Still battling over the battlewagons
12 Sep 2006
A reader tipped me off to this story by Robert Novak: Marines vs. Military-Industrial Complex:
Click
The U.S. Navy’s last two battleships appeared in December 2005 to have seen their final combat, on their way to being museum pieces. That’s not necessarily so. A decision to be made on Capitol Hill this week will determine whether the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin are ready for a possible naval confrontation in the Persian Gulf with Iran.
Advocates of maintaining the World War II-vintage warships as troop-support firing platforms fell short nine months ago in efforts to block a provision in the Defense Department authorization bill sending the vessels to museums. Overlooked then was the bill’s conference report requiring that the battle wagons be returned to active duty if the president declares a national emergency. But they will be useless relics unless this year’s Defense authorization prohibits changes in the battleships that “would impair their military utility.”
I thought this was a dead horse. But, hey! Still time to get a few kicks in!
At issue in the conference to resolve Senate and House differences on the authorization bill (continuing to meet this week) is language in the House Armed Services Committee report. It would require that the battleships “must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility” and “must be preserved in their present condition.”
The potential to use the battleships in a “show of force” against Iran is called a main reason to keep them around. While I’m a bit skeptical that it’s a good idea to retire them old ladies, I sure don’t think that refitting and crewing them in time to avert a potential war with Iran is going to happen.
Speaking of old battleships: Murdoc is going to be taking the Hard Hat Tour of the USS Texas (BB 35) on October 14th. If you’re in the area, stop by and we’ll go crawling through areas of the ship normally closed to the public. Let me know if you’ll be there.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
I cannot believe we could scrap the battleships while the Strait of Hormuz is clearly being being threatened by Iran. How can even the most jaded of defense contractors propose such a thing? It makes me wonder how bad things have to get before we start being Americans first. This is what happens when you socialize your defense industry. This is what happens when you pay more for incompetence than demonstrated skill. This is what happens when you pay more for sloth than speed. We are reaping what we have sown.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
All Hands on Deck!, All Hands on Deck! We’re talking Battleships!
September 12th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
There were plans, if I remember correctly, to further modernize and reduce crewing on these ships before the decision to retire them. Does anyone still have a link? A battleship offshore shows seriouse intent. A destoyer would probably suffice but to be taken seriously you should only send the very best.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
From what I have seen on this issue, it is clear the Navy does not have its act together on naval gunfire support. I support reactivation and modernization, but I will admit that this is only because it’s better than nothing, which the Marines are stuck at for the foreseeable future. We should have been planning for a decent replacement after Desert Storm. Instead, we’re going to thave to improvise with a combination of JDAMs, the Zumwalt-class destroyer (one of which could probably pay for refitting and modernizing Iowa and Wisconsin), and other approaches. I’m beginning to wonder if the last few rounds of BRAC weren’t penny-wise and pound-foolish. We’ve let a lot of defense infrastructure slip away – most of it in the 1990s. Similarly, we’ve let a bunch of ships that were still good go (particularly the Spruance-class destroyers). Don’t get me wrong, we still have the best ships, planes, and subs in the world – but none of them can be in two places at once.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Nothing beats the original ‘big stick’ for an in-your-face display of firepower. 45,000 tons of old-fashioned whup-ass. Us Marines absolutely love the battleships. They offer incredible firepower and decent range inland since they can get relatively close to shore with their armor protection. I’ve met several enlisted sailors who’ve served on the battleships – they love them to. Yes, we have all kinds of precise munitions that can be delivered on target. As the Israelis found out in Lebanon, however, precision can be overrated and very expensive. When facing enemy infantry, we just want grid squares vaporized.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Those ‘16 inch, 50 caliber guns’ Novak talks about sound more like a sawed off Barrett than a battleship weapon…..
September 12th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
The arsenal ships would have been an excellent replacement for these in the 1990’s. 500-1000 attack missiles plus a double hull to absorb torpedo and cruise missile strikes. Invincible and intimidating!
