What will make carriers obsolete?

[Pacfanweb]

They are obsolete because their big guns, characteristic of battleship, are terrible for shooting down planes and terrible for sinking submarines, and terrible for firing at agile destroyers/cruisers that can launch missiles that easily puncture holes in the armor of all battleships, sinking them before the battleships main guns can even get into firing range.

They are useless for modern day sea warfare unless you just want bunch of artillery on floating steel bunker for shore bombardment because that is what battleships are really, a floating bunker packed with heavy artillery.

Pretty much all of this is incorrect.

First off, no missile afloat is going to penetrate an Iowa's armor.
Secondly...they aren't useless other than the big guns. They can serve as command ships. They can refuel their escorts and other ships.

They aren't designed to sink subs. Neither are carriers. ASW is mostly done by their escorts.
They can sit offshore and lob shells....and guess where roughly 80% of the high-value targets of any country that has a shoreline are? Yep, not far from shore.

BTW, the Iowas have missiles, too. Tomahawks and Harpoons. Would be more modern versions if they were in the fleet today, but in the 80's they carried the most missiles in the fleet. So that's not why they were decommissioned.

Further, they can shoot a lot farther than 20 miles or so. The tech was researched and ready for production in the 80's to let them shoot 50 miles or more. And research was being done to further that.

They are VERY effective at shore bombardment. Heavily armored, so they don't worry much about anti-ship missiles or artillery. In Vietnam, the VC were so frightened of New Jersey that they demanded she be removed from the theater before they'd agree to peace talks. THAT is effectiveness.
In the Gulf War, the Wisconsin visited Abu Dhabi. They were so impressed with her that they offered to pay for her operational costs if we'd base her there.

Plenty of use for a Battleship today. The crew requirements is what killed them, nothing more.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

Pretty much all of this is incorrect.

First off, no missile afloat is going to penetrate an Iowa's armor.
Secondly...they aren't useless other than the big guns. They can serve as command ships. They can refuel their escorts and other ships.

They aren't designed to sink subs. Neither are carriers. ASW is mostly done by their escorts.
They can sit offshore and lob shells....and guess where roughly 80% of the high-value targets of any country that has a shoreline are? Yep, not far from shore.

BTW, the Iowas have missiles, too. Tomahawks and Harpoons. Would be more modern versions if they were in the fleet today, but in the 80's they carried the most missiles in the fleet. So that's not why they were decommissioned.

Further, they can shoot a lot farther than 20 miles or so. The tech was researched and ready for production in the 80's to let them shoot 50 miles or more. And research was being done to further that.

They are VERY effective at shore bombardment. Heavily armored, so they don't worry much about anti-ship missiles or artillery. In Vietnam, the VC were so frightened of New Jersey that they demanded she be removed from the theater before they'd agree to peace talks. THAT is effectiveness.
In the Gulf War, the Wisconsin visited Abu Dhabi. They were so impressed with her that they offered to pay for her operational costs if we'd base her there.

Plenty of use for a Battleship today. The crew requirements is what killed them, nothing more.

No modern day steel can withstand armor piercing missle.

Battleships have been decommission by policy makers who have much higher expertise in naval architecture and military weapon science than either of us in EVERY country so I don’t understand why you like to argue the contrary.

 

[Pacfanweb]

No modern day steel can withstand armor piercing missle.

Battleships have been decommission by policy makers who have much higher expertise in naval architecture and military weapon science than either of us in EVERY country so I don’t understand why you like to argue the contrary.

Wrong, and wrong.
First off, Battleship armor is NOT "modern day steel". It's ARMOR. Class A and Class B. We can't even make it anymore, and no ship afloat that's not a museum has it. The Iowas have over 12" of it, nearly 20" on the turrets. There might be a few missiles that can get through it..MAYBE....but not many. And they have to hit the ship first. There are not many armor piercing missiles because no ship has real armor anymore.


Second, the ships were decommissioned because of the crew requirements. NOT because of their usefulness. I can assure you that the Marines were not happy about it. Congress made the Navy keep 2 of them in reserve until within the last 10 years. There's a reason for that. Again, needing so many crew members to operate is what got them decommissioned, and that's about it. Otherwise, they'd have stayed with the fleet. There were plans to do a SLEP (Service Life Extension Program) in the mid-90's if they had stayed active to keep the going for years to come. They don't plan those for ships that have no use.

