Bringing Back the Battleship? 

Thank you! I will be doing a follow up video on the use of a Navy in upcoming videos. As for the Electronic Warfare, I agree, however, I don't understand the systems well enough to comment and since all of the details are usually classified I can't really make any accurate guesses as to current or future capabilities. As for WWII style aircraft guns there may be a follow up to that in the future as I have had some questions about that from friends!

That we will likely see within the next two or three years as an upgrade to our carriers and destroyers. I could see flak shells being used in 5 Inch guns again as well.

So the concept of a vessel like that was examined, however, it was decided that having a swiss army knife ship would put too many eggs in one basket. If the ship was hit or taken out of action it would significantly reduce the ability of the fleet it was tasked to. That combined with the high operational cost of all the systems in one ship, its hard to keep running. Plus, overall its more efficient for vessels to specialize in their roles in modern combat. Its why you have carriers and amphibious assault ships separated into two different ships and not a single platform. Would it be crazy cool? Heck yes! But sadly due to the nature of war a ship of that nature will never be built unless some nation has a ton of extra cash to burn.

@@wms-h2v Part of the concept is to avoid having a bunch of eggs without even a basket to protect them. The NAVY is killing the specialist ships now because every current class has revealed to be a bunch of fragile eggs without the ability to slug it out. They shoot their load and are useless after. To save money after the cost wasted on ships that required to only face the expected battlefield they are converting merchant ships for many roles and likewise buying back Fighters in masses that they planned to retire but the replacements are 2/3s unable to fly a mission (half of that unable to fly due to filings in the tanks.) The carrier remains the heart of the Navy but all the secondary roles haven't had a worthy upgrade since Vietnam The only US Navy ship left in service that has killed any enemy ship has wood sides and wind power. The last retired ship with such a kill got it in Vietnam, The last time the Navy sank anyone in battle was Iran under Reagan and that goes to A6 pilots from the now being broken Enterprise. The Navy is already spread too thin to do the peace time jobs. While the modern Battleship I propose would have limits, the flexibility with 4 to 6 it would be a force multiplier that could stay at sea for 2 to 4 year tours with a crew with modern equipment reduced to that of a WWII destroyer. The guns could all be ran by one to three guys locally vs. the old 30+ for a single main turret on old battleships. The ship would be far less of an egg shell with reserve buoyancy and reduced explosive mags (Just missiles and 5" or smaller rounds) and in the case of the missile boxes they blow out not through the ship if they go. The smaller stuff we use today also have major range limits that mirror issues we faced in WWII with the Japs. Also a reason the new cruisers/frigates failed is they cannot serve forward well even on peace time patrol because even with reduced crews they lacked the fuel and supply capacity (in essence only useful in a coastal roll at home)

I respectfully disagree that the Navy is abandoning the specialization idea. The fleet just ordered new frigates and is expected to order more A-Bs as well. If they were abandoning the idea they would not expand upon it. If you are referring to the LCS ships, they were discarded due to poor construction and quality, the frigates ordered are to replace them. Additionally, I disagree on the claim that ships have not been upgraded other then carriers. Our destroyers far outshine their older counterparts and systems like the Tomahawk and CWIS have been updated into modern iterations to support the ships. Is the navy spread thin, yes, but being spread thin and being combat incapable are two different things. We have ships off of China and Yemen proving that now. Once again, the issue with the Battleship is not the manpower or firepower, its the cost, upkeep, and concentration of resources. A vessel of this sort would sap resources from the Navy for other projects and likely result in the cancellation of a carrier type ship which in the modern era is unacceptable as a carrier would be more flexible then a battleship due to range issues. So, while I like the design and details for the ship, its use in modern combat is not practical based on the amount of tech and resources packed into it.

Actually there was talk of putting more of the Bradly style auto-cannons to take out drones and small boats since the gun is compact enough to work for the role and the US Military has a few of them to test the concept out. Bigger gun and nuclear reactors is still a bit off though due to shipbuilding restraints.

Nets have been proven to be somewhat effective on ground based systems like trucks and tanks, however, trying to implement nets as protection on ships comes with a few issues. The main issue is that nets would likely not be deployed over vital systems like weapons and electronics to ensure all systems can function properly. VLS Cells and Radar systems really don't have a way to integrate a net based defense and both of those are some of the most important parts of the ship to protect. I could see nets used on segments of ships without special systems such as the upper hull and parts of the superstructure, but it would likely be a partial solution at best.

Hi. Thanks for taking interest in my comment. Another thought came to mind. Talking of drones. Could remote subs be used to target our ships. They are double holed.i worked for Nassco.building ships. But if a type of remote sub had a small warhead with enough kick. This could be an issue

That's actually the topic of a video I will be making, specifically on the new Manta Drone that DARPA made and its impact on naval warfare. Its not as much the issue of the yield of the craft, its more off currently no navy on Earth has the ability to take out a swarm of underwater drones. Depth charges and the low number of torpedo mounts simply won't cut it. Missiles are still the best option, but like I said with the sustained bombardment issue, there are only a limited number of missiles. As I said though, working on a video for this so will hopefully have that out within the next month!

While this is off topic from the video, I will address the point made. The number of missiles China has in that category is small, additionally US ships have enough countermeasures to deal with the amount of missiles currently in China's stockpiles. However, the weapons they do have in that category are quite potent and there are very few equivalents other then in the US and Russia.