Chap Believes The Hype. Or Not.
A commenter on my previous BB post comments thusly:
I also think that a Battleship has tremendous intimidation capabilities that few other weapons offer beside nuclear missiles.
Unlike a submarine slinking silent and unseen in coastal waters, unlike an Aircraft carrier cruising 200 miles off shore, I battleship
is right there in your face, right off your beach Mr. Assad. Tell your poor oppressed people how scared the Americans are of you,
then look off the beach and know the truth.
So, then. Behold the awesome, intimidating power of a ship right off your coast. It’s in beautiful clear daytime weather, too, so you get the full intimidating effect.
port visit, Saipan, 2000, shore
Hint: there is more than one out there. (The white stuff might well be waves breaking over a shallow spot–look harder!) They’re much, much closer than an American warship will go into another country’s territory with the exceptions of innocent or transit passage, or at a time too late to do any psyops value by its presence.
Nowadays for the average Joe the mindshare you want is from CNN, or due to enemy being killed, not visual observation from the shore. An adversary calculates capability and intent. Capability inherent in a BB isn’t much unless you’re talking a smaller Tomahawk loadout than some (and look how much damage those things do given the size) or lobbing Volkswagens into a random circle somewhere around where you want to hit. Not in logistics, strike inland, STOM…although I guess they could carry a leaflet printing press, EW suite and radio station. Then again, so could a YP. Is that worth not just billions of dollars (you know we asked for only four ships this year, right?) but further billions in operational and manpower costs? I mean, by this time you need archaeologists to get the things up and running…
14 Responses to “Chap Believes The Hype. Or Not.”
Trackback URL for Chap Believes The Hype. Or Not.: http://gmapalumni.org/chapomatic/wp-trackback.php?p=891
June 9th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
I know from a “perch” of 41 ft above the ocean’s surface, the distance to the horizon is 7.2NM…..so, iffn you’re flatfooted on your beach, it’ll be a little hard to distingiush the BB, since you may only be able to barely see a bit of the top of the masts. For the untrained eye, the run of the mill person would probably not suspect it to be a BB…
Good application of physics, Chap, but, I always wonder when you press the advantage of the “silent service” what you’re really up to…:)
June 9th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
So do I!
June 10th, 2005 at 10:27 am
When I wrote the orginal remarks the photo I had in mind was this one;
http://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/photoGallery/?fa=viewPhoto&photoId=26
Or this one; I’m afraid the beach is obscured by the gigantic fireball from the guns, but it’s off Lebanon. Perhaps it was visible from shore though.
http://www.bb62museum.org/images/8406362.jpg
Or maybe we could just send them this page of photos of the USS New Jersey unloading 10 tons of high explosive ordinance in a single broadside? (It would probably make sense to have one battleship just in case the photos don’t convince them.)
http://www.ussbattleshipnj.com/ussnj/miscphotos_uncataloged.htm
Failing in that, I would then threaten and intimidate them with this photo of the entire compliment of Submarine Squadron 16 cruising right off their coast.
http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/graphics/ocean.jpg
Can’t you just feel the shivers run down your spine?
June 10th, 2005 at 10:39 am
Actually, that’s what I’m talking about. The museum links are photos from either on the ship, or within a couple hundred feet away. You see them because someone took a picture–and that’s what I mean about “mindshare via CNN”. It ain’t that intimidating from shore and hasn’t been for a while.
Now let’s take your fake photo of submarines, there. (My photo has one merchant, an abandoned barge, and a pleasure craft, as well as some sailboats at the corner and wave action, btw.) What’s intimidating about that empty picture, to a decision maker, is that you don’t know where they are. Why do you think a sniper has psyops value, or a terrorist? Because you fear more what you can’t see but can touch you.
Hard concept, I know–and those booms sure look cool from the weatherdeck. But for the shore side, that’s an item of faith for the “Bring back the BBs” crowd that I don’t have faith in.
June 10th, 2005 at 1:26 pm
I’m afraid that I’m just stuck with my own eye witness experience and that of my Marine pal ashore in Lebanon. I think we have a tendency to imagine fear and intimitation from our own mindset rather than that of our enemy. Of course an unseen sniper will make you keep your head down, AFTER you see someone else get theirs blown off. But both will remain ducked below the berm if an Abrams tank is on the other side of it. Just because we are no longer impressed by big guns booming 10 miles off the beach, does not mean our enemies aren’t either.
I offered the two examples in the B-52 and A-10 Thunderbolt. Both weapon systems were considered by our own side as hopelessly outdated, yet intelligence reports from Iraqi prisoners indicate that these two weapons were the most feared and most intimidating on the battlefield. It was not the smart bombs, MLRS vehicles, cruise missiles, carrier aircraft or unmanned recon planes. It was a big bomber dropping lots of bombs and a small jet that seemed unconcerned and untouched by groundfire.
I think a case can be made that the terrorists and their totalitarian supporters are not intimidated by things they can’t see. They obviously couldn’t see our response to 9/11 coming in their imagninations either. The reaction in Lebanon did not occur until they saw they saw the election in Iraq and all those millions of purple fingers.
