Can the USA build Trump's battleships or not.
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 213
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Modesto, CA USA
    Posts
    6,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1074

    Default Can the USA build Trump's battleships or not.

    Trump has said he wants to bring back the battleships. Can the thick armor plate still be rolled in the usa? how about 14 or 16" gun barrel's?.
    He will probably go for coal fired rather then foreign oil or nuclear to help the miners. They could be based near the Mexican border to repel immigrants. instead of the wall.
    Bill D.

  2. Likes daryl bane, JoeE. liked this post
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    BFE Nevada/San Marcos Tx
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    825
    Likes (Received)
    489

    Default

    The machinery to build the turrets for the big guns was sold in early 90's, china iirc. Would it not be cheaper to just turn Mar Lago into a home for the feeble minded

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Modesto, CA USA
    Posts
    6,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1074

    Default

    He could build just the turrets and put one every 30 miles instead of building the wall.

  5. Likes jancollc, Mark Rand, JoeE., Rex TX liked this post
  6. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    4,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4075
    Likes (Received)
    1787

    Default

    I think we probably have enough barrels for a full suite of 16" guns. These were originally made around the end of the First World War, saved, some put into the Iowa-class ships, and unless there's been a "spring cleaning" at the Armory the rest are probably still in storage. Barrels alone, however, don't make a battleship.

    The problem with WW2 style battleships is that they are only good against equal or lesser enemies, and nobody is fielding any equal battleships to shoot at. Even over-the-horizon shots from 16" guns do not represent a very significant projection of firepower. Today you would build a cruise-missile and ECM platform, possibly with some anti-satellite capability, not a gun platform. And the heavy armor belt is almost pointless against airborne, submarine, and high-tech shaped charge missile threats which respectively hit above, hit below, and readily penetrate the armor belt. Look at aircraft carriers. They project force tremendously further, but have to be accompanied by an entire task force for protection because the threats are equally tremendous.

    The Iowas were extremely fast and nimble and handled extreme weather better than many smaller ships. You'd probably want to trade the weight of armor for even greater speed, so you'd end up with similarly long, relatively narrow ships.

    I admire the Iowa ships very much, but they simply don't have any role today except for pounding shorelines of countries that can't shoot back. That is substantially all they did during the Korean War, and they did a bit more of it during the Vietnam War.

    Nostalgia is not a basis for any good military doctrine.

  7. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Modesto, CA USA
    Posts
    6,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1074

    Default

    Nostalgia is not a basis for any good military doctrine.[/QUOTE]

    Kind of like the high tech sensor arrays the Democrats want vs Trump's no tech wall.

  8. Likes mmcgrew10l liked this post
  9. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    455
    Likes (Received)
    4909

    Default

    Might add a drone launch and guidance platform as well. A modestly sized boat, equipped with drone-delivered small nukes or just nuclear waste or biological agents, could do a lot of damage on the coasts and even inland waterways.

    Same drones would likely be carrying drugs from wherever they're harvested or made if we manage to close off ports of entry. A kg. of fentanyl is apparently worth $1 million. A $2000 drone can carry a few kg. of that several miles across a border. With serious money and intent, that drone could be bigger, fly faster and farther, and be programmed to ignore whatever limits are likely to come.

    Best situation on the drug front is we spend as much to discourage drug use as pharma companies spent promoting it. Best situation on the battleship front is that we get back to scenario planning and not build things like trenches, battleships, and probably even jet fighters. Probably don't need a military parade, either.

  10. Likes dcsipo, Jason5555, mmcgrew10l liked this post
  11. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edison Washington USA
    Posts
    10,232
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    949
    Likes (Received)
    5260

    Default

    Trump floated this idea in 2015, and military historians shot him down pretty quickly.
    thickness of armor is immaterial against a torpedo that detonates under the keel, and modern supersonic missiles can penetrate battleship armor. So making huge thick armor doesnt protect you.
    and 16" guns have a range of about 25 miles, while cruise missiles that can sink a battleship can travel hundreds, even thousands of miles.

    So, first day of battle, your $10 Billion dollar Battleship sinks after being hit by a couple of $1 million dollar cruise missiles.
    The only way we could ever pay for a fleet of those is to cut the taxes of Apple and Facebook, then the huge increase in prosperity would allow us to build 20 of em...

  12. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    455
    Likes (Received)
    4909

    Default

    That got a grin.