September 12th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Shipmates, It pains me to say, but I must. The more I hear about this situation, the more I fervently believe that those who oppose the battleships being refurbished and resused, are the same ones who have an interest in ship construction in their own backyards. There are those who stand to profit by having the arsenal ships, the DD(X) and other programs built, and who see the BB’s as an impediment to their personal financial growth, as well as their corporate finances increase handsomely. We NEED these ships in the fleet NOW. If there is a suitable replacement to come along in the future, well then, all well and good… but NOW, TODAY… these mighty machines need to be underway and threatening, showing the flag, not rusticles. But that’s this old sailor’s personal opion… other’s mileage may vary.. Respects, AW1 Tim
September 12th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
All the defense contractors want is that development money. They don’t care if they ever build another ship. Why build one when you can make a better profit designing it? They are set to soak up some serious dinero on DDX, and there is none of that on a battleship. It is all about bottom line and none of it about troops in the field. Yeah, those sissy smart bombs did the Israelis a helluva lot of good against the Hezbos. There’s nothing wrong with Lebanon or Iran that couldn’t be fixed with 16′ guns and a regular carpet bombing from a B-52. That’s not to say either of them couldn’t be improved, but until you do, why get rid of the capability in the middle of a war? Remember when we used to add capability during war time? It’s kinda like closing those bases. I don’t recall any of those 9/11 airplanes being intercepted by our high-tech military, do you? Yeah, that says close bases to me too. Here we are fighting an asymetric war and claiming we need an F-22 and precision bombs to fight it. Hell, an F-22 can’t do anything the C-130 gunship can’t do better, and for longer. It’s time we stopped worrying about collateral damage and started putting the fear of God in these whack jobs.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Dfens – great insights as always. The emphasis today is all on small, precise weapons that limit collateral damage. We seem to have forgotten how to fight a real war or even why we developed those accurate weapons. Laser guided munitions were developed to put a direct hit on hardened targets like bunkers and to destroy heavy armored vehicles that may withstand near misses. They were never intended to be used against infantry. I was on a Forward Air Control Team. When we faced scenarios of defending against massed infantry and armor attacks, we cared far less about accuracy than raw destructive power. I wanted a pair of A-6’s with 20,000 lbs of cluster bombs each, not a Cobra with 2 Hellfires. Better yet, I wanted a pair of battleships offshore capable of erasing grid squares without ever endangering a pilot and plane.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
While the battleships were nice for their time, in a modern sea battle they wouldn’t last 15 minutes. A cruise missile attack would sink them immediately. Many on board would die. The current trend is toward many lighter, faster expendable naval vessels armed with missiles. The Marines probably like the battleships because the amenities aren’t as nice as in newer naval vessels. Marines are truly happy only when every non-Marine around them is miserable. While others complain about the food, the weather, and the poor living conditions, the Marines are brewing their own beer and refrigerating it in sandpits.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
One major fallacy abounds in all these descriptions. It begins with ‘in a modern sea battle…’ There has not been a been a major ‘modern sea battle’ in the last 50 years. So all the battle games and conjecture are but on assumptions on assumptions. The result is whenever someone says ‘ In a modern sea battle…’ feel free to add whatever statement you feel is appropriate. The real issue with battleships (IMO) is the mission of firesupport worth spending 1 billion dollars on a couple of old platforms. If you decide that firesupport is important, could a billion dollars placed on a more modern platform create a more effective firesupport platform? With respect to the cruse missile arguement. Given that the US Navy has NEVER actually tested its ability to withstand a saturation missile attack and in wargame simulations the existing defense do not farewell, the battleship vulnerability arguement becomes suspect. The vast majority of anti-missiles would simply ruin a battlships paint job. (exocet /harpon) Agaisnt the high speed, large warhead Russian shipwreck missiles – the battleship armor belts would offer substancial resistance. You have to remember that the high anti-ship missiles pale in comparision to a 16inch round, a round that the BB was designed to resist. That said, a BB is not invulnerable but it sure is a lot more survivable then anthing else around + you can always improve a battleship eletronic defenses- you can’t strap armor belts on a LCS.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
What war are you fighting? If it is the current one, you think the Iraqis or Afghanis have missiles capable of sinking a battleship? If, wait, when we go up against the Iranians, you think they have missiles that can sink a battleship? How about North Korea, do they have missiles that can sink a battleship? The Soviet Union is gone. The Cold War is over. Now I’m not saying let’s dumb our forces down and pretend we will only ever face 3rd world nations, but when that’s who we are fighting… Let’s get to it. Let’s lay some ordinance down. In some ways these precision weapons are great. We don’t have to risk the lives of pilots flying at low level to pick off the kinds of targets Bram is talking about. In other ways these weapons have been a disaster. I remember the much touted ’shock and awe’ campaign against Baghdad. 12 bombs went off in unpopulated areas of the city. That was it. I kept watching. You’ve got to be kidding me. That was it? I’ve seen more shock and awe on the faces of people watching a 4th of July fireworks display. That was the single wimpiest thing I’ve ever seen, and I’m a highly partisan home team fan. What do you think the Iraqis thought of the display? I sometimes wonder if the problem with our military is that none of the guys in charge has ever been in a fight on a playground in their lives. I honestly don’t thing they have the faintest idea what it means to be either the loser or the victor in a real fight. It’s like watching some pencil necked geek go up against the class stoner while strictly observing the Marquess of Queensberry rules of boxing. Even though no one likes the stoner, it’s almost fun to watch him kick the geek’s ass. How did we get to be the geeks?
