CL/CA Ships (I haz question)

[Sidewinder Zulu]

There are currently no more true battleships left in any navy, correct? Not after the Missouri was retired.

I suppose they're too vulnerable to air power. Pearl Harbor was a startling example of what aircraft can do to slow, vulnerable battleships when they're caught off guard.
Plus, with the advent of ASM's and missile cruisers, the 16-inchers on the American Battleships became far less useful.

Still...



Tell me that's not badass.

[Ninjam3rc]

There's 4 they're all afloat and used as museum displays of a sort. I believe they're kept in a condition that they can be made seaworthy in something like 2 months for those just in case situations.

[Sidewinder Zulu]

Originally Posted by Ninjam3rc

I believe they're kept in a condition that they can be made seaworthy in something like 2 months for those just in case situations.

Really? Huh, that's interesting. Thanks for the info.

The Missouri was armed with Tomahawks for the last few years of it's life, which it used during the Gulf War.
That variant of Tomahawk could carry the W88 nuclear warhead, which I belive the Missouri had a few of while it was in service.

A heavily armored battleship capable of delivering nuclear weapons to inland targets, in addition to dominating any ship-to-ship engagements, seems like a very valuable asset, vulnerability to air attack notwithstanding.

Makes sense that they would just put them in mothballs rather than scrap them. If a major war with a naval power were to break out, those ships might be useful again.

[Ninjam3rc]

They would be more used for supporting amphibious ops. There's all sorts of ships that can deliver tomahawks no problem. Plus subs and anti ship missiles make gun battles pretty obsolete.

[[R-DEV]Thermis]

The idea of a ship with 16 inch guns in the age of cruise missiles is obsolete. An Aegis Cruiser can do everything a retrofitted battleship could ever do, and its cheaper to maintain.

All the museum ships could theoretically be reactivated, however I do not believe there is a set time frame in which it would take to make them combat ready.

Also the SALT treaty has made the nuclear warhead on the tomahawks inactive.

[Sidewinder Zulu]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Thermis

The idea of a ship with 16 inch guns in the age of cruise missiles is obsolete. An Aegis Cruiser can do everything a retrofitted battleship could ever do, and its cheaper to maintain.

You're right. My sentimentality for the big battleships just got to me.

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Thermis

All the museum ships could theoretically be reactivated, however I do not believe there is a set time frame in which it would take to make them combat ready.

Actually, they're supposedly kept in sufficient condition to be ready for combat in 20 to 120 days. From theWiki page:

The National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF) consists of "mothballed" ships, mostly merchant vessels, that can be activated within 20 to 120 days to provide shipping for the United States of America during national emergencies, either military or non-military, such as commercial shipping crises.

I couldn't find any corroborating source for that data, though, so just take it at face value. Although it does seem to make sense. We have thousands of aircraft, ships, tanks, artillery and more which sit in hangars and warhouses, unused, but capable of rapid mobilization in the event of a major overseas conflict.

Apparently there's a desire to disband the Reserve Fleet now that the Cold War is over, due to the fact that the chances of the US having to deploy armies overseas in a serious conflict (during the Cold War, this being a Soviet invasion of Western Europe) are less likely. I disagree with that, however. The Gulf War, which followed right on the heels of the military demobilization in the early 90's, was proof that we still need to maintan a strong sealift capabilty.
There's more info here:
Federation of American Scientists :: National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF)

Anyways, this whole thing was kinda a tangent. You can learn some interesting stuff, though.

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Thermis

Also the SALT treaty has made the nuclear warhead on the tomahawks inactive.

Ah, yeah, that's right. Forgot about the reduction treaties.
And as someone previously said, our submarines can fill the sea-based nuclear role already. Fighter-bombers carrying nukes can also be flown off carriers, although I doubt the Nimitz carriers have nuclear weapons onboard currently. Anybody know if this is the case or not?

[Ninjam3rc]

The nuke thing isn't something that anyone is going to confirm or deny. As far as the Aegis and cruise missiles comment, that's true to an extent. But missiles can't provide continuous support to amphibious forces.

[pfhatoa]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Thermis

Edit, made a typo meant to say intended not invented. Silly spellcheck...

Ah, that was what confused me.