It's about damned time

[41magsnub]

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/2015/09/02/navy-attack-submarine-named-uss-montana/71600572/

There will again be a USS Montana.  

Been waiting for 95 years (couple of false starts in there)

[RoadKingLarry]

As a qualified submariner, I approve.

[Hutch]

<whiney-voice> I sure wish they'd have stuck with the ooouuld naming scheme for warships.  BB's, later SSBN's named after States, cruisers and SSN's named after cities, DD's and FF's named after famous warriors, SS's named after fishies,  CV's named after battles.  But noooooooooo, we gotta go fix what ain't broke.  Naming cruisers after battles, carriers after dead white guys, and the wrong sorts of submarines after States.

Sigh.

[BobR]

Naming cruisers after battles, carriers after nearly dead white guys, and the wrong sorts of submarines after States.

FTFY


bob

[just Warren]

As a total civilian I say any Montana should be a battleship. Sorry Uboaters.

[41magsnub]

As a total civilian I say any Montana should be a battleship. Sorry Uboaters.

We don't seem to be building those anymore...

[RoadKingLarry]

 

<whiney-voice> I sure wish they'd have stuck with the ooouuld naming scheme for warships.  BB's, later SSBN's named after States, cruisers and SSN's named after cities, DD's and FF's named after famous warriors, SS's named after fishies,  CV's named after battles.  But noooooooooo, we gotta go fix what ain't broke.  Naming cruisers after battles, carriers after dead white guys, and the wrong sorts of submarines after States.

Sigh.

SSNs didn't start getting named for cities till the Los Angeles (SSN-688) class. The 9 classes of SSNs before that they were mostly named after fishies.
 http://navysite.de/submarine.htm

[just Warren]

We don't seem to be building those anymore...

And we should be. If you're going to have a navy at all you need battleships.

[vaskidmark]

And we should be. If you're going to have a navy at all you need battleships.

It's all well and good to stand off and fire rockets and missiles and drop bombs from a distance, but where are you going to have surrender ceremonies after you have flattened the enemy's cities?

stay safe.

[Scout26]

And we should be. If you're going to have a navy at all you need battleships.

You sound just like my son.  He LOVES battleships.




(I gotta admit that looking at those 16" rifles does give one warm, gunfire-support, fuzzies,.,.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Now we just need a USS TEXAS, BB

[Hawkmoon]

We don't seem to be building those anymore...

True.

I'm of mixed sentiment as to whether or not that's a good thing. Battlewagons make big targets, to be sure -- and they don't do well in places like Afghanistan. But a battleship task force (or a carrier task force reinforced with a battleship) might make Chine a bit more reticent about touring our Alaskan scenery.

Fortunately, such decisions are not mine to make.

[Tallpine]

SSNs didn't start getting named for cities till the Los Angeles (SSN-688) class. The 9 classes of SSNs before that they were mostly named after fishies.
 http://navysite.de/submarine.htm

How about the USS Paddlefish then for Montana ?   


Wasn't there a cruiser name USS Helena     Or did I hallucinate that ...? 

[just Warren]

They are hard to kill and have an envelope of destruction that is unmatched by any other vehicle. The only thing more murdery is an atomic bomb or perhaps massed (like Soviet level) artillery or heavy bomber formations. All of which have certain downsides.

The only problem is the 25 mile range of the guns. I've heard a bit about rocket-assisted artillery shells, don't know if that can be applied to 16 inchers but lets find out. Can the range be doubled?

The farther you can throw shells the less you need to rely on planes or missiles. And shells are a lot cheaper than either of those things so less direct cost and less risk as you don't need to throw officers at as many targets. And when you have ground troops moving farther incountry they can be covered longer by the big guns. Sure it's nice to have regular artillery at your disposal but I've got to imagine that it's totally awesome to call in 16 inch shells.