September 12th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
My response was to the post before yours, James.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:34 am
well I believe everyone can agree on one thing: in the Future long range hypersonic guided missiles and improved communications between land and sea forces will be the deathnell for the battleship once and for all. The question is how long until that force is in place? The US military and defense contracters, especially (but not limited to) the US Navy and Air Force, have made it a hobby to miss deadlines, go overbudget, and not deliver on promises. As we can see with the DD(X) and other high-profile projects (F-22, FCS) these delays can be costly and lead to slashed or terminated orders. So what about a cheap interim force that would require less development? An upgraded battleship would seem to fit the bill. The design is already finished, hull construction is finished, all that would be required is a modernization effort. Less beauracracy to deal with, which causes most budget problems. Something to think about.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:56 am
The US Gov’t can make a nice profit if they sell these babies to Gillette corp. Heck, maybe we can buy more F-22As! Those will come in handy more than some aging relic from WWII.
September 13th, 2006 at 1:35 am
Skripp)) – yea your right, all those old weapons systems are so useless… Like the B-52, Ma Duce, 1911 pistol … Much better to a have 200 million plane, fly at Mach 2, drop (1) 2000 lbs bomb from 40K feet and blow up a couple of houses… provided you file a flight plan 24 hours in advance, line up the KC-135’s, find a secure airfield . . . and so on. Apples and oranges. While I would prefer the F-23, the F-22 is still the best out there. So I actually agree we need more them. The F-35 on the other hand should get killed. Hmmm we both could get happy, kill the F-35, buy a 100 more F-22’s and fully modernize both battleships.
September 13th, 2006 at 9:24 am
You know what we really need to replace? We need to replace the B-29. We need a third tier bomber that we can darken the skies with. We need fifty thousand of these bombers packed with ANFO, incendiaries, and napalm. These are the aircraft we would bring in after air dominance had been established and air defenses had been suppressed. They would come in slow by the thousands and erase cities from the face of the earth. First one city, then the next, then the next. No stealth. No fancy electronics. No supersonic air foils. Just slow, rugged aircraft that haul lots of bombs a long distance. A big eraser. Back when we used to win wars, we had airplanes like this. Of course, we’d never see an airplane like this today. They’d be too cheap for one of our ‘defense’ contractors to even bother with. If you could get one to bid on the contract, they’d hire an overseas company to build them.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:02 am
This is how f’ed up our military is: Sept. 13, 2006, 12:51AM Test nonlethal weapons on U.S. citizens, official says By LOLITA C. BALDOR Associated Press WASHINGTON – Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before they are used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions in the international community over any possible safety concerns, said Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne. ‘If we’re not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation,’ said Wynne. ‘(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press.’ The Air Force has funded research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service isn’t likely to spend more money on development until injury issues are reviewed by medical experts and resolved. Nonlethal weapons can weaken people if they are hit with the beam. Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that also disable some electronic devices.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:33 am
They certainly don’t build them like they used to. While the BB would be vulnerable to weapons like the Sunburn or Shipwreck ASMs, it would be no more vulnerable than a CVN and more survivable in terms of sinking and sustaining damage while remaining combat effective (CV’s are fairly easy to render incapable of flight ops). The biggest problem in my opinion would be personnel. They had to recall a number of retired gunner’s mates and fire direction folks to train sailors during Desert Shield, IIRC just to operate the weapons. What about running the steam plant? Are those guys still available? As a Marine, I’d love to see the BBs back in business, I just don’t think it’s going to happen.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:47 am
As for Naval Gunfire support, What coastline were the Marines near in Afghanistan and Iraq? Iraq had one port and that not heavily defended. The DDX supporters are trying to use the new ships 2×5 inch guns as its contribution to the War on Terror. It just doesn’t make sense in the era of swarming cruise missiles and smart bombs.