Battleships were victims of the bean counters, nothing more.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

Wrong, and wrong.
First off, Battleship armor is NOT "modern day steel". It's ARMOR. Class A and Class B. We can't even make it anymore, and no ship afloat that's not a museum has it. The Iowas have over 12" of it, nearly 20" on the turrets. There might be a few missiles that can get through it..MAYBE....but not many. And they have to hit the ship first. There are not many armor piercing missiles because no ship has real armor anymore.


Second, the ships were decommissioned because of the crew requirements. NOT because of their usefulness. I can assure you that the Marines were not happy about it. Congress made the Navy keep 2 of them in reserve until within the last 10 years. There's a reason for that. Again, needing so many crew members to operate is what got them decommissioned, and that's about it. Otherwise, they'd have stayed with the fleet. There were plans to do a SLEP (Service Life Extension Program) in the mid-90's if they had stayed active to keep the going for years to come. They don't plan those for ships that have no use.

Battleships were victims of the bean counters, nothing more.

Like i said, they were decommission by all world navies and i doubt these foreign navies care what the American congress has to say. Battleship is obsolete every since airplane and their carrier vessels became a thing and even more so when missiles became standard armament. No navies today use heavily armroed ships because they offer no protection against modern weaponry and they no longer needed huge guns either because airplanes, torpedoes, and missiles are much better at destroying capital ships than any artillery shells.

I suggest you google the reason. It isnt what you think.

 

[XavierMace]

Single purpose devices in general are obsolete. It's the same discussion they have with the A-10. The fact that the troops love it is moot. The A-10 does one thing and it does that exceptionally well. But it only does 1 thing. The same goes for battleships, except the A-10's has continued to prove it's usefulness. Yeah, they have an unsurpassed amount of firepower at ~20mi. But these days there's zero reason to get that close. Even if you wanted too, how many battlefields these days are that close to shore? The A-10 at least still gets used.

Yeah, they retrofitted the Iowa in '84 with missiles and a pair of CIWS's. But we have a variety of other platforms that carry missiles and can do other things too.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Single purpose devices in general are obsolete. It's the same discussion they have with the A-10. The fact that the troops love it is moot. The A-10 does one thing and it does that exceptionally well. But it only does 1 thing. The same goes for battleships, except the A-10's has continued to prove it's usefulness. Yeah, they have an unsurpassed amount of firepower at ~20mi. But these days there's zero reason to get that close. Even if you wanted too, how many battlefields these days are that close to shore? The A-10 at least still gets used.

Yeah, they retrofitted the Iowa in '84 with missiles and a pair of CIWS's. But we have a variety of other platforms that carry missiles and can do other things too.

The A-10 was designed for close air support. It's also rugged and field repairable. What other option does better?

 

[tynopik]

The Iowas have over 12" of it, nearly 20" on the turrets. There might be a few missiles that can get through it..MAYBE....but not many.

The thing is you don't have to penetrate the turrets to mission kill a battleship

it relies on comms, radar and other sensors to do anything useful. And by their very nature they have to be exposed. Knock them all out and your battleship is just a useless hunk of floating metal

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

To be a battleship, it has to be heavily armored and have multiple of heavy guns. Neither of these are useful modern days. Cruisers, destroyers, sumbmarines, cruisers, frigates, corvette, and torpedo boats are still out there but battleships? No.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Like i said, they were decommission by all world navies and i doubt these foreign navies care what the American congress has to say. Battleship is obsolete every since airplane and their carrier vessels became a thing and even more so when missiles became standard armament. No navies today use heavily armroed ships because they offer no protection against modern weaponry and they no longer needed huge guns either because airplanes, torpedoes, and missiles are much better at destroying capital ships than any artillery shells.

I suggest you google the reason. It isnt what you think.

That's not why they don't use them. Foreign navies gradually got rid of Battleships because there was no more war, and they were all broke. Great Britain is a prime example: They build more Battleships than everyone else, and didn't save a single one, even as a memorial. Why? Money. They were broke.