  13. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,245
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    406
    Likes (Received)
    1630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfriedberg View Post
    I think we probably have enough barrels for a full suite of 16" guns. These were originally made around the end of the First World War, saved, some put into the Iowa-class ships, and unless there's been a "spring cleaning" at the Armory the rest are probably still in storage.
    There were 22 in storage in Nevada, 14 were cut up and scrapped in 2011.

    There are a few floating around as display pieces, plus the 3 dozen on the 4 mothballed BB's.

    IIRC, a couple were cut up and used as casings in the development of the GBU-57 "Bunker Buster".

  14. Likes sfriedberg, B-Mathews liked this post
  15. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    4,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4075
    Likes (Received)
    1787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jancollc View Post
    There were 22 in storage in Nevada, 14 were cut up and scrapped in 2011.
    That would be a spring cleaning alright.

  16. #11
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,598
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3051
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    This is a interesting topic now. The new ships would likely use missiles, lasers, and rail guns. The thick steel would probably not be used in favor of other substitutes being 1/2 inch thick! That is hard to imagine. The thought is that such a platform eases the whole Carrier force concept using layers of ships for the integrity of the carrier group.

    I suppose if we want to do this we could. Lots more discussion must happen first.

  17. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Northern Il
    Posts
    1,244
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    661
    Likes (Received)
    1182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ries View Post
    Trump floated this idea in 2015, and military historians shot him down pretty quickly.
    thickness of armor is immaterial against a torpedo that detonates under the keel, and modern supersonic missiles can penetrate battleship armor. So making huge thick armor doesnt protect you.
    and 16" guns have a range of about 25 miles, while cruise missiles that can sink a battleship can travel hundreds, even thousands of miles.

    So, first day of battle, your $10 Billion dollar Battleship sinks after being hit by a couple of $1 million dollar cruise missiles.
    The only way we could ever pay for a fleet of those is to cut the taxes of Apple and Facebook, then the huge increase in prosperity would allow us to build 20 of em...
    The military is actually working on long range munitions projects. They currently are wanting to deploy a long range 155mm with a range of 75mi.

    The goal is to increase range and be able to deliver the same effect at distance as the current non-nuclear cruise missiles.

    I suspect that they are only a couple of years away as they are starting to get quotes on the equipment to manufacture the new artillery. Much of this is being designed to be retrofitted onto the existing under-carriages of existing artillery to reduce the costs and speed deployment.

    As far as if a battleship would be practical in this day and age, I think you need to change your assumptions of what a new battleship would look like. It is not necessary to use the armor plating to protect the ship as there are better and cheaper technologies today that will give superior results.

    Having large 16in. or larger barrels is not necessarily the only way to deliver the desired payload and destructive force.

    A lot of this might sound like pie in the sky, but I seriously do see the possibilities of relatively cheap, low tech munitions delivered at an extended distance being very practical.

    A cruise missile technology has many advantages when used against a specific target. The downside is cost per unit and the limited number that can be available in a given time window. In essence a prolonged attack by an enemy will overwhelm a cruise missile weapons system if enough low value targets are presented. The slow bleed scenario that is often used by inferior forces.

    In comparison if you can deliver a low cost munition at a long range with a rapid delivery for an extended period of time, you could feasibly control a battlefield for a long duration without stretching the available resources.

    This gets back to the problems of our current Mideast situation in that we are encountering hostile forces with relatively low technology that are able to take out high-tech aircraft.

    Sometimes being able to throw rocks at the enemy is the best solution.

    Now the big question is if the military can keep technology creep out of this.

  18. Likes Rex TX, JST liked this post
  19. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,245
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    406
    Likes (Received)
    1630

    Default

    Lol. We will not be building new battleships. We don't have the money to build the ships we really need, let alone a new class of BB that the Navy doesn't want.

    We need new SSN'snd Boomers, not obsolete surface combatants that have no place in a modern OOB.

  20. Likes Oldwrench liked this post
  21. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    374
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    142
    Likes (Received)
    129

    Default

    Now... space battleships... and a 16" gun becomes much more entertaining

  22. Likes JoeE. liked this post
  23. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jancollc View Post
    Lol. We will not be building new battleships. We don't have the money to build the ships we really need, let alone a new class of BB that the Navy doesn't want.
    Who cars what the Navy wants ? All they are good for is crashing into cargo ships. Fuck em.

    At least battleships looked cool. It's all a giant stupid waste anyhow.

    We need new SSN'snd Boomers, not obsolete surface combatants that have no place in a modern OOB.
    We don't need new ones, the old ones work fine, but other than that, agreed. Keep the subs and scrap the rest of this worthless shit. And drown the entire braindead ignorant paid-killer army like a bunch of unwanted kittens.

