A flight of fancy perhaps . . .

[Pistolenschutze]

Should we bring back the battlewagon as a fleet element? Now, before y'all think I'm nuts and a total anachronism (especially you old navy files ), consider this . . .

The wars we fight today, and will likely fight in the foreseeable future, are limited conflicts. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a truly modern, purpose-built battleship, would be ideal, both for its psychological impact on potential third-world enemies, and as a highly effective weapons system against likely targets, given modern technological innovation. Envision a ship of about 100,000 tons (approximately the size of a modern super carrier), but armed not only with modern fire-control and heavy guns (perhaps in the 18-20 inch range), but also heavily equipped with harpoons, tomahawks, standards and any other missile system we desired to put on it, even verticle-launch tubes for strategic nuclear weapons of the type carried by missile subs. Couple that with modern armor protection, and, unlike a carrier, such a vessel would be impervious to anything an enemy could throw at it short of a nuclear-tipped missile. How would you like a ship of that power sitting off your coast while the diplomats "negotiate?"

OK, it's a wild idea and it won't ever be built, but it might be fun to toss it around. How would you arm a vessel such as that, and would it be worth its cost? Food for thought.

[JohnK3]

I like it!

They should be named after states. First up, USS Texas. [grin]

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by JohnK3

They should be named after states. First up, USS Texas. [grin]

Well, I was thinking the USS Colorado, but I could certainly live with the USS Texas. Indeed, she would be named after a ship with a proud history either way.

[Marlin]

I had in mind the USS Maine !!!!!!!!!

Wouldn't you agree, Racer ???

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Marlin

I had in mind the USS Maine !!!!!!!!!

Might be OK, Marlin . . . so long as we didn't have to send her on any missions to Havana.

[JohnK3]

The New UltraDreadnought Class:

USS Texas
USS Colorado
USS Maine

Debating with myself on whether to suggest the Arizona. Would it be considered sacrilege by many? Or a tribute to those that died on the original, much the same way the Maine would be a tribute to those who died on her.

We are, after all, building a fantasy fleet. What other new classes could we build for that fleet? New destroyers, maybe? Anything else?

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by JohnK3

The New UltraDreadnought Class:

USS Texas
USS Colorado
USS Maine

Debating with myself on whether to suggest the Arizona. Would it be considered sacrilege by many? Or a tribute to those that died on the original, much the same way the Maine would be a tribute to those who died on her.

We are, after all, building a fantasy fleet. What other new classes could we build for that fleet? New destroyers, maybe? Anything else?

Arizona is certainly an appropriate suggestion, John, but I think I think that name will be forever enshrined at Pearl Harbor and perhaps that is best. Besides, isn't the Arizona still officially carried as an active ship in the U.S. Navy in remembrance of her sacrifice? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

Hmmm, new ship classes . . . Didn't the naval designers consider building a carrier/battleship at one time? A ship with a carrirer deck but also with heavy guns and armored like a battlewagon? If we added missile armament she would be a powerful vessel indeed. She might be armed with the naval variation of that new Joint Strike Fighter. Perhaps we could name her USS Virginia, after the Confederate vessel of the same name.

[JohnK3]

So, Schtuzen, what would you put on a new class of destroyer? Stealth tech? Hydroplanes? Tomahawks or other cruise missiles? What about a cruiser class? What would a 21st century cruiser look like? Special role, if any?

I'm not sure I like the idea of the CarrierWagon. I have some concerns with the idea:

How would you coordinate heavy guns and aircraft takeoff/landing simultaneously? I'd be concerned about hitting aircraft or other problems with the big guns. Missiles, however, sounds very feasible.

[Nighthawk]

how easy would it be to find and take out that large a target. it would have a lot of protective devices but seems it would be a very desirable target for enemy.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Nighthawk

how easy would it be to find and take out that large a target. it would have a lot of protective devices but seems it would be a very desirable target for enemy.

It would be a big target Night, that is true. But then, so is one of today's supercarriers. Without its battlegroup escorts, a Nimitz class carrier is very vulnerable . . . neither heavily armored nor particularly well armed except for aircraft.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by JohnK3

So, Schtuzen, what would you put on a new class of destroyer? Stealth tech? Hydroplanes? Tomahawks or other cruise missiles? What about a cruiser class? What would a 21st century cruiser look like? Special role, if any?

I'm not sure I like the idea of the CarrierWagon. I have some concerns with the idea:

How would you coordinate heavy guns and aircraft takeoff/landing simultaneously? I'd be concerned about hitting aircraft or other problems with the big guns. Missiles, however, sounds very feasible.

I think stealth tech should be included for sure, especially on destroyers and cruisers. We're getting better and better at that technology and I think it will be a definite part of any future naval vessels we design, let alone the speculative ships we're talking about here.