Again, you are dead wrong about why they were taken out of service. It was because it takes over 1000 men to operate one. Those men could crew 3-4 smaller ships. That's the primary reason.

It wasn't because they didn't still have and do multiple jobs. Again, they can be command/flagships and replenishment ships for the smaller units. No other ship afloat can do what they do.

They are the most survivable ships in the world against ANY kind of attack....torpedo, guns, bombs, missiles. No other ship in the world stands as much of a chance of surviving a hit by any type of weaponry today and still carrying on.
Look at the recent Navy mishaps for proof. The collisions recently...remember all the damage done, and how the Navy has to have the ships basically towed back to the US (out of the water) for repairs? A Battleship would laugh at that collision.
Remember the USS Cole bombing? A Battleship would laugh at that as well.

If an Exocet missile hit a Battleship, the Captain would have to call out the sweepers, maybe. It certainly wouldn't mission-kill one, no doubt.

I'm not the one who needs to do some reading on Battleships. I understand why they were taken out of service....and it sure as hell wasn't because they weren't effective and doing a good job at multiple tasks. It was how many men it took to run them, no more, no less.

 

[Pacfanweb]

The thing is you don't have to penetrate the turrets to mission kill a battleship

it relies on comms, radar and other sensors to do anything useful. And by their very nature they have to be exposed. Knock them all out and your battleship is just a useless hunk of floating metal

Nope.
First off, don't you think every other ship afloat has the same things that can be knocked out? Except much more easily because they aren't as big and don't have a many?

Second....a Battleship has multiple, multiple redundancies for its fire control. Knock out one fire control location? Not a problem, it has many more it can use.

A Battleship can fire its guns (and does fire them this way) with optical fire control. There are at least 4 FC locations that are raised, plus local FC in each turret. And IF the radar got knocked out (multiple instances of that, too) and IF they absolutely needed it to fire, they could get the ranges from an escort ship's radar.

It would take multiple anti-ship hits to even mission-kill a Battleship, whereas any other ship in the fleet today...IF they don't sink from one hit are headed straight back to port for repairs.

 

[IronWing]

I love the smell of lion versus tiger in the morning; it smells like the internet.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Single purpose devices in general are obsolete. It's the same discussion they have with the A-10. The fact that the troops love it is moot. The A-10 does one thing and it does that exceptionally well. But it only does 1 thing. The same goes for battleships, except the A-10's has continued to prove it's usefulness. Yeah, they have an unsurpassed amount of firepower at ~20mi. But these days there's zero reason to get that close. Even if you wanted too, how many battlefields these days are that close to shore? The A-10 at least still gets used.

Yeah, they retrofitted the Iowa in '84 with missiles and a pair of CIWS's. But we have a variety of other platforms that carry missiles and can do other things too.

Okay, in the 80's they recommissioned all 4 Iowa class Battleships with Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles, and 4 CIWS. They carried the most missiles of any ship in the fleet.

A Battleship does more than one mission. How many ships can be a flagship and carry the command staff? How many have a dedicated intelligence center on them? How many can refuel escort ships? And run 32+ knots, (fastest Capital ships in the world) AND has 16 5" guns, AND has 9 16" 50 caliber guns, AND is heavily armored and can shrug off enemy fire?
How many ships can do all this?
I'll hang up and listen.

No ship can do all that. The ONLY reason they were decommissioned is because it takes over 1000 men to run them, and the Cold War was over. That's it. It's not because of their effectiveness, not because they were obsolete.

Again...for any potential enemy that has a coastline (*cough*NorthKorea*cough*), where do you think the majority of the high-value targets are? Hint: It's not in the middle of the country, it's close to the shore.

The New Jersey fired more 16" rounds in about a year during Vietnam than she fired in all of WWII and I believe Korea combined. There is PLENTY for them to do, and they sure as hell beat firing $1 million shots (EACH) from the Zumwalt's puny guns. And 20 miles is yesterday's news. We already had tech to produce shells that would go 50 miles plus, we just decomm'ed the ships before production started.

