How Much Would It Cost to Build a Battleship Today?

In this episode we're talking about the costs associated with building a new or reactivating an old battleship today.

For our previous videos on the Battle of Leyte Gulf:

To support this channel and Battleship New Jersey, go to:

[Turboy]

Short answer: They'd be comparable in cost to new aircraft carriers. The notion of a new, nuclear powered battleship that's technologically up to date is pretty exciting.

[patrickjames]

I want a fleet of 8 modern battleships. Damn the cost, full speed ahead.

[Carrpocalypse]

I'd definitely build new. Not only would the maintenance cost be considerably lower, but modernizing and automating many functions would allow for a much smaller crew.

[anthonysabol]

In the short run, if we just needed battleships for a single mission or two, reactivating old ones would totally be the ideal way to go. But if it’s for the long run, building a brand new ship would be best

[stonecutter]

Long term, going for new build would be better. Spare parts would be easier to obtain. Nuclear power, decent armor to defeat current threats, and far easier to upgrade.

[imperialguardsman]

I honestly believe that the value of being able to put (comparatively) cheap 16" shells anywhere remotely close to a shoreline at these volumes is understated

[StevenPLegere]

I served 21 years in the Navy and spent a lot of time thinking about this a couple years ago I sat down and figured this out. A lot of it depends on whether it's nuclear powered or not and how many you are going to build. The design I drew up for fun 990ft x 108ft & 50, 000 tons had 2x3 16 in/50 cal guns, 8x2 127mm/62 cal guns, 8x2 30mm guns, 6 20mm Phalanx CIWS, 4 RAM 21cell CIWS, 360 VLS cells for (SM-3/SM-6, ESSM, Tomahawk, & ASROC missles), 8x4 Harpoon Launchers, 2x3 324mm Torpedo Launchers, below deck hanger space for 4 SH-60/MH-60 & 4 AH-1Z Helicopters, AEGIS combat system, enough armor to defeat any known anti-ship missile and Nuclear propulsion... From my estimates if you built at least four you could build my design for 3.5 to 4 billion dollars per ship.

[bitflogger]

For tight spots, a battleship that is very hard to sink would be useful.

[Grafknar]

It will be better to build new ones. You could build them from scratch to be cheaper to operate daily and Ryan gets to keep his job and make these videos. 😊

[TheBigExclusive]

Unfortunately the Rail gun program was cancelled. They couldn't solve the problem of the barrel being destroyed after a few shots.

[iLumberjack]

Before we talk about how we'd engineer a new battleship, we should probably settle on a mission. It makes sense to build enormous aircraft carriers because they can project power for hundreds of miles in every direction. Likewise, the rest of the ships in the battle group have similar power projection capabilities.

A battleship, on the other hand, exists to give her enormous guns a ride to work. Because guns have limited range compared to missiles, it was important to have significant armor to remain in the fight against a peer adversary. But sadly, the battleship's primary mission of going toe to toe against other battleships has been over for more than 80 years. That leaves shore bombardment.

As cool as a new, modern battleship would be, there are cheaper and less risky means to that end. Other than national vanity, I don't see a mission for a warship that resembles the capabilities of a battleship. Maybe there's a place for an upsized missile boat with larger capacity that could serve as a central fleet replenishment repository, extending the ability of a fleet to stay in a hostile region longer, but that seems a stretch... And it certainly wouldn't be a battleship in the traditional sense.

[KyriosMirage]

Definitely build new. The initial up front cost of restarting production would be a one-time deal, so that's spread across all the new BBs you build. So, build up to Jutland numbers, and that's a minuscule cost per unit!

[Del_S]

I estimate it will cost at least $3.50, probably a good deal more.

The other issue of a new battleship is someone will basically suggest an arsenal ship, a missile cruiser, or a hybrid to operate helis and STOVL drones/jets while also lobbing missiles around. And then get cancelled before it sees a single bit of steel cut after it costs $3.5bn on R&D alone due to mission creep.

[rocketguardian]

I recall hearing something about how they never replaced the analog fire control computer because back in the eighties they couldn't build an electronic version that could do the job any better. Wondering if maybe analog is still the way to go since an EMP can't shut it down.

[marcbark]

I love the look and sound of a Iowa class ship, but the fact is the battleships had their time in the sun, but a large carrier and submarine force would be better money spent.

[michaelmartin]

Honestly, I believe a better place to start would be modernizing an Alaska class Battle Cruiser. Six 12" guns in the front and a missile launcher in the rear, along with armor that while not up to the Iowa class would be proof against any modern missiles or guns in use today. And build enough to match one up with each of the Amphibious groups, so they can provide some serious ground support in case the Marines do need to land on the ground.

As there are really no "capitol ships" anymore an Iowa class would be overkill in most cases. But a Battle Cruiser built with good armor and six large guns for shore support would be of great use when paired with the Amphibious groups like the USS America. Especially if they made RAP rocket assisted projectiles for it. A 12" shell with a range of 100 miles would be enough to scare most adversaries.

[theilluminatist]

Ryan....you keep tempting all the experienced Naval and Mechanical Engineering types and naval ship Aficionados out here in your audience with interesting Battleship remake/refurbish debate videos like this one...So have you heard any new rumors? As an ole Navy salt with young family now in the active Naval Officer Corp., here is one that I have heard: Apparently there is an interest in returning Battleships to the USN beginning amongst the USN Officer Corp. Its becoming more and more a topic of interest and a topic of significant discussion among the "Younger" active duty US Naval Officer Corp these days from Lt's up to about the Commander level. There is a possibility that this interest will continue to take hold and grow across the USN Officer Corp over the next few years...so "never say never" about the return of those mighty ships, and keep doing the excellent job your doing maintaining the New Jersey and in keeping Battleships in the public awareness like your doing with your excellent series of videos! I found your coverage of the USS Texas drydock period start in Galveston especially interesting! Always a pleasure to watch...

[Chobittsu]

If I had a gun to my head, I would scratch-build a design following the design philosophy and aesthetic of Jean Bart. Main guns for shore bombardment, perhaps railguns if they're available, but a focus on missiles, both surface to air and surface to surface, utilizing the aft section of the ship. Honestly it would have more in common with an arsenal ship than a battleship, maybe 50/50

[AQuietNight]

The barrels for the 16" inch guns could be made. In Pennsylvania the machinery
for such large devices are still in use. The company was once part of Bethlehem
Steel and more than likely they manufactured the original guns for the Iowa class.
It is a safe bet just making a few gun barrels would be very expensive.

[elijahwerner]

One thing the Iowas were really good at was the display of power with their big hull and big guns. Nuclear subs don't really fit that role since they work hard not to be seen. Supercarriers can pull it off by virtue of their size but they really need to be out at sea to flex their muscle. Burkes and Ticonderogas look cool, but keep most of their armament under cover. So to answer the question, I'd be looking for a new design which carries forward that idea of visible force which looks imposing even when tied at the pier.