do big guns have a modern role?

[deathjester]

I like big guns, attached to ships with plenty of armour.  I also like tomahawks, small fast programmable precision weapons.  But, each one costs a MILLION dollars (and that was 1991 prices!)

1 million each on ships made out of tin foil

whats the destructive power of a tomohawk relative to a big shell? obviously the shell will have alot more kinetic energy but i dont know about explosive

Agreed!  An A-10 would be able to open up a modern naval vessel like a can opener - assuming it could get close enough...as for power, the TASM (Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile),  carries a 1000lb warhead, but is slower than the supersonic 16" shells, which, as you point out carries massive kinetic energy as well.  
Payload wise, both can carry different warheads, which can all be set for delayed, contact, or airburst detonation.  
I personally think that the best option is for a platform that carries both, which is why the Americans are developing heavy caliber rail guns for shore bombardment - not getting rid of heavy naval artillery, just improving it!

[eatthis]

I like big guns, attached to ships with plenty of armour.  I also like tomahawks, small fast programmable precision weapons.  But, each one costs a MILLION dollars (and that was 1991 prices!)

1 million each on ships made out of tin foil

whats the destructive power of a tomohawk relative to a big shell? obviously the shell will have alot more kinetic energy but i dont know about explosive

Agreed!  An A-10 would be able to open up a modern naval vessel like a can opener - assuming it could get close enough...as for power, the TASM (Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile),  carries a 1000lb warhead, but is slower than the supersonic 16" shells, which, as you point out carries massive kinetic energy as well.  
Payload wise, both can carry different warheads, which can all be set for delayed, contact, or airburst detonation.  
I personally think that the best option is for a platform that carries both, which is why the Americans are developing heavy caliber rail guns for shore bombardment - not getting rid of heavy naval artillery, just improving it!

i didnt know that but that is what i was thinking
ie a few big guns + missiles on a boat that actually has some survivability

[deathjester]

It is a big investment just to have someone stick a missile in it that doesn't cost much more than a good sized speedboat (or indeed, an actual speedboat) and the ship is crippled!  There is also the question of service life - average modern frigate, 20-25 years.  Iowa class, 50 -75 years!  That's quite a long term saving...

[pyro-manic]

Kit: Not quite. The super-heavy armour-piercing shell was 2700lbs, but the HE shells were considerably lighter, at 1900lbs. Of this, the bursting charge was only a small fraction of the total weight, at 153.6lbs. Most of the energy delivered is kinetic.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

New naval guns are much, much smaller than battleship guns. Flexibility is key. You can stick a medium sized gun (say 6"/155mm, or 8"/203mm) on a fairly small ship, but a super-heavy gun like a 16" needs a much larger hull, and dictates the layout of the ship and it's systems due to the recoil and blast forces involved.

It's worth pointing out that the Iowas were re-activated more than once, at enormous cost. They could be said to be many things, but "cheap" is not one of them.

An A-10 is a negligible threat to any modern warship - it's not stealthy, and very slow.

[eatthis]

Kit: Not quite. The super-heavy armour-piercing shell was 2700lbs, but the HE shells were considerably lighter, at 1900lbs. Of this, the bursting charge was only a small fraction of the total weight, at 153.6lbs. Most of the energy delivered is kinetic.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

New naval guns are much, much smaller than battleship guns. Flexibility is key. You can stick a medium sized gun (say 6"/155mm, or 8"/203mm) on a fairly small ship, but a super-heavy gun like a 16" needs a much larger hull, and dictates the layout of the ship and it's systems due to the recoil and blast forces involved.

It's worth pointing out that the Iowas were re-activated more than once, at enormous cost. They could be said to be many things, but "cheap" is not one of them.

An A-10 is a negligible threat to any modern warship - it's not stealthy, and very slow.