Now as for photos. I was just kidding about the Subron 16 photo, but yours misleads too. An abandoned barge is not 45,000 tons in displacement. A few pleasure craft are not 887 feet long. Neither can hurl 2700 lb projectiles 25 miles inland. When the New Jersey arrived off Lebanon it drew crowds on the beach, when it fired it’s guns it dispersed those crowds on the beach from 10 miles away. The pro-Syrain Lebanese press at the time referred to the New Jersey as as ‘terror weapon.’ It may be noted that no such claim was made about the Carrier Independence which was using its planes to bomb Syrian positions in the hills.(and losing planes and pilots in the process. My Marine pal also commented that the Lebanese were seriously down on anything related to New Jersey because of the Battleship. Some even carried signs in protest that humorously said “Death to New Jersey.” He also related that when they got shelled at the airport they looked forward to the retaliation handed out by “The Big J” who would be in action within about 15 minutes. To paraphrase him, they used to cheer the rounds visibly going over their heads to blast Syrian artillery positions, the exact words were to the effect of “Here, eat some of that you bastards.”
Finally, I think the station keeping ability of a battleship combined with its tremendous ordinance delivery in a matter of minutes makes it a pretty good weapon. I think its cheaper both materially and politically than an Carrier put to the same purpose. Carrier strike missions take longer to plan and carry the risk of lost planes and dead or captured pilots. I also don’t think that any third world countries possess weaons that can sink a battleship. Hell, in WWII first world countries did not possess a great ability to sink battleships. Submarines only acounted for 3 out of about 50 afloat in all navies. Our own subs only sank one late in the war and we did not lose a single BB after Pearl Harbor. Japan’s two most modern Battleships took the combined aircraft from 5 Carriers and dozens upon dozens of torpedo and bomb hits t sink them. In truth the most effective anti-battleship weapon was another battleship. I can’t see North Korea using a nuclear missile on a BB, it would take a direct hit and what if they missed? The BB could retaliate with nuclear missiles in kind within an hour or so once it received the order. What’s wrong with having a weapon that no else has a counter to?
June 10th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
Oh, and I forgot to say how much I like your blog, cause I do. We just have this friendly disagreement about Battleships.
June 10th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
Thanks for the compliment! This is, after all, a disagreement of faith, right? Here’s some nits and then I’m done.
What your Marine friend liked was the effect on the beach. If you could get that effect then it doesn’t matter what caused it, really. I’m definitely not saying submarines have anything to do with this, by the way–what you want is a truck with launchers, and a sub ain’t that in quantity.
Point taken about the B-52 and A-10, with one big exception–the B-52 is old system, but a B-52 with a FAC and JDAMs is a new weapons system. The A-10 is an old weapons system perfectly designed for a role it didn’t have for a long time. (Tanks are getting a little attention for the same reason.)
”Nuclear missiles”? Man, you’re about three Nuclear Posture Reviews behind, and that’s all I’ve got to say about that.
I don’t know about politically, but it’s definitely more expensive to operate a BB. More people, older stuff; the ammo lines have been silent for half a century; not exactly fuel efficient. Good point about risk to personnel in aircraft, and I’d add mass is harder with non-A-10 type planes.
And we still need to operationalize STOM. The Marines aren’t going to be places where something that can shoot ten miles in will help (cf. Afghanistan). They’re working on two hundred miles for their ‘landing’. The world’s changing…
June 10th, 2005 at 2:18 pm
My $0.02:
Sean said-
If we had the $$’s I’d say bring ‘em back for the “specific” mission you describe..
re- “I offered the two examples in the B-52 and A-10 Thunderbolt. Both weapon systems were considered by our own side as hopelessly outdated, yet intelligence reports from Iraqi prisoners indicate that these two weapons were the most feared and most intimidating on the battlefield. It was not the smart bombs, MLRS vehicles, cruise missiles, carrier aircraft or unmanned recon planes. It was a big bomber dropping lots of bombs and a small jet that seemed unconcerned and untouched by groundfire.”
The key word is “Iraqi prisoners”. Anyone of them SOBs that had a JDAM or a LGB dropped (non-B-52/A-10) on ‘em ain’t a prisoner- they’re with the ‘ 72 virgins’!
Get my point? Why do you think they buried all their MIGs in the friggin sand before we started?
Anybody look at putting a big gun (w/ERGM?) on the topside of an SSBN sneaking around in support of amphib ops ?…hard to pinpoint THAT artillery……
Another point. Just because we have air supremacy over Iraq for go-fasters- never take for granted the lethality or accuracy of their weapons.
B2- Just another “Blunt-nosed, Brown Shoe”
PS- I like this and all the new bubblehead sites! I really like the “war stories”. I always wondered how you guys lived since CAPT Beach stopped writing books. Aviators can’t “write good” so I haven’t seen many Naval Aviation sites except for NeptunusLex
June 11th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
I’m going to drop the subject as well, with a few qualifications;
The primary downer against battleships seems to hings on their cost to re-activate and maintain. I think there is more than money to consider. A single Aircraft carrier is about $7 billion to build and equip, but boy are they effective in their role. I say spend what you need to spend to maintain that mission effectiveness whether it’s new planes, sensors, flight deck configurations, propulsion systems, whatever. You can’t really waste money on a carrier from a war fighting standpoint.