September 13th, 2006 at 11:18 am
Yes, bring them back ASAP. About the time they are recommissioned we can send them off to go pump Iranian shore installations with 18 inches of pain.
September 13th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Skripp)) – yea your right, all those old weapons systems are so useless… Like the B-52, Ma Duce, 1911 pistol … Much better to a have 200 million plane, fly at Mach 2, drop (1) 2000 lbs bomb from 40K feet and blow up a couple of houses… provided you file a flight plan 24 hours in advance, line up the KC-135’s, find a secure airfield . . . and so on. Apples and oranges. While I would prefer the F-23, the F-22 is still the best out there. So I actually agree we need more them. The F-35 on the other hand should get killed. Hmmm we both could get happy, kill the F-35, buy a 100 more F-22’s and fully modernize both battleships. What takes longer? Lining up KC-135’s and F-22A’s with drop tanks and 8 SDBs? Or getting a BB from CONUS to somewhere in the world? The B-52, 1911, M2B are useful because they are useful in many roles. Whats a BB useful for? NOTHING! By the time it gets anywhere, the USAF will have destroyed all the targets.
September 13th, 2006 at 11:34 am
…USAF will have destroyed all the targets’ If the IDF-Hez war is any lesson, airpower has its limitations. Not to mention, that its putting pilots lives in danger. In addition, guided long-range shells which have revolutionized traditional land arty, can give a radical new level of usefullness to the BB.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
‘If the IDF-Hez war is any lesson, airpower has its limitations. Not to mention, that its putting pilots lives in danger.’ OH YES!!! Those stupid Israelis just didnt even bother using their artillery right? Oh, and I assume landing a swimming pool maker in an urban populace is just all peachy in this day in age too right?
September 13th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
jim b sips his coffee and reads the comments. Yanno nothing generates comments like battleships, and a new rifle for the military.
September 13th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
As far as being ‘old’ the BB’s have less time on the clocks than many recent constructs. As far as vulnerability the armor belts were designed to resist heavy calibre ap. There’s no comparable munition currently fielded by any nation. The greatest vulnerability these ships would face would be against under the keel torpedo detonations. Hypersonic missles and rails would put paid to a BB but who has those? A tactical nuke hitting very close would also kill them but then the other guy has just signalled that he wants to play in the big league against the only nation with a large ‘reliable’ nuclear stockpile. Precision. Okay build gps kits for the shells. These have already been demonstrated for field artillery. Firepower. Okay situational. Sometimes you need a tack hammer sometimes you need a mallet. There’s several ways to radically extend the range of the main weapons. If we currently have no major fights near enough to shore for the BB’s to be usefull that’s probably going to change in the immediate future. Also consider how large of a platform this is and what could be added to it. My own feelings, keep them. Install nuclear power plants. Automate under the deck for crew reduction. Install phased array/aegis systems. Pull the Tomahawks, this is a gunfighter not a missle thrower. Install 6 each of those fancy new 155’s they built for the DDX (the replacement for the rail guns they apparently can’t get working) as secondary armament. Upgrade air defense. As pointed out this would probably cost less than building a couple of those ‘letoral’ (sp) support ships everyone is so excited about. There’s a lot to be said for having a movable platform that’s got staying power and can survive nearly any attack imaginable.
September 13th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
The tac nuke has to be damn close – they couldn’t sink the Nevada with a pair of nukes at the Bikini Atoll.
September 13th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
‘My own feelings, keep them. Install nuclear power plants. Automate under the deck for crew reduction. Install phased array/aegis systems. Pull the Tomahawks, this is a gunfighter not a missle thrower. Install 6 each of those fancy new 155’s they built for the DDX (the replacement for the rail guns they apparently can’t get working) as secondary armament. Upgrade air defense. As pointed out this would probably cost less than building a couple of those ‘letoral’ (sp) support ships everyone is so excited about.’ Not… possible…
September 13th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
There was a proposal to pull the 6 remaining twin 5′ turrets and put verticle launch cells in (150 SM/Tamahawk added in total). Add fire control and they have their own Air Defense. Also reduces the crew by 300 personnel. Build the 11′ and 13′ sabot rounds that were developed for the 16′ guns and you have 160NM range for fire support. Iran has a long coast and you can see the Iranian coast on one side and the Omani coast on the other when you transit the SOH. Preposition one BB at Diego Garcia and keep the other back in the states. Train on the stateside BB and fly the crew to DG in emergency.
