What made Battleships obsolete?

See that's the problem; you failed to recognize that the Iowa's currently have 12 5"/38's, 32 Tomahawks, 16 Harpoons, 4 20MM Phalanx CWIS , 8 UAV's, a crew of 1,800 and a range of 9,600 miles doing 25 Knots. Just because something is shiny and new doesn't make it better.

Now the current Arleigh Burke Destroyers have 1 5"/38 and 2 Phalanx, a range of 4,400 NM @ 20 knots and no UAVs. They also have to return to port to replenish their missles.

Destroyers and Frigates are designed to be part of a carrier battle group and are not intended to operate autonomously. BBs were designed to be the center figure in Battle Groups.

A destroyer amounts to a warm piss hole in the snow compared to the tacticle footprint of a BB.

*Please take note that I did not insult you and couched nothing in the form of a personal attack. I expect the same courtesy.

Brad

 

I have never said that "newer" is always better.

Just how many 5"/38's, Tomahawks, and Harpoons does one need to successfully engage a 25 foot fiberglass skiff? And while destroyers and frigates may have been designed as escorts to carrier battle groups, so were the Iowa class BB's. That particular fact is irrelevant when the mission is to intercept and, if necessary, destroy pirate mother ships and their 25 foot offspring. In fact, BB's were designed to fight other BB's, while destroyers and frigates were designed to fight smaller warships, but this incongruity does not seem to register with you.

Yes, just as the pirate mother ships and their 25 foot skiff's amount to a "warm piss hole in the snow" compared to a frigate or destroyer

Please note that while I have ridiculed your ideas of the appropriate counter to modern threats from pirates, I have never personally attacked you, nor insulted you.

Throughout this entire debate I have confined my comments to your ideas which I find to consist entirely of emotionalism and nostalgia for battleships. Never once have you addressed the questions I have posed regarding why you feel it is necessary to deploy the massively inappropriate weapons found aboard battleships to destroy what amount to fishing trawlers and speedboats. You seem to think that bigger and more powerful is always better despite the unrealistic costs involved.

 

Just how many 5"/38's, Tomahawks, and Harpoons does one need to successfully engage a 25 foot fiberglass skiff? And while destroyers and frigates may have been designed as escorts to carrier battle groups, so were the Iowa class BB's... [/QUOTE]

The Iowas were relegated to carrier escort. They often operated as part of a Battleship Battle Group BBG when not tasked to a CVG.

Nothing has escaped or failed to register with me. I would still like to see a BB used to counter Pirates and I think they are a viable alternative. Refitting and upgrading the Iowa and Wisconsin, in my opinion, is more cost effective than creating an entirely new class of ship to fill the roll of a Battleship.

No a destroyer is just a larger piss hole in the snow

If you ridicule someones ideas and opinions you are insulting that person and that makes it a personal attack. I have done none of the above in my argument regarding the use of Battleships to counter Piracy

Somethings may have slipped through the cracks; but, I have been very diligent to answer any question and support it with sources. There are no weapons on a Battleship that are "massively inappropriate". The presence of a Battleship or a "Battleship Battle Group" provides more options than having a few destroyers in the area. You add a MEU to the BBG and you have a very formidable force should the need for escalation arise.

Just as a Destroyer would have to launch a RIB to board a Pirate vessel so can a BB. The difference is that when 10 people leave a Destroyer you reduce the crew by 3.5%. That means there are 10 people of a 350 person crew that are not doing the job they are trained for. When 10 people leave the crew of a BB you reduce the crew by .18%. If you consider that at least some of the 10 people on the boarding party would be Marines, doing a job they are specifically trained for, the disparity is not as great.

BB's could stay on station longer and counter any threat presented by the Pirates.

If conditions escalate and there is a need to conduct "over the beach operations" what protection is a Destroyer going to provide that a BB can't?

Now; currently the most effective, by default, counter to the Somali Pirate Issue is the use of Destroyers. Should the Iowa and Wisconsin be brought back into service to protect merchant shipping in the IO? No. Would there be a threat to Merchant shipping in the IO if a BB were on station? I doubt it.