The carrier/battleship is just a thought, though it would seem that guns and planes would not likely be employed simultaneously. Gun armament is not likely to have a range much beyond 50 miles at most, even with modern technology added. Aircraft, of course, would still be used for deeper penetrations.

Now, as for cruisers, what would stop us from building a nuclear powered cruiser/submarine, i.e., a submarine the size of a modern cruiser but armed with large magazines of harpoons and tomahawks that could be fired from the surface or submerged. Equipped with stealth technology, it could theoretically operate on or below the sea. Yeah, it's a wild idea, but hey, that's the purpose of this thread.

[Xracer]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

Besides, isn't the Arizona still officially carried as an active ship in the U.S. Navy in remembrance of her sacrifice? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

No, the U.S.S Arizona (former BB-39) is no longer in commission....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ari...t_Designations

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Xracer

No, the U.S.S Arizona (former BB-39) is no longer in commission....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ari...t_Designations

OK, I wasn't sure about that X. I just seemed to remember that she was still carried as an honorary active ship of the line in respect for those who crewed here and still lie within her hull. I've visited the Memorial twice, and it is a very moving experience to do so I must say. If ever there is a place where ghosts live, it is there.

[Pat Hurley]

Go to www.battleship.org. There is a movement afoot to save (perhaps re-commission?) the remaining two seaworthy battleships (USS Wisconsin and New Jersey). The March/April edition of American Handgunner has - on it's last page - an article dedicated to this story. Pick up a copy and read it.
Sounds like a great cause!

[Pistolenschutze]

You know, Pat, the pundits can say what they will about battleships being obsolete, but I do think they still have a place in the scheme of things. The days of battleship to battleship combat are long gone, never to return, that is certainly true. But a high-explosive 16" shell weighing well over a ton still speaks as loudly as it ever did against inland targets.

[Pat Hurley]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

You know, Pat, the pundits can say what they will about battleships being obsolete, but I do think they still have a place in the scheme of things. The days of battleship to battleship combat are long gone, never to return, that is certainly true. But a high-explosive 16" shell weighing well over a ton still speaks as loudly as it ever did against inland targets.

I enthusiastically agree, Pistol! I had a college roomate who ended up being a fire control operator (the guy who aims and shoots the 16' guns) on the Battleship Iowa in the late 80's and early 90's. He used to regale me with stories of the emotional reaction that the Battleships used to have on foreign populations when they would cruise into a foreign port or near shore. The emotions ran the gamut from admiration and awe (if you were friend like, say, the British) or perhaps raw fear and anxiety (if you were foe like, say, Iran or Libya). As a sidebar... my friend was assigned to the rear turret the day that the accidental explosion occured in the number 2 turret. Must have been his lucky day!

When you consider the deterrence offered and fear it inspired in our enemies, what price can you place on this effect? Or how about the peace of mind and confidence it inspired in our friends that the U.S. had plenty of fire in its belly and one hulluva knock out punch in the form of 16' guns and lots of solid steel.

I think its baloney to say that the Battleships are obsolete and are too expensive. BALDERDASH!!! I think that we can't afford NOT to have the last two seaworthy models roaming the high seas (one in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific), at least until a super Battleship replacement-like the one you previously described-can be built and launched.

BRING BACK THE BATTLESHIPS! Let us hoist a mug of grog in honor of our beloved battleships and join the cause for their recommissioning. www.battleship.org.

[Pistolenschutze]

The psychological effect of such a ship should certainly not be discounted, Pat. As you said, they are a visible and concrete reminder of the power this country is capable of wielding when it needs to. That factor alone makes them worth having in commission. That much is true even if they need never again fire a shot in anger. Consider as well that a 16" shell is a whale of a lot less expensive, and more destructive, than tomahawk missiles at $1,000.000 a pop! Yet another factor in their favor is their survivability. An Exocet sea skimmer can easily take out most of the relatively thin-hulled ships in today's fleet. Try that against the 12.1 inch battle armor on an Iowa class battleship hull. Might chip the paint, but that's about all!

[Marlin T]

Pistol,

While your idea is good in thought, it would be a complete total waste of time and money.

Pictures like this one
That pod by the way is called a SDV (Seal Delivery Vehicle) which holds a good handfull (?) of Navy Seals times how many SDVs we have. Basiclly one bad ass killing force.



Or one of these SSBNs with all of its missle tubes open 24 in total. That is a possible 24 nukes times how many warheads are in one missle or 154 tomahawks? Times the total amount of SSBNs, SSGNs, SSN (Seawolf) that there are.



