Nuclear powered Battleship?

marcelo_malara · Post by **marcelo_malara** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:30 am

Remember that there are cruise missiles with tactical nukes. You don´t have a defense against this.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:47 pm

A Battleship will be no more a sitting duck than an Aircraft Carrier. Both of them need escorts and air support in order to be protected against incoming airborne and seaborne attacks. The idea of a modern Battleship (more or less the same idea the Reagan Administration had) is to have a dependable cruise missile, shipwreck missile and gun plataform near the military operations zone.
I also believe that being built to withstand heavy punishment in close combat with similar vessels, then they can be relied to carry that mission even under heavy resistance or being damaged. I don´t believe that an actual "cruiser" or frigate can withstand a fraction of what a BB can endure... considering that all systems in the BB are upgraded.
The idea of having it nuclear powered is because they will have greater autonomy and giving them longer useful life.
There is also a psycological factor in all these. Military power and power projection are as important in Geostrategy as (or more) than actual combat. The fact that a country can deploy such a vessel (or two or three) sends a clear message to those attempting to wreck havoc: "be carefull because we carry a big stick".
Very best regards

miro777 · Post by **miro777** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:01 pm

hey
so if u got ur point, it is that a modern BB would be a great ship, whihc has mostly the same armament as modern naval units, BUT it can withstand much more damage?
(or take longer to sink)

1. Wouldn't this connect to a great loss of life as well. If a modern BB can take watever, 50 missles (have no clue how much really), wouldn't a lot of people die then? Is that the point of it.
2. Wouldn't a BB make a much better target for aircrafts than a small frigate?

well that are my thoughts
adios

miro

marcelo_malara · Post by **marcelo_malara** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:33 pm

In the case of the US Navy the dependable missile platform is provided by the Los Angeles class cruise missile nuclear subs.

Bgile · Post by **Bgile** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:48 pm

miro777 wrote:hey
so if u got ur point, it is that a modern BB would be a great ship, whihc has mostly the same armament as modern naval units, BUT it can withstand much more damage?
(or take longer to sink)

1. Wouldn't this connect to a great loss of life as well. If a modern BB can take watever, 50 missles (have no clue how much really), wouldn't a lot of people die then? Is that the point of it.
2. Wouldn't a BB make a much better target for aircrafts than a small frigate?

well that are my thoughts
adios

miro

OK so as I understand it, noone should ever build a large, powerful ship that is hard to sink because it is a large target and if it did sink it would involve more loss of life?

That is one design philosophy, but not subscribed to in general by navies that can affort large, powerful ships.

Bgile · Post by **Bgile** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:51 pm

marcelo_malara wrote:In the case of the US Navy the dependable missile platform is provided by the Los Angeles class cruise missile nuclear subs.

IIRC they only carry 12 Tomahawk missiles. Their main utility is that noone knows where they are, so a 3rd rate dictator is always faced with the possiblity that one might hit his palace at any time. They are worth having, but not a major force component.

Bgile · Post by **Bgile** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:52 pm

marcelo_malara wrote:Remember that there are cruise missiles with tactical nukes. You don´t have a defense against this.

People are very unlikely to use those, because you risk having your capital city destroyed the next day.

I'm pretty sure the US Navy doesn't even carry them on their ships anymore except for the ballistic missile submarines.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:23 pm

Miro said:

so if u got ur point, it is that a modern BB would be a great ship, whihc has mostly the same armament as modern naval units, BUT it can withstand much more damage?
(or take longer to sink)

1. Wouldn't this connect to a great loss of life as well. If a modern BB can take watever, 50 missles (have no clue how much really), wouldn't a lot of people die then? Is that the point of it.
2. Wouldn't a BB make a much better target for aircrafts than a small frigate?

I don´t want to sound too bad with this, but the idea is that the ship (not necesarilly the individuals in it) and it´s military capability endure the attack. And this is not me, read Von Clausewitz who stated clearly! The only favorable outcome in war is victory so the State and it´s Armed Forces must apply any available means to achieve it. Thru history kings or democracies had thrown into battle it´s citizens knowing beforehand that many will never get back. Not a very popular statement nowadays, but if a country´s goverment doesn´t have the will to do it then it´s enemies may see in that weakness the oportunity to strike. Hitler saw in Chamberlain´s England and in France the reluctance to act the oportunity to seize Europe. So... the ship must be strong enough to sail above the wreck that were her enemies.

I agree with Bgile who wrote:

IIRC they only carry 12 Tomahawk missiles. Their main utility is that noone knows where they are, so a 3rd rate dictator is always faced with the possiblity that one might hit his palace at any time. They are worth having, but not a major force component.

Still there is another reason: The dictator must feel intimidated by waking up one morning and finding the Mighty Mo floating in the bay with all her guns pointed at him. Then he will yield and no launching of missiles or violence is necessary. A position of strenght always made the "bad guys" think twice; one of weakness invites agression. Again, ask Neville Chamberlain.

marcelo_malara · Post by **marcelo_malara** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:04 pm

Wouldn't this connect to a great loss of life as well

Well, war was never thought in terms of lives but in term of objectives. There are endless examples of people sent to die without care for the number.