Finally if given the choice would you rather have a bunch of Zumwalts or a bunch of Iowas and/or Montanas? That's like asking if you would like a bowl of kale chips or a double cheeseburger.  

[BobR]

Wasn't there a cruiser name USS Helena  Huh?   Or did I hallucinate that ...?

There have been five ships with the USS Helena name. Who knew? I also read that Montana was the only state not to have a battleship named after it, but I can't find the link now. :(

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Navy_Montana-related_ships

bob

[Jamisjockey]

They are hard to kill and have an envelope of destruction that is unmatched by any other vehicle. The only thing more murdery is an atomic bomb or perhaps massed (like Soviet level) artillery or heavy bomber formations. All of which have certain downsides.

The only problem is the 25 mile range of the guns. I've heard a bit about rocket-assisted artillery shells, don't know if that can be applied to 16 inchers but lets find out. Can the range be doubled?

The farther you can throw shells the less you need to rely on planes or missiles. And shells are a lot cheaper than either of those things so less direct cost and less risk as you don't need to throw officers at as many targets. And when you have ground troops moving farther incountry they can be covered longer by the big guns. Sure it's nice to have regular artillery at your disposal but I've got to imagine that it's totally awesome to call in 16 inch shells.

Finally if given the choice would you rather have a bunch of Zumwalts or a bunch of Iowas and/or Montanas? That's like asking if you would like a bowl of kale chips or a double cheeseburger.  

With modern technology the guns would certainly have more range.  But a true blue battleship doesn't really work with modern warfare. 

[dogmush]

With modern technology the guns would certainly have more range.  But a true blue battleship doesn't really work with modern warfare. 

Once we get that rail gun worked out, and scaled up though.........


Nah, I'm kidding. Modern naval warfare has moved pretty far past guns. At best a modern battleship would be good bait to suckered the enemy into our fast attack boats.


 But I'd love to see a full broadside of like 1 meter rail guns.

[just Warren]

I think you guys may be underestimating the value of having a massive club available. They can do a lot of damage really cheaply.

Within it's envelope you can destroy any target you want for a few grand worth of shells. Compare that to the cost of a missile or the risk of using a plane with crew.

Or perhaps think of them as ocean going tanks. Massive Sea Panzers. That throw giant hammers.

To say they don't fit in modern warfare is like saying ground artillery doesn't fit anymore. C'mon guys these are guns, massive guns, we are talking about. I would expect more love for them from the folks here.

Are we not members of the Cult of Kaboom?

[RoadKingLarry]

[dogmush]

Dude I lurvs me some guns. but...

I think you guys may be underestimating the value of having a massive club available. They can do a lot of damage really cheaply.

AHHHH HAAAA HAAAAA.  Nothing about a battleship is cheap.  trhe shell itself may be cheaper then a Mk 48 ADCAP (may not) but getting the gun and shell to where it's needed is best described as "crushingly expensive"

Within it's envelope you can destroy any target you want for a few grand worth of shells. Compare that to the cost of a missile or the risk of using a plane with crew.

But nothing will get in it's envelope.  That's why they were mothballed.  Badguys will sit back and throw harpoons or SS-N-19's at it until it's out of SM-2s or they get lucky.

Or perhaps think of them as ocean going tanks. Massive Sea Panzers. That throw giant hammers.

To say they don't fit in modern warfare is like saying ground artillery doesn't fit anymore. C'mon guys these are guns, massive guns, we are talking about. I would expect more love for them from the folks here.

Completely different tactics involved there.  not the same thing at all.

Are we not members of the Cult of Kaboom?

Battleships were awesome pieces of engineering, and were the pinnacle of sea warfare for a time, but really that time is past.  There's a reason we use carrier task forces now.  Because that's the naval version of "combined arms assault" and it works really well.

Maybe as gun tech improves (see rail gun mentioned above) there will again be a role for a mobile large gun platform.  If so I hope I get to see it, a huge ship firing surface to orbit strikes would be awesome.  But currently, they'd be eaten alive.