Or this display of power



Or any and all of these photos of our US Navy http://www.news.navy.mil/view_galleries.asp

Are all made impotent and usless by the

and there mind set when it comes to the security and welfair
of the USA and other countries that strive for external and internal
PEACE.

There favorite phrase, "Run Forest run."
So no matter what kind of awsome power we display, the USA is seen as cowards because of the Democrats and there atitudes.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Marlin T

Pistol,

While your idea is good in thought, it would be a complete total waste of time and money.

:::sigh::: Marlin T, have you no poetry in your soul? What you say is unquestionably true, and a modern battlewagon will never be built, and for that matter, it probably shouldn't. The U.S. Navy of today has the power to destroy the world twice over with ammo to spare. I don't doubt that in the slightest. Still, it is fun to speculate, and I still think that the psychological factor is important. A battleship says by its very presence, "You want some of this, bud? Go ahead, make my day!" The most useful weapon in the world is the one that never has to be fired because no one is willing to chance messing with its owner!

[Marlin T]

:::sigh::: Marlin T, have you no poetry in your soul?

I still like your idea. Did you check out that link?
I was going to post some of my photos of the subs, but thought that might be a bad idea.

[Marlin T]

I found this a long time ago. Sorry about the quality, its a photo of a photo

[Pat Hurley]

WARNING! WARNING!!!!!!!

I am detecting thread creep. Screw the subs... we're talking Battleships, baby!

Bring on the commies and the democrats (sorry for the redundancy)!

[Marlin T]

Sorry Pat LOL

But the power that not only the Navy shows, but the power of all the US Military has and shows all time has been rendered usless by the peace nicks.

The peace nicks have given this country the image that we are nothing more than a paper tiger to a lot of countries it seems.

But on the other hand, it sure would be nice to see our weapons displayed in a more blatand way than what we do now. The Agies crusier is a fine example, so are our fleet of subs. When looking at either one of them,, you don't SEE anything more than a sub or cruiser. Very docile looking, unless ya know what they are capable of.

That was the neat thing about the battle ships of the past, and maybe the future. All of that firepower on display, in a baligerant way even, for all to see. But I'm sure that those peace nicks would call that an unnessary use of psychological warfare

[17thfabn]

I read about this idea years ago.

Take a large cargo ship. Have 155mm howitzers on the deck. Use this a fire support ship. Modern container ships could hold a large number of 155mm howitzers.

Modern 155mm ammunition is devastating:

1. A standard round is 100 pounds of steel and high explosives.

2. There are carrier rounds (improved conventinal munitions /icm rounds) that carry submunitions. These can be anti-personnel or dual purpose anti-armor grenandes. This round can also deliver mines, both antipersonnel, and anti-tank. This round is the artillery equivalent of the cluster bomb.

3. Smoke rounds.

4. White phosphorus rounds. These can be used for quick smoke, and for incendiary work.

Such a vessal would not equal a battelship, but could easily equal the firepower of a cruiser. And it could be put together quickly with out the cost of regular manning. When needed a cargo ship could be leased. Artillery battalions would be assigned to man the guns. As the campaign moves inland the arillery battalion goes ashore and continues it's mission.

[clmanges]

Originally Posted by Marlin T

Sorry Pat LOL

But the power that not only the Navy shows, but the power of all the US Military has and shows all time has been rendered usless by the peace nicks.

Sorry, Marlin, but peacenics had nothing to do with ruining our military power, since they are never around where it's being deployed. If the peacenics had any effect at all, then we would not now have the greatest military power on earth, period.
What has ruined our military power is assymetrical warfare, aka insurgency, or guerilla fighting. We can't use our heavy weapons against civilians who occasionally fire a burst or toss a grenade and then go back to their day jobs as though nothing had happened.
The whole nature of fighting international conflicts has changed. We're no longer up against large mechanized armies which present easily identified targets, but that's not all. We now see factors such as "netwar," and we see cell phones as bomb triggers. We see that a good portable satellite uplink is likely cheaper than a decent piece of field artillery, and thousands of times more powerful. Your internet connection? Remember that the internet was invented by our military (DARPA), to link military computers, and is now an important part of strategic and tactical considerations.
Just by way of history, there was an insurgent war right here on the North American continent, a bit over two hundred years back. Remember who won? (Hint: the winners didn't wear red coats.)
As for parking some big piece of naval hardware within sight of some unfriendly coastline just for show, forget it -- too risky; if it's within easy line of sight, it's an easy target.
Of course, we need to keep the big stuff handy, but what we should be doing is preparing more small, rapid-deployment units. Counter-insurgency needs to be more like civilian police work than the large mechanized military that we're accustomed to using. And, it sure wouldn't hurt for us to learn the local language while we're at it.