Why Battleships?

In a past post (see, "Why Not Battleships?") we reviewed the arguments against a modern battleship and were unable to find a compelling reason not to build them.  However, that does not necessarily mean that there are any compelling reasons to build them.  Let’s see if there.  Here are some of the arguments fora battleship.

Presence – One of the Navy’s major justifications for its very existence is presence/deterrence.  Personally, I find that rationale to be completely unfounded and historically dubious but that’s a separate topic.  The Navy feels presence is a major justification and nothing says presence like a battleship.  Even critics would have to agree with this – they may not agree that it’s worth it but they can’t deny the sheer imposing presence of a battleship.  There is no better naval presence or deterrence than a battleship.

So, presence would seem to be a valid reason to build battleships.

Firepower – As we noted in the previous post, a battleship has more firepower, more sustained firepower, and more responsive firepower than a carrier – and the battleship’s firepower can’t be jammed, decoyed, shot down, or have a pilot captured.

Within its inherent range limitation, the firepower of the battleship, therefore, offers a viable alternative to a carrier group which frees up the carrier for its primary mission of air superiority and escort of Tomahawk shooters.

A battleship utterly dominates anything it can reach.

So, firepower would seem to be a valid reason to build battleships.

Flexibility – As noted in the preceding discussion of firepower, a battleship offers the ability to conduct significant strikes without requiring a carrier.  This flexibility would be operationally advantageous given the limited number of carriers in the fleet.

Further, the ability of a battleship to operate as the centerpiece of a powerful surface group gives the navy the flexibility to operate more surface groups than just the few carrier groups that are currently possible.

So, flexibility would seem to be a valid reason to build battleships.

Amphibious Assault – We’ve noted that the Navy/Marine amphibious assault doctrine completely negates any possibility of gun support.  Given the Marine’s already light combat structure, the absence of naval gun support effectively renders the entire concept of amphibious assault null and void.  The existence of battleship gun support completely changes that picture and makes amphibious assault conceptually possible again.  The ability to stand relatively near shore and provide gun support with near-immunity to land based rockets, artillery, and anti-ship missiles (via the small size of mobile anti-ship missiles and the presence of the Aegis umbrella) is a huge advantage in an assault.  

So, amphibious assault would seem to be a valid reason to build battleships.

Pressure – The Navy’s distributed lethality concept is predicated on the ability to apply much greater operational and tactical pressure on the enemy by forcing them to account for more threats.  Again, ComNavOps believes this is bilgewater but the Navy believes it.  That being the case, a battleship, alone (stupid) or in a group, would be the epitome of creating additional pressure on the enemy’s operational and tactical situation.  Unlike, say, an LCS with a few anti-ship missiles (if that comes to be), a battleship would be a major threat to both the enemy’s surface and land assets.  The enemy would have to devote significant resources to defending against a battleship group.

So, pressure would seem to be a valid reason to build battleships.

Range – The Iowa class battleships had a range of 15,000 nm at 15 kts, according to Wiki.  Short of nuclear propulsion, this is about as good as it gets.  This type of range is particularly applicable to the Pacific/China theatre and stands out in stark contrast to the LCS which has proven to be a disaster in its deployments to the Pacific.  Given the Navy’s limited bases and limited at-sea replenishment and refueling ships, a powerful ship with great range is mandatory.

So, range would seem to be a valid reason to build battleships.

We noted no compelling reasons not to build modern battleships and now we note several reasons to build them.  Operational and tactical flexibility combined with immense firepower are the main reasons for building modern battleships.  The increase in lethality and options that a battleship provides would be a tremendous advantage for any fleet.  The logic seems clear – battleships are a good idea and a modern battleship is long overdue.

Bagikan Artikel ini