The demise of the battleship was not caused by the high cost of her maintenance but because of the supremacy of the carrier. So, I believe that just saving the oil cost wouldn´t change that, the carrier will still be around. Moreover one weapon has turned more dangerous than in WWII: a WWII sub with its limited underwater speed couldn´t outmanouver a battleship to reach a launching position; but now the underwater speed is the same than the battleship, so it she has better opportunities of launching from a better position. And the wire guided torpedoes are far more accurate than the old ones.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:41 pm

When the Iowa Class Battleships were recomissioned by the Reagan Administration in the mid 80ies the Aircraft Carrier was already been the King of the Seas for more than 40 years (since 1940 + - ). Anyhow they were recomissioned because the Navy had a plan for 15 Aircraft Carrier Battlegroups + 4 Battleship Task Forces.
The Navy decided they were worth a last fight against the Ruskies. It was after, at the Clinton Administration, that they were decomissioned for the last time. The argument was that they were very expensive. So, it all goes to money.

I wonder, if somewhere in the near future the Ruskies can redeploy again two or three of their Kirovs and the Chinese came with an awfull surprise in terms of some big, mean surface ships what will the US do?

In modern warfare there is no time to go to Congress, ask for money, plan a vessel, contract a bidder, laid it, launch it, commision, trial and, some four or five years later have the unit operational. The fight will be over in two or three weeks so, you have it or you don´t (so, you win it or not).
It´s like having a jack in your car: if you don´t so you can be sure that you´ll get a flat tire; but if you have it then, probably, you will not need it.

miro777 · Post by **miro777** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:15 pm

hey
wat i meant with my statement earlier was not that i don't understand the concept of war.
or that the objectives of a war ship is not to save life, but
what i meant was that
if u recomission a BB NOW, the argument which was mentioned was that she would be much tougher and therefore she (the BB) will sink much slower.
But it will sink anyways and therefore if it's just big then there will die much more people than if it's a small ship.

I'd love to have BB back.
the old fighting style with big guns.
lol i don't know bout how the otheres feel, but i was brought up with the feeling of a constant rivalty between air forces and navy.
and im a navy person, so i prefer the old way.
but if u think realistically, then a BB is no use anymore.
(in my opinion)

well
adios
miro

Bgile · Post by **Bgile** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:08 pm

The US Marine Corps is upset because the US Navy no longer has a credible fire support capability. Aircraft aren't always available and often can't be used due to weather and other factors. The main use for a battleship in today's world is fire support for troops ashore.

They are gone, though. They are all either memorials or permanently retired. I really don't think there is any chance they will ever be recommissioned again. The USS Missouri is sitting near the wreck of USS Arizona at Ford Island in Pearl Harbor as a tourist stop.

marcelo_malara · Post by **marcelo_malara** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:39 pm

Anyhow they were recomissioned because the Navy had a plan for 15 Aircraft Carrier Battlegroups + 4 Battleship Task Forces.

But Karl, what was the intended mission for the Battleship Task Force?

In the old days a battleship was escorted by destroyers, they protected each other. Destroyers took care of enemy destroyers and submarines, and battleships took care of enemy battleships and cruisers, so the destroyers didn´t have to fight them. In these days, if you send a battleship task force, just a battleship escorted by destroyers, and they are attacked by a hail of sea-skimmers, the battleship will resist as planed, but the destroyers will be doomed. So again the best defense is not allowing the enemy to launch an attack, and this capability can only be provided by a carrier.
Besides if you want an armoured missiles platform, surely there are other alternatives than an old battleship: may be a ship around 200 mts can be designed, with enough armour to defeat a sea-skimmer, nuclear powered and no guns.

Bgile · Post by **Bgile** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:54 pm

marcelo_malara wrote:
Anyhow they were recomissioned because the Navy had a plan for 15 Aircraft Carrier Battlegroups + 4 Battleship Task Forces.
In these days, if you send a battleship task force, just a battleship escorted by destroyers, and they are attacked by a hail of sea-skimmers, the battleship will resist as planed, but the destroyers will be doomed. So again the best defense is not allowing the enemy to launch an attack, and this capability can only be provided by a carrier.
Besides if you want an armoured missiles platform, surely there are other alternatives than an old battleship: may be a ship around 200 mts can be designed, with enough armour to defeat a sea-skimmer, nuclear powered and no guns.

A modern destroyer is quite capable of defending herself against missiles, with her own missiles, chaff, and ecm - as well as shooting back with her own missiles. Also, all modern warships have guns. Where guns can be used, they are far more cost effective than missiles, so they are still installed and improvements made to them continuously.

marcelo_malara · Post by **marcelo_malara** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:07 pm

A modern destroyer is quite capable of defending herself against missiles, with her own missiles, chaff, and ecm - as well as shooting back with her own missiles.

Agreed, but I a was thinking in a Midway type big scale air attack. Many destroyers would surely be damaged.