaper. Besides, cost is like the budget - a number never taken seriously.

That being said, bringing back the 4 (beautiful) Iowa's would have to be a step backward - though they could still be useful in wartime.
But building 21st Century major surface combatants, with all the latest advancements of every art, would be the correct way to proceed...and in the process begin a new arms race I suppose.

Since the end of WW2 the Aircraft Carrier School have claimed they were all powerful, while the Submarine Warfare School have claimed everything else is only a sub target...but the Surface Warfare School has never been shown to be out of date - they have only been out special-interest lobbied in the politics of the military.

EDIT: Doesn't anyone remember the folly of Jefferson's "gunboat navy"?, as well as the experts final judgement of the failed experiment of 44 gun frigates?...until the US Navy built them...and after 1812 - that was the only frigate anyone was building until steam.
It's a lesson worth remembering.