September 13th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Sabots are useless for fire support. Also, we dont need a BB for Iran to go about blowing up oil terminals. When they can easily be captured by overland attacks. WE HAVE AN ARMY IN IRAQ ALREADY! LOCKED COCKED AND READY TO ROCK! Or did that little detail escape everyone here?
September 13th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
Skrip, And we’ve got one on the other side of Iran too…. Or at least we could in a hurry. Of course, that doesn’t mean a BB might not come in handy someday, somewhere. Like maybe Lebanon a few weeks ago. But I don’t see it as a must have or even a ‘nice to have’ for dealing with Iran.
September 13th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
No little details escaped anyone. Why would it be impossible to upgrade the BB’s? Simple engineering with viability determined by cost. Installing nuclear propulsion should not be a show stopper anymore than re-boilering ships years ago wasn’t. Hard work and expensive but practical. Even if upgrading cost as much as laying a new keel you’d still save over a years worth of construction time. Sabots useless for fire support? Sabot french word meaning shoe. Sabot refers to the sleeves used to encircle a smaller diameter object. Normally used with subcalibre penetraters in tank main guns. Not limited to that. The Israil’s puzzled the various world militaries during one of early conflicts by engaging their enemies with artillery fires at ranges well in excess of 30 miles (by my memory). They did this by firing 155mm shells through their 175mm guns using sabot sleeves. Another common use allows the firing of fin stabalized heat rounds through a rifled gun. With extended range munitions and enhanced acurracy (gps pack or laser seekers guided by UAV’s, btw there was work done on making laser seekers for the 8′ naval guns during the early 80’s ) the main battery of a BB could deliver a great deal more ordinance weight over an extended period than a carrier battle group. I can envisage many missions where one of these ships would be ideal. As a long retired Army FO (use what definition you will) I only regret I never got to adjust fire for a BB.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
JD – I have the same regret. In the Gulf, I had the freqs, call-for-fire script, and call signs ready to go. Just never got the chance. A buddy of mine did land in Iraq after the battleships bombarded the beach (with UAV spotters). He said it was like walking on the moon with an occasional body part or peice of equipment sticking out of the ground.
September 13th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
skrip00 Have you ever even been near one of these monsters. Every point you have brought up is false. I was a Fire Control Tech (Missile) from the 80’s I did many a workup with both Missouri and the New Jersey. On every occasion when we did war games with one of these BB’s, my carrier and any others involved turned and evaded, the BB just went strait in. NEVER LOST ONE, were as the carriers with twice the tin cans got it 50% of the time. You want real world, all you need to do is read the reports on the USS Steret and the USS Cole. one shot and they were fighting for there lives. BB’s in WWII’s got hit multiple times by you name it. The Japanese threw everything at them and they remained mission capable. just look at the pictures, they do not lie. The Navies complaint of man power intensive is mute, the 80’s upgrades were done on the cheep. replace the 5′ mounts and you save a couple hundred squids there alone.
September 14th, 2006 at 8:26 am
That still leaves thousands of sailors that cannot be deployed in other areas. Your talking the equivalent crews of 16 destroyers on 2 BB’s. Or enough crew to man 32 DD(X) destroyers. On two ships. Thats alot of manpower. Especially for something as outdated as heavy sea based fire support. What we lose with these things is still adequately replaced by DD(X) and the rest of our tin cans.
September 14th, 2006 at 10:16 am
WIth the DD(X) prices at there current level, it will be long time before we ever see 32 DD(X). As for quality vs. quantity debate (as you relate to crew size)- quantity is ok when it you get the desried capabilties. However, there are things that 2 BB’s can do that a dozen (or a 100 for that matter) destroyers will not.
September 14th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Steve, what the hell are you talking about? What can a BB do that even 3~4 DD(X)s cant. Also, DD(X) program is initially building two ships. Many more can be built.