 

[Darwin333]

The A-10 was designed for close air support. It's also rugged and field repairable. What other option does better?

I thought it was actually designed to be a tank killer and it just happens to be really awesome at close air support?

 

[Ventanni]

Wrong, and wrong.
First off, Battleship armor is NOT "modern day steel". It's ARMOR. Class A and Class B. We can't even make it anymore, and no ship afloat that's not a museum has it. The Iowas have over 12" of it, nearly 20" on the turrets. There might be a few missiles that can get through it..MAYBE....but not many. And they have to hit the ship first. There are not many armor piercing missiles because no ship has real armor anymore.


Second, the ships were decommissioned because of the crew requirements. NOT because of their usefulness. I can assure you that the Marines were not happy about it. Congress made the Navy keep 2 of them in reserve until within the last 10 years. There's a reason for that. Again, needing so many crew members to operate is what got them decommissioned, and that's about it. Otherwise, they'd have stayed with the fleet. There were plans to do a SLEP (Service Life Extension Program) in the mid-90's if they had stayed active to keep the going for years to come. They don't plan those for ships that have no use.

Battleships were victims of the bean counters, nothing more.

No, he's right. Modern armor-piercing warheads practically cut through steel like it's nothing, which actually makes that steel a detriment against you. That's why modern battle tanks are armored with a mix of steel and ceramics, and modern warships protected with Kevlar lining to limit spalling damage.. Secondly, that heavy armor on an Iowa is primarily focused to defend against the low angular trajectories of naval artillery. Any modern attack against a theoretically recommissioned Iowa is either going to come from under the waves, or from the air, which the thickest parts of the Iowa's armor would be bypassed completely. The deck armor is comparatively not that thick. Remember, the Iowa's are not uniformly armored. They follow the All-Or-Nothing armor scheme which focused the maximum amount of armor around the most important parts of the ship as well as the angles in which WW1/WW2 naval artillery trajectories would be coming in at. This was very successful for its time, but meaningless against air power, and the reason for why the Montanas, which were much more heavily armored than the Iowas, were dropped.

So what does this mean? Modern weaponry makes even the heaviest of armor completely meaningless. If it were meaningful, then modern warships would use it, but they don't. The US learned real fast that the armor penetrating capabilities of a bomb dropped from high altitude is vastly superior to anything coming out of a naval artillery gun.

I love the Iowas as much as anyone else, but they have no place in a modern navy.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I thought it was actually designed to be a tank killer and it just happens to be really awesome at close air support?

Other way around.

 

[Pacfanweb]

No, he's right. Modern armor-piercing warheads practically cut through steel like it's nothing, which actually makes that steel a detriment against you. That's why modern battle tanks are armored with a mix of steel and ceramics, and modern warships protected with Kevlar lining to limit spalling damage.. Secondly, that heavy armor on an Iowa is primarily focused to defend against the low angular trajectories of naval artillery. Any modern attack against a theoretically recommissioned Iowa is either going to come from under the waves, or from the air, which the thickest parts of the Iowa's armor would be bypassed completely. The deck armor is comparatively not that thick. Remember, the Iowa's are not uniformly armored. They follow the All-Or-Nothing armor scheme which focused the maximum amount of armor around the most important parts of the ship as well as the angles in which WW1/WW2 naval artillery trajectories would be coming in at. This was very successful for its time, but meaningless against air power, and the reason for why the Montanas, which were much more heavily armored than the Iowas, were dropped.

So what does this mean? Modern weaponry makes even the heaviest of armor completely meaningless. If it were meaningful, then modern warships would use it, but they don't. The US learned real fast that the armor penetrating capabilities of a bomb dropped from high altitude is vastly superior to anything coming out of a naval artillery gun.

I love the Iowas as much as anyone else, but they have no place in a modern navy.

Okay, today's warships will get cut open like a can of beans by ANY armor piercing shell or missile of any kind, from any era.
An Iowa will not. Sorry, but armor is absolutely better than no armor. And lots of armor is better than a little. And there's plenty of redundancy in the armor scheme of an Iowa as well. It's not just 'punch through 12 inches of armor and then the magazine is yours'.