I feel the same way about subs. I believe very strongly that SSBN’s deserve the lions share of the credit for deterring the Soviets from attempting the conquest of Europe. Our submerged nuclear deterrent was the one weapon the Soviets had panic attacks over. They knew they could not protect their own SSBNs from our attack boats and they could not find ours. When Congress questioned whether we needed further Seawolf types in service, I was pen in hand insisting that we did. Our SSBNs need continued support as well.
Now, I acknowledge that a battleship is old, not fuel efficient, (at 35 knots I will not concede that they’re slow) I’m also inclined to agree that when the road is clear I want to drive that brand new Toyota Prius with the gleaming paint and get my 50mpg. But when I’m in a demolition derby (as a metaphor for war) I want the 1973 Dodge Polara with the 4 ton curb weight and the 383 ci V8,….fuel economy and newness be damned. Let me have something that can give and even take a beating.
If the United States is serious about wanting to maintain the peace by being so powerful that no other power could dream of challenging us, we must consider the multiple threat scenarios that our Navy, as the first line of deterence and security, might face. With 39% of the worlds population living within 62 miles of the coast it stands to reason that the appearance of something like a Battleship will get noticed. I’m not inventing gunboat diplomacy here. A 1976 Brookings Institution report concluded that naval forces participated in 177 of 215 recorded instances of U.S. military diplomacy between 1946 and 1975. The psychological impact of a large warship suddenly appearing off the beach is the reason why nations wanted a 12 mile limit on the waters they could call their own. Back in 1981 Libya announced a 200 mile limit to its territorial waters which prompted us to sail a carrier battlegroup into those waters. Which in turn promptly shot down Libyan fighters sent to enforce the 200 mile claim. I doubt the Libyan people ever heard they lost those aircraft, but there would be no mistaking the meaning of a battleship cruising down the coast to the average herder or farmer being told that America wouldn’t dare come near their country for fear of what “Mullah So-in-so” might do. In a world in which many of the hostile countries we deal with keep their people in the dark about the world, ie no CNN watching, we can send a message that cannot be filtered or spun. It may not seem like a big deal, but back in mid 80′s a cripppled Soviet Victor III SSN surfaced about 140 miles off South Carolina. It was a very BIG deal at WINGLANT HQ at JAX. They needed a P-3 to do traffic control over the sub. You could walk on the sonor buoys. Initially it was treated as a flaming red “What the F***?” we scrambled every helo on the base, some of which were armed. We were afraid it was an SSBN on the surface, which is a very bad thing. It’s a very big deal to have warship off your coast, The United States possesses the ability to do something about a warship when they surface 140 miles out. Many of our potential adversaries can’t do anything about a ship that is only 14 miles off the beach. I just think we should have a platform that could operate in that environment in a sustained way. Any weapon that cannot be countered by our enemies is a worthwhile one to have.
They Syrians do some ugly things out of the port of Al-Latakia. The New Jersey could close that port by simply appearing outside the entrance. If required it could destroy that port and every ship in it. The fact that people could literally watch the ship do this has tremendous value from the “demonstration effect” side of things. I just see a battleship as another tool in the box, a screwdriver to turn a particular screw in a particular place. A carrier strike would be over in minutes, get in and get out. A Battleship can shell a place for days until we get the results we are after. At a lesser cost than using cruise missiles. That’s really all I’m saying…
June 15th, 2005 at 12:14 am
[...] ally since it’s got den Beste attention. Besides, I’ve already spent too much time on it. Since this latest round of “Bring Back The TriremesBattleships” came from a nati [...]
December 5th, 2005 at 11:08 am
[...] Sure, the battleships look cool, but looking snazzy is not a raison d’etre. (Update: For any new visitors, a convincing demonstration of the awesome presence we’re describing. ) A Trident can blow the freakin’ planet up, but it isn’t intimidating? What are we missing here? Each battleship, with a reactivation and modernization cost of only $1.5 billion, has firepower equivalent to two aircraft carriers using only one-eighth the manpower. Moreover, the battleships’ response is all-weather, is generally faster and is impervious to air defenses. [...]
December 27th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
I would love to see the return of the battleship.
There purpose is unmistakable when you sight one on the horizon.
I have seen them from 15nm and you can make out the 16inchers from that distance.
USS New Jersey shelled the Bekkaa Valley in Lebanon – hint, this valley is not on their coastline. You can see the 16in shells inflight.
Battleships were designed to intimidate.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:36 am
[...] cool, but looking snazzy is not a raison d’etre. (Update: For any new visitors, a convincing demonstration of the awesome presence we’re [...]
October 3rd, 2008 at 5:26 am
[...] sounding like a broken record in our point/counterpoint arguments about the Navy: Who can disprove this, in a way that a civilian will understand? How did a Navy have influence in this war, or this, [...]