September 14th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
What can a BB do that even 3~4 DD(X)s cant. Try clearing 10 square miles of bad guys, punch a hole threw 20 feet of concrete with a shell that doesn’t cost a million each. DD(X) x4 will run out of shells long before a BB will and they will have to be almost 20 miles off the coast to do there job. A BB can come up close to the shore line and say hello personally. As for how many can be built? Congress is going to reduce the count to 10 and even that may not hold up
September 14th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
All those things can be done via a combination of air power and our current surface assets. DD(X)s just improve range and firepower. Its kinda funny, but the one group that should be on your side is apathetic to the whole issue. USMC fire support requirements have not explicitly stated a need for the BBs.
September 14th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
Skrip, why do you think they’re spending all those billions of development dollars just to build 2 ships? Do you really think it is so they can build more later? Come on, you’re not that naive. Now granted, knowing this I hope I’m not just being reactionary in saying they should use battleships instead of those DDX boats, but to me they seem thin skinned and lightly armored for the job we are asking the Navy to do these days. It seems to me the big battleship would be perfect for the Straights once again, and if the Navy ever gets serious about wanting something high tech it should be looking at something far more exotic like the Sea Shadow. Instead they are spending a huge amount of money on a miniscule amount of technological improvement.
September 14th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
All those things can be done via a combination of air power and our current surface assets. DD(X)s just improve range and firepower.’ No – that is just a plain wrong statement. 1st off- Just the secondaries of 1 BB is equal to gun firepower of 4 DD(X)’s. Actually in operation, since the 1 BB carries more then twice the 5 inch ammo as the 4 DD(X)’s – the actual usable firepower is much greater. Now before you bring the suppossed greater range of the ACS, all the long range ACS rounds are rocket assist glide rounds – which are in limited supply. The bulk of the rounds carried will be standard 155mm artillery rounds. Throw in the Primaries – and each BB carries 2000+ main rounds. Since each DD(X) carries a grand total of 80 missiles. You can do the math. The firepower of these 2 battleship alone – is on par to the sum total land support firepower of all of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers. In GWI – Each Battleship delivered over a million pounds of ordinance in less then 3 weeks. With respect to Marines not wanting battleships?? Dead wrong. If you can find 5 marines who not want BB’s I’ll recind all my opinions and becoming the founding member of the skrip00 fan club.
September 14th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Ahh, but the USN will never ever let BB’s see action EVER AGAIN. Get it through your heads. They wont even bother looking into studies to see how much itll cost to refit and upgrade. They dont even want to waste money on that. Also, where will the crews for the Battleships come from? Fantasy land? And pay them with peanuts to boot? Please. DD(X)s are more than adquate for the NSFS role. Their guns without ERGMs already shoot further and more rapidly than a BB’s. They have only 150 crew. Billions are being spend to develop the DD(X) and CG(X). CG(X) will be a derivative ship that will be larger, but will use the same hull form and superstructure design. It will carry more missiles and a different armament arrangement as well. Including more powerful derivatives of SPY-3. The USN is spending billions for two classes of warships. Not just one.
September 15th, 2006 at 12:40 am
shoot further and more rapidly than a BB’s.’ I disagree, but its a moot point even if it were true, because the DD(X) gun system could be installed in the secondary batterys. (and have far more ammo available to boot). Also, however far a shell warhead the 6′ DD(X) gun can fire, the 16′ gun can fire it much, much farther by saboting it. Not to mention, the DD(X) would have to fire as it only has 2 guns as opposed 9 + whatever extra batteries fit on the BB (hey, maybe 2 DD(X) guns?) Also, consider with the two DD(X) guns firing at ~10 shells per minute, it can fire only for about 4 minutes at its longest range, or a half hour with standard much shorter range shells. (using data from here:http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm ) If your plinking water buoy’s off puerto rico I’m sure thats plenty, but if your trying to chew up beach for a opposed landing its a weakness that gets our guys killed.
September 15th, 2006 at 8:16 am
Ahh, but DD(X) wins due to lower operating costs and its multi-role capability. Also, more than one Destroyer is attached to a CBG. So what one cant do, 4 can. Oh, you cant just add AGS mounts to a BB. Doesnt work that way. It’ll cost you a billion dollars. And Dfens knows why.
September 15th, 2006 at 8:28 am
Ahh, but DD(X) wins due to lower operating costs and its multi-role capability. That will make the guys on shore feel good. ‘Look, Sergeant. We know all about your troubles moving inland. But the fire support ship can also hunt subs. And we saved a ton on insurance with Geico! Now take that town.’ Also, more than one Destroyer is attached to a CBG. So what one cant do, 4 can. 4? 4 what? You mean both DD(X)s and two older destroyers?