There is no armor piercing anything that comes from below. Torpedoes are designed to explode beneath a ship and the shock "bubble" breaks its back. One of those will certainly hurt an Iowa....but they are more survivable than any other ship afloat, due to their triple bottoms.

Yes, the deck armor isn't as thick as the side armor. But it's still FAR thicker than any other ship afloat. And it it spaced....the first level is supposed to trigger the incoming projectile, the next two decks are supposed to contain the blast. Never were they supposed to completely reject them.

Kevlar sucks. It's worthless against armor piercing anything. If a Somali pirate is shooting at you with an AK 47 from a boat, Kevlar is okay. If they're using anything bigger, you better run.

I'm not saying the Iowas are proofed against anything and everything, but they are far, FAR safer than anything in anyone's navy today, and it's not even close.

And all this you posted assumes that a missile can get through the defenses of the task force an Iowa would be the center of. If one did, I can guarantee you which ship I'd want to be on if I know my ship was going to take a hit, and everyone else in the Navy would agree.

Put it this way: If you think an Iowa is useless because she is vulnerable to today's weaponry, then you think that every single surface ship in use today is useless, because 100% of them are much, much more vulnerable than any Battleship in existence.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

The Battleship really never became obsolete. The manning requirements is what did them in. That's really it.
There is still no replacement for what they can do in any navy today. Not even close, really.

None of that is even remotely true. Manning is nothing, it's a hell of a lot harder to man a carrier battle group or a division of Marines, but the military handles that just fine. And if we had a mission for the battleship, we'd find a way to man them up. There is no mission that requires a battleship anymore. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Battleships were designed to kill other ships, a role at which, let's be honest, they were bad. Really bad. That's why the carrier replaced them as power projectors. Battleships fired a lot of shells, made a lot of noise, hit very little. So the navy re-purposed them as shore bombardment weapons because they were not willing to give them up entirely. And at that roles, let's be honest, they were pretty bad. They fired a lot of shells, made a lot of noise, hit very little. But they were the only option. No other weapons could lay down that much firepower to soften up a landing zone for an amphibious assault, so battleships kept their job despite their obvious limitations. They don't hit anything accurately and they can only strike targets kind of near the beach. Now, they're not even suited to the job that the were bad at. In case you have not noticed we don't do amphibious assaults now and most targets are well beyond the range of 18" guns. So we use precision guided missiles and bombs to do that role now. They strike more accurately and can hit targets anywhere on earth, not just the ones conveniently located on Tarawa and Guadalcanal. So the navy, in their infinite greed and desire for more funding, found a way to re-purpose the battleship again as a missile launching platform so they could reap some PR. "See!! Battleships are still relevant, they can launch cruise missiles!! Give us money to keep them in operation" Except that only fooled a few REALLY stupid people. So the battleship can launch cruise missiles, big whoop!. Know what else can launch cruise missiles? EVERYTHING! Destroyers and frigates carry them, subs carry them and aircraft carry them. You could launch them from a cargo ship, a fleet oiler or even a PT boat if you really wanted to.

If you want to make a lot of noise and blow up a lot of rocks on a beach sort of near a target, then yeah, there's no replacement for what a battleship can do. If you want to actually HIT targets that are not with the puny range of a navy gun, then every ship in the fleet is a replacement for what the battleship can do. It's a missile launch platform, nothing more. The guns, despite how phallic and oh so alluring you find them to be, are obsolete, so the ship carrying the guns is obsolete. You gotta give it up. The battleship was never really good at any mission, the mission it was best at doesn't exist anymore and if that mission needed to be filled now a couple of frigates and destroyers launching missiles would do it even better.

 

[Pacfanweb]

I guess all the rave reviews the New Jersey got in Vietnam were just imaginary, then.
The VC were so afraid of her that they made her removal from the theater one of the conditions of coming to the peace talks.

You are dead wrong about the manning requirements. Dead wrong.

As to the rest, you simply are uninformed, and that's okay.

 

[Thebobo]

In air refueling ops invented, drop tanks ops invented. Honestly other then look at my big dick I don't have a clue why we still have so many just one would pay for some much needed infrastructure.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I guess all the rave reviews the New Jersey got in Vietnam were just imaginary, then.
The VC were so afraid of her that they made her removal from the theater one of the conditions of coming to the peace talks.

