View Single Post
Old 2012-03-19, 11:00   Link #91
Renegade334
Sleepy Lurker
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nun'yabiznehz
Age: 38
The thing is that with the advent of hypersonic/cruise/long range missiles AND naval air power (post-WWII rise of aircraft carriers), warships primarily armed with guns became less and less important. Cruisers, destroyers and frigates armed with missile launchers could theoretically fulfill the same goals without having to get in harm's way (gun range), without having to disburse too much money (heavy armor, enormous hull, powerful propulsion, large cannons, etc). Furthermore, battleships became increasingly inapt to answer the new threats, as shown by the sinking of the Admiral Belgrano cruiser during the Falklands. Guns simply couldn't match missiles and guided torpedos. The US Navy tried to remedy that by arming the Iowas with several missile launchers and cutting down the number of small canons, but much of the cruise missile launches in campaigns like Desert Storm were made by Spruance/Ticonderoga/Los Angeles vessels. Still, it was a good try.

Somewhere in the 1990s, with the appearance of destroyers of the DDG51 Arleigh Burke class, which were among the very first to use stealth shapes, the few remaining battleships became exceedingly obsolete - ships could now safely sail around under the protection of their own stealthiness (an Arleigh Burke apparently has the radar signature of a small fishing trawler), whereas the boxy, larger battleships could easily be detected by long-range radars and are virtually ominously large, sitting ducks (even with the addition of RAM/CIWS weapons, they're still overgrown targets).

But if there was one thing the battleships were good at, it was delivering large amounts of firepower at a fraction of a cruise missile's cost - which is why the US Navy still used the Iowa class during Desert Storm and in Lebanon - shelling the coast to prepare for the arrival of amphibious troops proved just how (cost-)efficient they were - beside, 406mm shells still pack quite a psychological punch on the targeted infantry.

But when the Iowas were starting to get too old and the Pentagon began to feel the (government-triggered) need to tighten its own (financial) belt, people started thinking about retiring them for good. But the above scenario (relatively cheap coastal bombardment) was still irreplaceable enough to stall the programmed retirement - and many Congressmen petitioned for keeping the four Iowas around for a little longer.

As a matter of fact, there was a proposed replacement for the Iowas, but the design is so controversial (possibly unstable tumblehome hull, smaller amount of VLS missile launchers than desired, etc) that the list of approved ships was very recently reduced to only three units instead of the initial several dozen. The first ship, USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000), is currently under construction, but it's practically become a forlorn hope - they are to surface warfare what the Seawolf subs were to the Silent Service - a prematurely interrupted wet dream.
__________________
<< -- Click to enter my (dead) GFX thread.
Renegade334 is offline   Reply With Quote