Quoted: Even taught most of them how to talk on a radio without reading a script.

We don't do well without scripts.

Quoted: Quoted: Why doesn't the Navy read threads like these?  Lots of sensible advice in here. To be honest, there are at least two professional Naval Officer discussion boards discussing many of the same issues, and the Flags keep an eye on them. BBs are a non-starter. True you could POSSIBLY upgrade them for the price of the DDX program, but the problem is maintaining them. The manpower costs alone are staggering.

A Shipyard take the Battleship Hull, and re out fit it with modern systems and engines. The Ship yard can also load up the battleship with modern radar, and defensive Counter Measures as well. Lots of room on a Battleship.

The ship can be automated to a large degree, which would reduce crew size.

Most Battleship Opponents do not consider the idea of radically re-fitting a Battleship.

A Battleship is like any other ship in that it is just a Platform for Weapon's Delivery Systems.
The Delivery Systems may be 16 inch Guns or they may be Missiles.

A Cruise Missile fired from a Battleship will do just as much damage as a cruise missle fired from a DDX Destroyer.

Unlike the DDX, the Battleship can survive being hit better than a DDX. Neither ship is unsinkable, it's is just that the Battleship with its Armor and many water tight compartments presents a tougher object to sink.

A lot of hay is made out of building LONG Range Guns for the DDX.  That's Great! However if the Technology is feasible, why bother with a platform that can only field long range 155mm guns when you can field a platform that can support the same type of Long Range Guns, but in a much bigger caliber: 16 inches. A platform that is better armored.

The main Arguments against Battleships are: (1.) They are Antiques (Well of course, unless they are upgraded with the same type of equipment that would go on a DDX), (2.) Their Crew Sizes are too large. (Again a similar Argument: Modernize them to improve their efficiency and reduce their Crew Size), (3.) Battleships require more Maintenance (True unless you modernize them), (4.) There are all kinds of weapons that are powerful enough to cut through a Battleship's Armor or break its Back (True. And the same weapons will destroy a DDX. The difference is that a modernized Battleship can sustain MORE Damage than a DDX). (4.) We don't need Naval Gun Fire (then why develop long range guns for the DDX?. Clearly Naval Gun fire is needed. Else the DDX wouldn't have Guns. Since a Battleship can carry MORE Weapons and BIGGER Guns than a DDX (after all it is just a metal platform floating in the water) why not use the same technology but construct Long Range 16 inch guns instead of long range 5 inch guns?)
(5.) The DDX will have a smaller Radar Cross Section (The super structure on a Battleship can be modified to present a smaller Radar Signature.).

(6.) Refitting a Battleship would cost too much money. (Well so do building new DDX ships. In fact the Pentagon habitually UNDERESTIMATES costs for new platforms).

Bring Back the Battleships and Modernize them. Then you end up with a BBX instead of a DDX.
A ship that has more offensive power and can sustain greater damage, and cost less.

This is the ultimate fighting ship!

Quoted: Unlike the DDX, the Battleship can survive being hit better than a DDX. Neither ship is unsinkable, it's is just that the Battleship with its Armor and many water tight compartments presents a tougher object to sink. (6.) Refitting a Battleship would cost too much money. (Well so do building new DDX ships. In fact the Pentagon habitually UNDERESTIMATES costs for new platforms). Bring Back the Battleships and Modernize them. Then you end up with a BBX instead of a DDX. A ship that has more offensive power and can sustain greater damage, and cost less.

One problem with your plan, how many battleships do we have? I tend to think we need more than 2-4 ships in a given class.

If we can't afford more than 4 or 5 DDXs, then thats no better,

Quoted: This is the ultimate fighting ship! img240.imageshack.us/img240/8065/navy16ra.jpg