[just Warren]

What would a new Iowa class cost 2-3 B? Compared to the rest of the defense budget that's nothing. A Montana class would be more but then it could do more.

Yes, you can keep throwing missiles at it but a BB is not helpless. Can the missiles get through the hull armor? Can enough get through it's inherent defense to stop it's progress?

And it is possible to design a ship based on a BB hull that is optimized for air defense  (guns, missiles and Phalanx + whatever else is available) so you could run these in pairs. One to provide an additional steel umbrella of protection and one that hits people with hammers.

Of course if it was me spending the money I'd not build just one or two I'd build 20+ (plus AD ships) and assign at least two to each fleet. If I could get more money then more would be built. Now that is showing the flag!

Remember a BB can use missiles as well as huge guns but these tiny ships we're building now only have missiles and one or two little guns and they are even more vulnerable to missile fire than a BB.

They can do most everything these little ships can do and more. Of course you will still have some smaller ships for various specialized tasks. But for sheer firepower of both sorts you'll have BBs.

I've not been thinking of sea battles as the main need for battleships. It's their ability to control large parts of whatever land area you need put troops into or stop movement through or attacks from. Is there anything that's ever been built that can dole out the type of damage a battleship can?

I'm not opposed to carriers, I think of them as the mob boss. Smart, capable and deadly in himself with the battleships as his hulking, massive goons that carry huge guns and who you do not want to see outside your house some night.

Imagine a carrier flanked on each side by a BB plus its AD ship and a few smaller vessels. I can and it's awesome.

And if I was in charge and I announced that the Navy would be getting 20+ battleships would people really be upset? I don't think so. I think if you asked for volunteers from within the Navy to serve on them you would have more applicants than berths.

Of course, currently, there is nothing afloat that can cause the Navy an existential crisis. I get that. But that is no reason not to add capability, right? If I were to come up to and said you can have the Navy mostly as it is now only we're going to adding battleships would you turn it down?

[RoadKingLarry]

Biggest problem I would foresee with a modern battle ship is the enviro-dorks would probably find a way to require it to be "green". I can just see the federal requirement for the armor plate to be made of recycled pressed kale and soy products. And it would of course have to run on "renewable" energy, probably solar power for the primary electric plant.
 

[just Warren]

In the Warren Administration eco-dorks would have no sway.

The biggest problem is that there is no one that knows how to build the guns. No one has built a 16 in rifle since 194?.

Since they don't know that they probably don't know what improvements to make.

I would expect much testing of ideas before the first hull is laid down. Of course that would give President Me time to find the money.

[Scout26]

I don't think you need to up-armor them, so much as reactive and stand-off armor them (in addition to a metric buttload of ADA capability).

Lose the oil fired boilers and drop in a pair of nuke plants (one forward, one aft).  Put a bunch of those azipods on it to drive it.   Nothing like watching at BB do a pivot steer in the water.  

Four Turrets of triple 16" (or 18") guns (I bet you can find the plans and dust them off, still several steel mills in the US, if not, "Hello Krupp!!").  And use the 8 round per minute auto-loading system the Bundeswehr uses in t PZH 2000 (It fire a 5  round TOT barrage with one tube!!! )  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7XFwT4REHg

Throw in a Metric Revload of all kinds of "Fark you and everyone in the same grid as you" missiles,  a good ADA suite of missiles and CIWS, plus a super duper Aegis system to control it all.  A few drones just to round out the "F YOU!!!" suite of weapons and call it good.

You'd only need a crew of a few hundred, maybe a thousand, tops.  

Carriers still do the "Force Projection" mission, but Marines and (new) BB(G)'s do the "We own this here piece of ocean front real estate now" thing.

[Firethorn]

Eh, for the money you'd spend getting 16" guns going again, you could probably finalize the Navy's railgun program and put those on instead, to be powered by said nuclear plants.