September 15th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Look, Murdoc, you wanna tell me where the Navy is going to pull the crews (to man 16 Burkes) from in order to staff these relics? Pay for them? Train them? ‘That will make the guys on shore feel good. ‘Look, Sergeant. We know all about your troubles moving inland. But the fire support ship can also hunt subs. And we saved a ton on insurance with Geico! Now take that town.” Wow… what are we fighting? Normandy again? The way you all talk here is as if every revolution in air-to-ground warfare never happened. Someone please tell me… if a DD(X) can hit targets with precision from 100km away, then why do we need a BB? All of a sudden 180 bombers, the USAF, the USN, and all their precision guided weapons mean nothing? PLEASE…
September 15th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
The first 2 DD(X)’s have been authorized with more to go. We can use a whole bunch of them even if the cost is a bit high. Anything to keep our shipyards producing.
September 15th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
I wouldn’t be holding my breath on too many more DD(X)s at this point. Sure, there’s always the option to build more than the two. But the number keeps shrinking and the costs keep rising. The way you all talk here is as if every revolution in air-to-ground warfare never happened. Some do, but most seem to realize that planes cannot do it all. To pretend otherwise is to ignore everything that’s ever happened. For the record, I do not support reactivating the BBs. I support keeping the option to reactivate the BBs available. I do not support just assuming we’ll never need to invade enemy territory from the sea and I do not support simply assuming that there will always be planes circling lazily overhead just waiting for the troops to call in a mission.
September 15th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
I support reactivating them, primarily because of Iran and their threat on the Straights. We might not get much of our oil from that region, but as you’ve seen lately, a disruption in the supply anywhere can send gas prices skyrocketing. There are some weapons we should have just because they instill fear in the enemy. Big battleships do that. This is also one of the reasons I support a big Mach 3 bomber for the Air Force. They are the kind of weapons that keep 3rd world contries from wanting to screw with you. You need weapons that make people (other than tech geeks) go ‘wow’. They pay for themselves in wars you don’t have to fight and that’s a good thing. If I had my way, there would be an Iowa class crusing off the coast of Iran right now, just to give them something to think about. War isn’t about strategic victories. War is about making someone think they’re damn lucky you didn’t kill them. If you don’t do that, you end up having to kill them all. Why do that when making them think you could and would will do the trick?
September 16th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Reactivation will never happen. The GAO already reported that the USN wont even initiate the studies into reactivation costs. Because those studies will cost valuable dollars.
September 16th, 2006 at 10:41 am
A friend of mine who works for the state department told me years ago that the Marines have a lot of clout on Capital Hill. His opinion was they were the only branch of the services with any credibility left. I don’t know if they’ve dissipated it all on the V-22, but if they haven’t, they’ll get what they want. They stood up to Boeing and got their VTOL version of the JSF.
September 16th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Maybe skrip, after all there is not much extra money around with the DD(X) so far over budget. On the other hand ‘never say never’.
September 16th, 2006 at 11:03 am
I just came across this Oliver North op-ed on saving the BB’s, dated 9/14. I though he made a lot of good point about their past usefullness, iran, and the DC politics. http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,113659,00.html (also put same link in my name)
September 16th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
The reason they wont reactivate them is that the Airdale Admirals wont let them. you put a Carrier and a Battleship on the same pier and open both up to the public, 80% will go to the BB its as simple as that. As for crewing, you have only 2 ratings on the Battleship that can’t be upgraded with non-manpower intensive technology. the 16′ turrets and the engines. The Sacramento class used the same power plants and they where only retired a couple years back so finding personnel with that knowledge wont be to hard. As for the guns, those you will have to hunt around some but, I know they would volunteer free of charge to help train a new generation.
September 16th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
Maybe skrip, after all there is not much extra money around with the DD(X) so far over budget. On the other hand ‘never say never’. There is always money. Besides which, the USN has developed alot of systems and designs that will be used on CG(X), LCS, and even CVN(X). So its not just a ‘one-ship’ deal.
September 17th, 2006 at 2:00 am
A new blue-destroyer may be a good idea, but there is not ‘always money’. Furthermore the DD(X) and its related programs have had cost over-runs and tech failure galore. Remember that the DD(X) in current form a much scaled back version of the DD21. Why? Because the congress slashed the DD21 budget. They also cancelled the arsenal ship, which was supposed to be the ‘real’ replacement for the BB’s.