Wasn't that John Kerrys first command in his quest for glory?  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why doesn't the Navy read threads like these?  Lots of sensible advice in here. To be honest, there are at least two professional Naval Officer discussion boards discussing many of the same issues, and the Flags keep an eye on them. BBs are a non-starter. True you could POSSIBLY upgrade them for the price of the DDX program, but the problem is maintaining them. The manpower costs alone are staggering. A Shipyard take the Battleship Hull, and re out fit it with modern systems and engines. The Ship yard can also load up the battleship with modern radar, and defensive Counter Measures as well. Lots of room on a Battleship. The ship can be automated to a large degree, which would reduce crew size. Most Battleship Opponents do not consider the idea of radically re-fitting a Battleship. A Battleship is like any other ship in that it is just a Platform for Weapon's Delivery Systems. The Delivery Systems may be 16 inch Guns or they may be Missiles. A Cruise Missile fired from a Battleship will do just as much damage as a cruise missle fired from a DDX Destroyer. Unlike the DDX, the Battleship can survive being hit better than a DDX. Neither ship is unsinkable, it's is just that the Battleship with its Armor and many water tight compartments presents a tougher object to sink. A lot of hay is made out of building LONG Range Guns for the DDX.  That's Great! However if the Technology is feasible, why bother with a platform that can only field long range 155mm guns when you can field a platform that can support the same type of Long Range Guns, but in a much bigger caliber: 16 inches. A platform that is better armored. The main Arguments against Battleships are: (1.) They are Antiques (Well of course, unless they are upgraded with the same type of equipment that would go on a DDX), (2.) Their Crew Sizes are too large. (Again a similar Argument: Modernize them to improve their efficiency and reduce their Crew Size), (3.) Battleships require more Maintenance (True unless you modernize them), (4.) There are all kinds of weapons that are powerful enough to cut through a Battleship's Armor or break its Back (True. And the same weapons will destroy a DDX. The difference is that a modernized Battleship can sustain MORE Damage than a DDX). (4.) We don't need Naval Gun Fire (then why develop long range guns for the DDX?. Clearly Naval Gun fire is needed. Else the DDX wouldn't have Guns. Since a Battleship can carry MORE Weapons and BIGGER Guns than a DDX (after all it is just a metal platform floating in the water) why not use the same technology but construct Long Range 16 inch guns instead of long range 5 inch guns?) (5.) The DDX will have a smaller Radar Cross Section (The super structure on a Battleship can be modified to present a smaller Radar Signature.). (6.) Refitting a Battleship would cost too much money. (Well so do building new DDX ships. In fact the Pentagon habitually UNDERESTIMATES costs for new platforms). Bring Back the Battleships and Modernize them. Then you end up with a BBX instead of a DDX. A ship that has more offensive power and can sustain greater damage, and cost less.

This is all feasible but by the time it's said and done it would prolly cost as much as the DDX and would only have 2 ships available, as DDX currently stands IIRC they are looking to get at least 5 ships purchased. DDX is also bringing on a lot of tech that will crossover into other platforms like CVN-21,CGX(cruiser). THe gun issuse will eventually be put to bed as the 155mm advanced gun system is just a temp job till the USN gets railgun tech perfected. The BB 16inch guns will be like party favors compared to that. Thus the BB reason to be is gone.

Quoted: A Shipyard take the Battleship Hull, and re out fit it with modern systems and engines. The Ship yard can also load up the battleship with modern radar, and defensive Counter Measures as well. Lots of room on a Battleship.

That's assuming you can find a shipyard that is experienced with Navy systems and can hold a battleship without affecting CVN production.

The ship can be automated to a large degree, which would reduce crew size.

The ship can be automated, but not to a large degree. Let's take a look at the 16" guns. I know of no feasible way of handling the ammo without men. With men, each gun takes 70 men to load. No saving there.
Let's take a look at the engineering plant, another manpower sump. If you check out the CVN-21 thread, I explained why gas turbines aren't practical on a large ship. You could go diesel, but you'd face the same scenario.
So you're left with steam and nuke steam. Neither is exactly manpower efficient. Especially, when you're talking about such a large engineering plant. You're not talking the single tea kettle of a submarine.

Most Battleship Opponents do not consider the idea of radically re-fitting a Battleship.

Actually, it was considered heavilly at many points over the last 15 years. It's just not feasible.

A Battleship is like any other ship in that it is just a Platform for Weapon's Delivery Systems.

So why the hurry to bring them back?

The Delivery Systems may be 16 inch Guns or they may be Missiles. A Cruise Missile fired from a Battleship will do just as much damage as a cruise missle fired from a DDX Destroyer.

True, so why pay the extra expense?

Unlike the DDX, the Battleship can survive being hit better than a DDX. Neither ship is unsinkable, it's is just that the Battleship with its Armor and many water tight compartments presents a tougher object to sink.

But it's much easier to find. In todays world if you can find it you can kill it.

A lot of hay is made out of building LONG Range Guns for the DDX.  That's Great! However if the Technology is feasible, why bother with a platform that can only field long range 155mm guns when you can field a platform that can support the same type of Long Range Guns, but in a much bigger caliber: 16 inches. A platform that is better armored.