You are dead wrong about the manning requirements. Dead wrong.

As to the rest, you simply are uninformed, and that's okay.

ROFL!! Yeah, and the longbow got rave reviews at the battle of Agincourt too, but time marches on. Vietnam? Viet-fucking-Nam? Holy shit dude, that was almost 50 years ago, there were no precision cruise missiles then. To shoot at targets on the beach and hit them occasionally, the battleship was the only game in town. WE DON'T NEED TO DO BEACH BOMBARDMENTS ANYMORE. And if we did we'd use precision weapons to hit targets, not keep firing broadsides hoping for the Golden BB to strike. What part of that are you too stupid to understand?

Vietnam!!! My god, did that actually sound smart in your head?

 

[Pacfanweb]

ROFL!! Yeah, and the longbow got rave reviews at the battle of Agincourt too, but time marches on. Vietnam? Viet-fucking-Nam? Holy shit dude, that was almost 50 years ago, there were no precision cruise missiles then. To shoot at targets on the beach and hit them occasionally, the battleship was the only game in town. WE DON'T NEED TO DO BEACH BOMBARDMENTS ANYMORE. And if we did we'd use precision weapons to hit targets, not keep firing broadsides hoping for the Golden BB to strike. What part of that are you too stupid to understand?

Vietnam!!! My god, did that actually sound smart in your head?

We didn't do beach bombardments in Vietnam. The targets were mostly inland.

And okay...how about the Gulf War? So effective that Iraqi soldiers were surrendering to the spotting drones so they wouldn't get hit.

Shells are FAR cheaper than multi-million dollar missiles. And more powerful, too. Tomahawks are nice, but they aren't penetrating anything that's reinforced.

Navy ships still have guns for a reason. The Marines, if you asked them in private, would prefer that a Battleship be available. It's not just about prepping an island for invasion.

The Zumwalt has been a resounding, overpriced failure. The shells for its puny main guns cost one million EACH. The Navy can't even afford to fire them. They are now having to develop (even more $$ now) new shells that are cheaper.

I'm not necessarily arguing that they should bring the Iowas back. The original premise here is "are carriers obsolete" and someone made the comparison to the Battleships becoming obsolete in WW2....all I'm doing is pointing out that is not true at all. Not in the least. And the convo has evolved from there.

So once again....crewing requirements are the primary reason the Iowas were retired. You can crew 3-4 modern ships with what it takes to run an Iowa. It is absolutely not their capabilities.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

That's not why they don't use them. Foreign navies gradually got rid of Battleships because there was no more war, and they were all broke. Great Britain is a prime example: They build more Battleships than everyone else, and didn't save a single one, even as a memorial. Why? Money. They were broke.

Again, you are dead wrong about why they were taken out of service. It was because it takes over 1000 men to operate one. Those men could crew 3-4 smaller ships. That's the primary reason.

It wasn't because they didn't still have and do multiple jobs. Again, they can be command/flagships and replenishment ships for the smaller units. No other ship afloat can do what they do.

They are the most survivable ships in the world against ANY kind of attack....torpedo, guns, bombs, missiles. No other ship in the world stands as much of a chance of surviving a hit by any type of weaponry today and still carrying on.
Look at the recent Navy mishaps for proof. The collisions recently...remember all the damage done, and how the Navy has to have the ships basically towed back to the US (out of the water) for repairs? A Battleship would laugh at that collision.
Remember the USS Cole bombing? A Battleship would laugh at that as well.

If an Exocet missile hit a Battleship, the Captain would have to call out the sweepers, maybe. It certainly wouldn't mission-kill one, no doubt.

I'm not the one who needs to do some reading on Battleships. I understand why they were taken out of service....and it sure as hell wasn't because they weren't effective and doing a good job at multiple tasks. It was how many men it took to run them, no more, no less.

They were broke and yet navies like Britain and France could afford to continue operate air craft carriers?
Aircraft carrier 36 billions.
Iowa class, $100 million.

