There’s speculation that the USN maybe rethinking tactics and perhaps seeing the wisdom of deploying a floating fortress that can take multiple hits while protecting more valuable and vulnerable naval assets. The re-imagined armored battleship is being considered as a response to China’s growing navy and assertive highs seas policy. Given their expected tactics of keeping us out of the Western Pacific, a vessel that can break their naval area denial strategy may be just the weapons system to give the Chinese pause before starting something. More
20 Comments on A Return of the Battleship?
Comments are closed.
Most other ships will steer clear of one with guns that launch shells the size of a Mercedes. One or two of those in the right spot will sink just about anything!
China has 1 Aircraft Carrier. And its a 1964 model purchased from the Ruskys and up graded. I think they have two under construction, they just haven’t been able to swipe anybody else’s plans yet. We own the sky. And who ever owns the sky wins.
Nothing will become of this.
Battleships in the 21st Century are just going to be another big target for the surface to surface missiles out there. We used to drill: “place your feet wide apart as a brace; lean forward and tuck your head between your legs; and kiss your a— goodbye.”
No anti-ship defense is 100% because a shore battery only needs to carry +1 more than the ship does!
Ol’ Hans spent some time in oilers, destroyers, and a gator freighter to know a target when he hears about one.
We should get ours back from north korea
Lots of armor just means more fallout when the nuke-armed anti-ship missile spoils everybody’s day.
We already have monsters of the deep. Our attack subs. Rumors of those being in an area has sufficed in the past to keep other warships tied up to the pier.
It is impossible to overstate the capability of these things.
my .02 ~ the US can use battleships, particularly vs. countries that have limited naval/missile capabilities (most everyone). use of battleships off-shore is a very valuable asset … militarily & propaganda-wise.
as B_Brad mentioned, we have 11 carriers in service w/ 2 under construction … the Chinese have one relic from Ukraine & 2 Ruskie relics being constructed. (according to some, that means we have 11 targets & they have 1; those oil-boats gotta serve someone!)
my biggest concern for our whole military, particularly the navy & air force is the vulnerability they have due to the vast amount of Chinese-manufactured chips the whole enterprise is reliant on …. & the massive hiring of Chinese nationals working in the US defense industry
Tony Zinni was/is a liberal exJarhead. Gen 15 years ago I disregarded his constant saying Bush lied about wanting win the war. (15 years later and we still are killing Jarheads “over there”) assuming it was pure politics.
When he collaborated with a conservative Bush critic on a book I said maybe there “is something there”. So I read the book he and Tom Clancy wrote.
Gen Zinni and I both killed Chm. Mao’s boys in Nam. He clearly learned the same thing I did.
Navy gunners are far better in support of “grunts” than the Air Force. For many reasons; but the 2 most important to me:
Navy gunners are “on target” in seconds. The Air Force may show up in 15 min; or show up in an hour. If a platoon of “T 34’s” is attacking you; you may have “met your Maker” in an hour.
Navy gunners are very accurate. If you read a map well their rounds are right where you asked. The Air Force – when they finally show up – frequently bombs indiscriminately. I lost men due to “Friendly Fire” of American bombs! 51 years later still have a h—- on!
Tony said (and my war experience said he was absolutely right! I BTW have always been a “Govt can never solve our problems…!” conservative.)if Bush really wanted to win the war he would demothballed 2 battleships to support American warriors!
Myth – battleships are vulnerable to air. At the Navy War College (where Tony was a teacher twice) they report the facts. NO AMERICAN BATTLESHIP WAS LOST TO AIR POWER ON THE OPEN SEAS! At Pearl Harbor they were all tied to a dock or at anchor! Stationary!
Battleships work to win wars!
See Yamato and Musashi for why this is not a good idea.
I love it! I remember seeing 16 inch rounds fly over us in Vietnam from the USS New Jersey fire mission. One round makes a crater big enough to hide your average 3 bedroom house in.
If the do bring back a battle wagon, convert it back to a COAL BURNER just to really piss off the enviro-weenies! 🙂
No boat afloat has more cool going for it than a battleship.
That being said, I just read about the fairy swordfish busting up the Bismark and how that happened.
@ Doc
“If the do bring back a battle wagon, convert it back to a COAL BURNER just to really piss off the enviro-weenies!”
Course Ground Tires as fuel would be a bigger disaster. LOL 🙂
Battleships? I’ve visited the Arizona at Pearl to pay respects. Air power rules, then and now.
And satellite power may well decide the next war, in the first few minutes.
One Exocet missile (old tech even in 1980) killed a carrier most unceremoniously. Naval types tell me the Bismarck or Missouri wouldn’t have fared any better.
PDT is currently showing the world how to win a war without firing a shot.
#ThatsOurPresident.
A large, 40+ knot, nuclear-powered, platform carrying rail guns, high-power anti-aircraft lasers, defensive and offensive missiles/torpedoes of all kinds? Sure! 16″ guns: No. It would redefine the definition of “battleship.”
Never underestimate the value of intimidation.
When a tin pot dictator sees a guided missile cruiser, he says what’s that. When he sees 16 inch gun tubes he knows what.
The navy has ships under development that will be electric powered and use an electric rail gun to fire shells up to 100 miles without using gunpowder.
We’ve all seen the 26-inch Japanese armor plate on display at the US Navy Academy. Here’s the report:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a955281.pdf
I have to wonder how a Chobham armored (M1 tank armor) battleship would fare. I wonder how it would even look… or stay afloat for that matter…
I heard the biggest reason to decommission the battleships was the huge size of the crew to operate them.
A handful of smaller vessels with rail guns and missiles could rain down the same firepower with reasonable survivability.
Still, parking a battleship off a coast in a show of gunboat diplomacy is cool. Maybe we need just one battleship to send over to deliver a message to dictators or for a place to formally sign their articles of surrender.
I understand the romance of the battleship, and maybe we ought to keep a couple in service for ceremony and psyop, but the future of naval combat is littoral.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-07/deadly-future-littoral-sea-control.