MouthBQ98 said:

---

Good point. As long as the opposition lacks first rate jamming technology, a floating hangar full of drones might be more effective if they can outrange counterfire.

---

i think amphibian carriers (or drone designed carriers) full of drones makes more sense than ships that shoot shells

Probably some at both. The best defense against drones besides really good EW is proximity shells from a rapid firing light cannon.

BQ_90 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

The navy is learning what the Air Force learned in the 1960's: guns are useful because they are cheap and not everything requires or deserves a missile.

Most of our ships still sport a 5 inch gun, plus a scattering of 3 inch guns. It seems like we might want to invest in useful guns more for moderate to closer range work.

---

with drones technology the way it's going, getting in closer might not be a good option or you need to be prepared to lose some ships

---

A floating drone ship of a couple of heavily armored/automated Iowa-class turrets might be better than some notional swarm of 200 buck drones.

Naval artillery has for generations ultimately won vs. shore-based defenses/canons/fortifications etc. This didn't start at Ft Sumter, or the Dardanelles, or Utah Beach. It's just that people today yet again think warfare is simply too sophisticated for that to still be true. It's not.

I don't think BQ90 is in favor of victory by attrition in this instance, as your two examples were.

The Houthi's couldn't put a dent in a modernized Iowa class. It's an old debate, and some of the ideas just wouldn't work (such as replacing a turret with a large VLS system).

The insane and fallacious idea that the Zumwalts actually replaced this capability is illustrated by their impotency vs. the Houthi's.

Quote:

---

Battleships captivate the imagination. Before they were displaced by aircraft carriers, battleships were symbols of great-power status. Some of the most iconic were the American Iowa class, the last battleships ever built by the United States. Powerful in appearance, yet with sleek lines filled in with haze gray, the Iowa class served in World War II and were unretired three more times to serve as the U.S. Navy's big guns. If we brought them back today, what would they look like?

The National Defense Authorization Act for 1996, generally known as the defense budget, had a unique provision hidden inside the text: the text directed the Navy to keep at least of the four Iowa-class ships on the Naval Register in good condition, retain the logistical support to maintain battleships on active duty and keep those ships on the Register until the secretary of the navy certified that existing naval gunfire support equaled or exceeded the firepower of two battleships. Iowa and Wisconsin were finally stricken from the Register in 2006 after the secretary of the navy, citing the upcoming thirty-two Zumwalt-class destroyers, certified they were no longer needed.

---

1945 piece.

BusterAg said:

---

amercer said:

---

How much money we going to waste on this?

---

A lot less than the cost of a new destroyer.

---

And a lot less than having "temporary bases" and troops/contractors etc in Iraq and Afghanistan for almost two decades