They are not the same type of long range guns. The 155 will be able to fire up to 4 times the distance of the 16" gun. Not only that it's guided so you're not killing civilians and your own troops with stray rounds.

The main Arguments against Battleships are: (1.) They are Antiques (Well of course, unless they are upgraded with the same type of equipment that would go on a DDX), (2.) Their Crew Sizes are too large. (Again a similar Argument: Modernize them to improve their efficiency and reduce their Crew Size), (3.) Battleships require more Maintenance (True unless you modernize them),

I've already addressed points one and two. Point three needs to be addressed. Let's look at the simple task of painting the damn ship. How many people do you think it would take to keep up with the rust in a saltwater environment? A bunch which directly effects number two.

(4.) There are all kinds of weapons that are powerful enough to cut through a Battleship's Armor or break its Back (True. And the same weapons will destroy a DDX. The difference is that a modernized Battleship can sustain MORE Damage than a DDX).

Dead is dead. You can have 100 dead or 1000, which do you prefer? Take out one platform with more manpower than the average Destroyer Squadron or a single destroyer of the squadron

(4.) We don't need Naval Gun Fire (then why develop long range guns for the DDX?. Clearly Naval Gun fire is needed. Else the DDX wouldn't have Guns. Since a Battleship can carry MORE Weapons and BIGGER Guns than a DDX (after all it is just a metal platform floating in the water) why not use the same technology but construct Long Range 16 inch guns instead of long range 5 inch guns?)

Actually, this is under some debate. The USMC wants these guns, but their own doctrine doesn't support them. The USN is trying to support the USMCs wants. ETA: The 155mm goes much further in supporting the USMC doctrine than a 16".

(5.) The DDX will have a smaller Radar Cross Section (The super structure on a Battleship can be modified to present a smaller Radar Signature.).

Not even close. The DDX's cross-sections is remarkably low. You cannot retrofit a frigate to match it much less a battleship. Take a look at the hull sometime. The hull alone would produce a cross-section much larger than DDX.

(6.) Refitting a Battleship would cost too much money. (Well so do building new DDX ships. In fact the Pentagon habitually UNDERESTIMATES costs for new platforms).

There is debate over building the DDX because of the cost. It will most likely end up on the chopping block or only a couple will be built like SEAWOLF.

Bring Back the Battleships and Modernize them. Then you end up with a BBX instead of a DDX. A ship that has more offensive power and can sustain greater damage, and cost less.

Of course even if you brought back all four BBs and we only built 12 DDXs that would mean 4 DDXs on station around the world at any given time. With the four BBs you only have one BB on station at any given time. One of the Navy's top missions is Presence. You can't conduct presence ops with only one ship on station.

Edited for proper quote function and one add.

The 16" gun really has minimal usage these days, we are not going to do any assaults against fortified shore lines (and what on things found when they were extensively used during the 2nd World War was that the flat trajectory of the 16" guns didn't do allot against prepared beach defenses, remember the weeks of bombardment on some islands in the pacific and almost no enemy was killed by it?).   It would take most the Gator navy to come together in one spot to lift 1 division, the Marine Corps would have consolidate all its Amtrack to lift 1 division ashore.  

That doesn't even take into account the biggest question, Do anyone think the American people would be prepared for the types of looses we would incur attacking a defended beach?  Half the people in the country, this board included, have gone soft in the knees with 1800 dead.  An assault into a defended beach would probably causes more losses than that in day, the mothers of America would never let it happen again.  There would be calls for Rummy's lynching if that ever happen.


That is why the Marine Corps has developed and is developing ways of getting ashore that don't require an attack of a defended beach.  We want to go where the enemy is not and arrive at his center of gravity without having to confront his strength.  

Quoted: The Battleships are never coming back for one simple reason… corrossion. After 65 years those hulls are going to have SERIOUS corrossion issues, and I hear they are rusting apart as we speak due to lack of care and maintenance. ANdy

In 1986 my ship was in drydock undergoing overhaul in Long Beach, CA.   During our 15 month overhaul, USS New Jersey arrived for a short drydocking.  As soon as the yard had completed New Jersey's hull inspection, virtually every welder and shipwright we had working on our ship was re-assigned to the battleship.  They worked 24/7 to repair all of the thin hull problems found during the inspection.

I didn't like it...but I understood.  We were a Spruance DD and New Jersey was a national asset capable of carrying and firing TLAM-Ns.  She was done and out of the shipyard in a jiffy.