You are seriously misinformed. if battleships werent outdated and made obsolete by smaller, modern vessels, all major naval powers on earth would have at least one in service.

Tell me why huge, armor battleship is useful when a modern submarine sitting hundreds of miles away can blow it up with a few remote or self guided torpedoes?

Or the fact that air craft carriers require 2000+ men plus another 3000 for air wing while battleships like Iowa class requires slightly less at 1900? And yet air craft carriers remain as important capital ships while battleships are obsolete? Seriously, double check your facts

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

We didn't do beach bombardments in Vietnam. The targets were mostly inland.

And okay...how about the Gulf War? So effective that Iraqi soldiers were surrendering to the spotting drones so they wouldn't get hit.

Shells are FAR cheaper than multi-million dollar missiles. And more powerful, too. Tomahawks are nice, but they aren't penetrating anything that's reinforced.

Navy ships still have guns for a reason. The Marines, if you asked them in private, would prefer that a Battleship be available. It's not just about prepping an island for invasion.

The Zumwalt has been a resounding, overpriced failure. The shells for its puny main guns cost one million EACH. The Navy can't even afford to fire them. They are now having to develop (even more $$ now) new shells that are cheaper.

I'm not necessarily arguing that they should bring the Iowas back. The original premise here is "are carriers obsolete" and someone made the comparison to the Battleships becoming obsolete in WW2....all I'm doing is pointing out that is not true at all. Not in the least. And the convo has evolved from there.

So once again....crewing requirements are the primary reason the Iowas were retired. You can crew 3-4 modern ships with what it takes to run an Iowa. It is absolutely not their capabilities.

crewing is NOT an issue. Modern military can easily field an army of 10 million+ men. A 1900 crewed battleship is a tiny drop in both manpower and budget that many governments would not even noticed.

 

[Darwin333]

3 torpedos caused the Oklahoma to start to capsize and another two caused it to capsize in 12 minutes. We have way better torpedos than the Japanese had in WWII. 4 bombs sunk the Arizona in a very catastrophic way, again WWII stuff, we have much better missiles and bombs today. Two bombs sunk the Italian battleship Roma. Even the Yamato, the heaviest and most powerfully armored battleship ever, was sunk using WWII munitions.

Then you have the problem that these huge, expensive and heavily manned capital ships are literally designed to operate close to shore which puts them in danger from the ultra-quiet diesel submarines which could easily sneak up on and hit with a slew of modern torpedos. Sure we might be able to detect and kill the subs but possibly losing a few diesel subs for a battleship is a chance just about any military would make. I also think that diving missiles with modern explosives would perform better than the gravity dropped bombs of WWII. Most existing weapon systems are designed around the threats we actually face which aren't ridiculously armored battleships although I think torpedos currently being fielded would be plenty effective. With that said, if someone started fielding battleships again it would be rather easy to modify existing weapons with larger warheads and more penetrating power. Hell I'd wager a bunker buster would wreck the hell out of a battleship.

 

[Pacfanweb]

3 torpedos caused the Oklahoma to start to capsize and another two caused it to capsize in 12 minutes. We have way better torpedos than the Japanese had in WWII. 4 bombs sunk the Arizona in a very catastrophic way, again WWII stuff, we have much better missiles and bombs today. Two bombs sunk the Italian battleship Roma. Even the Yamato, the heaviest and most powerfully armored battleship ever, was sunk using WWII munitions.

Pearl Harbor, the ships were at peace. They were not buttoned up internally and prepared for combat. That is in no way representative of what would happen in combat.

What happened to the USS North Carolina at Guadalcanal IS. Hit by one of the dreaded Japanese Long Lance torpedoes, it blew a 30' hole in the side of the ship. (these are ship/sub torpedoes, not the smaller aerial versions)
She slowed up to shore up the damage, then resumed maneuvers with the fleet at 26 knots. Was never in danger of sinking. Returned to Pearl for repairs later on.

The Yamato was sunk by air power. Air power that had basically no opposition and it still took a couple of hours. That wouldn't have happened to a US Battleship, because our AA fire was the best there was.

Fact is, the US never lost, or came close to losing a Battleship after Pearl Harbor.