An A-10 is a negligible threat to any modern warship - it's not stealthy, and very slow

they said that about the swordfish lol

[PR19_Kit]

An A-10 is a negligible threat to any modern warship - it's not stealthy, and very slow

they said that about the swordfish lol

At some cost as I recall.

[eatthis]

An A-10 is a negligible threat to any modern warship - it's not stealthy, and very slow

they said that about the swordfish lol

At some cost as I recall.

exactly

[pyro-manic]

Slight issue of no anti-ship weapons, and being spotted and shot down twenty miles beyond visual range, though...

[rickshaw]

I like big guns, attached to ships with plenty of armour.  I also like tomahawks, small fast programmable precision weapons.  But, each one costs a MILLION dollars (and that was 1991 prices!)

The price has come down considerably.  Last I saw was about $500,000 a round in early 2000s prices.  Price per round on a 16in shell is about the same and because of the need to restart and rebuild whole industries to make them, it would be significantly more for new rounds.   That is what happens in economies of scale.

Then you have the price of the guns, themselves, whereas the price for a cruise missile launcher is considerably less.  Large guns consist of multiple pieces - tubes, liners and locking systems, each which has to be precisely machined to ensure they fit and align, whereas a missile launcher can consist of a few guide rails and a container.   Again, the industries to make the tubes, liners and locking systems has to be rebuilt.

[kerick]

Not only would the industries need to be rebuilt but the technology reinvented. A new battleship today would have to be re engineered from the keel up. That would be very expensive.
On the other hand, I understand the Marines desire for fire support. When you are going ashore, you want the ability to flatten anything in your path. It would require an awefull lot of missiles to do that.

[rickshaw]

It is a big investment just to have someone stick a missile in it that doesn't cost much more than a good sized speedboat (or indeed, an actual speedboat) and the ship is crippled!  There is also the question of service life - average modern frigate, 20-25 years.  Iowa class, 50 -75 years!  That's quite a long term saving...

Not really.  Modern ships are designed to ease and simplify maintenance and reduce manpower requirements.  WWII battleships are not.  One of the largest ongoing cost of any warship is manpower - the wages of the men and women who man the craft and keep it working.   Then you have the cost of moving the ship around the globe.  WWII battleships weren't designed for economical running, whereas modern warships are.   While the longer a vessel is in use, the more time there is to amortise their initial cost, then you have to add on the costs of keeping it in service, which increase with age because the technology is older and harder to maintain.

Surprisingly, the cheapest thing in warship production is steel, which is one reason why size isn't much of an issue as far as costs go and navies have tended to build bigger ships.  However, that is non-hardened, unarmoured, mild steel.  You start producing large quantities of hardened, armoured steel again, those industries will also have to be rebuilt.  The rolling mills simply aren't there any more.

While modern warships may appear less well protected compared to their forebears, the idea is that they are harder to find because the range of their weapons have increased so they can fire from much further away and hence hide in a much larger expanse of ocean.   This is why locating sensors and stealth have increased in importance.  It's cheaper to hide than to build protection in.   Naval ships since about 1900 have tended to be one shot weapons - if they are damaged, they are usually so badly damaged that they must withdraw from operations to be either scrapped or rebuilt.  Rarely did ships in either world wars or after take sustained damage and continue to fight for extended periods, no matter how well armoured they were.

[zenrat]

Battleships - needed for when the aliens invade Hawaii.

[PR19_Kit]

Battleships - needed for when the aliens invade Hawaii.

You've been watching movies again, I know.......... 

[NARSES2]

 Again, the industries to make the tubes, liners and locking systems has to be rebuilt.

Some of the kit is still around, I've seen it and some small quantities of armour plate are still being rolled. They have found other uses but the capabilities are still there. The real problem and it has been alluded to is the skill set. It's nearly all gone. Indeed may have all gone by now. There was still some around when I retired (and no I was a pen pusher) but those guys were older then me

[deathjester]

Someone clearly knows how, as US aircraft carriers have armoured hulls!
anyway, Rail guns, anyone?