    Now we have enough money to fix the broken US society. Or maybe even let people keep some of it.

  24. Likes adama liked this post
  25. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Central Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    762
    Likes (Received)
    496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jancollc View Post
    There were 22 in storage in Nevada, 14 were cut up and scrapped in 2011.
    Yep, DEMIL on site prior to removal. I always assumed those barrels were intended for the Battle Ships Illinois and Kentucky (along with some spares) which were canceled after the war and scrapped out some years later.

  26. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Modesto, CA USA
    Posts
    6,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1074

    Default

    I read, probably here, that the Arizona spare barrels were out being touched up wehn it sank. they are still in the backyard of some naval facility on the east coast. At Lawrence Berkely lab we had sections of BS armor plate being used as retaing walls to hold up the hill side. It was brand new straight pieces for a cancelled ship. It was acquired as nuclear shielding. but it was not flat enough to stack without gaps that particles or rays could get through. No way to flatten it cheaply enough.
    Bil lD

  27. Likes Spinit liked this post
  28. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    4,614
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2394
    Likes (Received)
    2179

    Default

    Submarines are less obvious targets than battleships. Coal fired, steam powered, submarines would strain current technology, but would be a damn good thing in a steam-punk universe.

  29. Likes AndyF liked this post
  30. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    4,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4075
    Likes (Received)
    1787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D View Post
    I read, probably here, that the Arizona spare barrels were out being touched up wehn it sank
    The barrels have separate liners, which are shrunk-fit together. I'd have to go back and re-read some of my books on the Iowas, but IIRC barrels are swapped out at major maintenance intervals (so many shots using such-and-such a type of propellant). The deinstalled barrels go to an armory to have the liners replaced, and then go into the spares inventory. The ship is out of commission for a relatively short time, as it only needs a barrel swap, not the liner replacement, to be ready to go again.

    The original soaking pit for barrel/liner installation and removal was somewhere on the east coast (again, IIRC). I don't remember if they established a 2nd facility in Hawaii or the west coast, or if all the barrel refitting was done at the original facility.

    BTW, the propellant was pretty basic gunpowder, in silk sacks. A full charge was six sacks. The Navy was able to cut liner wear to about 1/4 of the original rate by adding titanium dioxide and wax ("Swedish Additive") to the propellant.

  31. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    926
    Likes (Received)
    559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfriedberg View Post
    The barrels have separate liners, which are shrunk-fit together. I'd have to go back and re-read some of my books on the Iowas, but IIRC barrels are swapped out at major maintenance intervals (so many shots using such-and-such a type of propellant). The deinstalled barrels go to an armory to have the liners replaced, and then go into the spares inventory. The ship is out of commission for a relatively short time, as it only needs a barrel swap, not the liner replacement, to be ready to go again.

    The original soaking pit for barrel/liner installation and removal was somewhere on the east coast (again, IIRC). I don't remember if they established a 2nd facility in Hawaii or the west coast, or if all the barrel refitting was done at the original facility.

    BTW, the propellant was pretty basic gunpowder, in silk sacks. A full charge was six sacks. The Navy was able to cut liner wear to about 1/4 of the original rate by adding titanium dioxide and wax ("Swedish Additive") to the propellant.
    Sfriedberg -

    I'm going to assume Navy operates much the same as Army tube artillery (and tanks for that matter), which I do know. You have it correct - tube wear is a combination of the type of round fired and the powder charge (in a bag, or semi-fixed system as compared to fixed, where you cannot vary the powder charge). Keep a log, when the equivalency number hits a certain value do certain inspections, if problem found or you hit the magic number swap out the tube. Goes for depot rebuild as you say,if a liner type, or scrap if not.

    Been too may years (50 in April, to be exact) but the last time I was actually at the Watervliet Arsenal (north edge of Albany, NY) they still had a shop that was maintained as were the only lathes capable of building the 16 inch tubes - and the machine tools were old iron. At that time they did all the heat treat on Army gun tubes and I cannot recall if they did Navy but I'm thinking they probably did if the machining was there. Lathes probably long gone by now. In the 90s, if my memory is correct, some efficiency geniuses wanted to scrap the whole facility as there was no longer any need, nor would there ever be, for gun tubes. End of life would buy from a facility - IIRC - in Austria. Fortunately that never happened.

    Have not talked to a couple guys I knew who worked there for years so don't know their current capabilities.

    Dale


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •