Does the modern fleet need missile and artillery battleships?

Everyone has heard very well about the aircraft carrier strike groups of the US Navy, which give Washington the opportunity to project its aggression in any part of the oceans. But not everyone knows that, in addition to the aircraft carriers as the core of the AUG (CBG - Carrier Battle Group), the Pentagon can form up to four surface combat groups (SAG - Surface Action Group), built around battleships. Yes, the United States is the only country that has retained four of its Iowa-class artillery battleships, which today function as museums and so on, but if necessary, they can be returned to combat capability within a few months. But why did these "rarities" find a place even in our age of supersonic aviation and hypersonic missiles?

All of us, who watched the action films of the 90s, are well aware of the battleship Missouri, which has appeared in more than one Hollywood movie. Of the planned six ships in this series, the United States managed to build only four by the end of World War II: in fact, Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri and Wisconsin. They did not have time to shoot at the Japanese ships, but later they reached their maximum potential, working on coastal targets in other wars. Although the "killer" of battleships is considered the massive use of carrier-based aircraft and the emergence of anti-ship missiles, this is not entirely true. Despite the fact that these armored monsters were built for the war of the past type, they have found a place in modern conflicts. How did it happen?



At first, a big plus of the Iowa project is their high speed, huge battleships can issue 32,5 knots. These are very serious characteristics, which allows them to go on an equal footing in orders with the most modern cruisers and destroyers.

Secondly, the powerful armor protection of the battleship, which provides it with increased survivability, can be considered an undoubted advantage. Where "Arleigh Burke" will have 1-2 missiles to go to the bottom, "Iowa" will withstand a dozen hits from anti-ship missiles, and then it will give back. In addition, the barbaric tests near Bikini Atoll showed that battleships are very resistant to the effects of a nuclear explosion. The Missouri and her Sisterships are nearly perfect flagships.

Thirdly, even in the age of rocket salvos and massive air strikes, large-caliber naval artillery is sometimes unexpectedly in demand. Each American battleship carries nine 50-caliber 406 mm Mk.7 guns. The weight of the Mk.8 armor-piercing projectile reaches a mass of 1225 kg. With a full charge of gunpowder weighing 297 kg, the projectile speed is 762 m / s. As they say, try to intercept. Few air defense systems are capable of this. But once hit, such a projectile will do things. In addition to armor-piercing, high-explosive and even special ammunition were developed in the United States - Mk.23 projectiles with a W-23 nuclear warhead with TNT equivalent of 1 kt.

Unsurprisingly, the seemingly outdated artillery battleships were in great demand after the end of World War II. In 1949, all four Iowas took part in the Korean War, where they showed themselves very well, since the effectiveness of each of their rounds was dozens of times superior to conventional howitzer artillery in power and accuracy. The next time the battleship's guns spoke up in Vietnam. "New Jersey" for 120 days with absolutely impunity destroyed bridges, roads and coastal positions of the enemy, leveling them to the ground, supporting the US Marine Corps. Suddenly it turned out that the guns of a battleship with a caliber of 406 mm in 30 minutes can release 270 high-explosive 862-kg shells with a total mass of 232,7 tons. on the target 228,6 tons of bombs. After calculating the costs, the Americans shed tears: the cost of delivering one ton of "ammunition" for New Jersey was $ 1,6 thousand, and for a nuclear aircraft carrier - $ 12 thousand. Interesting arithmetic turns out. The wars in Korea and Vietnam showed that an artillery battleship can perform many tasks "against the coast" much more efficiently and cheaper than carrier-based aircraft.

All this made the Pentagon think hard. All Iowas have undergone a deep modernization, having received new communication systems, radars, as well as weapons: eight launchers of BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles (four missiles per installation), four four-rocket launchers AGM-84 Harpoon, four anti-aircraft artillery complexes Mk. 15 "Volcano-Falanx", a platform for servicing helicopters and UAVs appeared. All this - shooting with the main caliber, the launches of "Harpoon" and "Tomahawks", as well as the work of the anti-aircraft complex - we could see in the Hollywood blockbuster "Under Siege", which was filmed aboard the Missouri, with "our" actor Stephen Seagal in the main roles. Such modernization of veterans made it possible to actively use them already during the civil war in Lebanon and during Operation Desert Storm, where Missouri and Wisconsin successfully hit the Iraqis not only with cannon artillery, but also with cruise missiles.


After the American battleships were transferred to the so-called "naphthalene fleet", becoming museum ships. Tourists can walk on their decks, but they will not be allowed inside. The fact is that literally in a few months "Iowa" can be returned to service, since there may again be work for them. The unexpected success of their application in modern "colonial" conflicts, which the United States is so fond of waging, led to the development of a new concept in 1980. The idea arose to create four surface combat groups SAG (Surface Action Group), but not around an aircraft carrier, but a battleship. In addition to Iowa, such a group may include 1 Ticonderoga-class cruiser and 3 destroyers Arlie Burke each, which are supposed to cover the battleship, designed to be the operational headquarters and "iron" the coast with giant shells. Each of the four SAGs can operate independently or as part of the AUG.

It turns out that even in the 21st century, an artillery battleship is not such a useless anachronism, and in the United States there were even publications calling for the resumption of their construction. For all the skepticism about such proposals, there is some rational grain in this.

When using modern of technologies can be made completely uninhabited by the towers of the main caliber, at the same time increasing the rate of fire of the guns and the resource of their trunks. The seemingly modest range, which makes it possible to fire only along the coast of an enemy that does not have serious anti-ship protection, can be radically increased by using active-rocket projectiles capable of flying up to 200 kilometers. At the same time, the cost of an artillery shot will be several times cheaper than that of a rocket shot, but intercepting a giant projectile flying at great speed will become a colossal problem for existing air defense systems. Automation of control systems will reduce the size of the crew, while the ship's hull can accommodate a large number of universal launch cells for missiles, which will be larger than on a conventional cruiser or destroyer. For the reasons indicated above, such ideas are not as absurd as they seem at first glance.