Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on August 16, 2005, 12:08:41 PM
-
Interesting article on the Navy's desire to create a new class of "stealth DDs" capable of accurately bombarding targets hundreds of miles inland:
Navy battling for new super destroyer (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050815-115224-6893r.htm)
My sense is, this project is going to die the death of a thousand cuts. Just unmothball the BBs already till the railgun technology is perfected. Besides, nothing says "Hello, you may not want to mess with us." like sixteen inch shells.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Interesting article on the Navy's desire to create a new class of "stealth DDs" capable of accurately bombarding targets hundreds of miles inland:
Navy battling for new super destroyer (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050815-115224-6893r.htm)
My sense is, this project is going to die the death of a thousand cuts. Just unmothball the BBs already till the railgun technology is perfected. Besides, nothing says "Hello, you may not want to mess with us." like sixteen inch shells.
- SEAGOON
The dang cost over runs is what will kill it!
---------------------
The first DD(X) is projected to cost $3.3 billion, but sister ships would be cheaper, the Navy says. Since 2004, however, the Navy's estimated costs per ship have gone up almost 50 percent for ships built after the first of their class, the Congressional Research Service says.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Besides, nothing says "Hello, you may not want to mess with us." like sixteen inch shells.
- SEAGOON
...and nothing says, "OBSOLETE" better than a weapon that can hit a target no further than twenty-six miles.
... and we can't forget the collateral damage that comes with it.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
...and nothing says, "OBSOLETE" better than a weapon that can hit a target no further than twenty-six miles.
I thought they carried Tomahawks back in Gulf 1?
Krush
-
The BBs are just sooooo expensive, and after you're done, you don't have anything new to show for it. With the DD(X), you have a bunch of new technology afterwards.
1,600+ crew for the battleships, right? This, during record low enlistment rates? Sounds like a challenge.
Finally, saying 'wait for the railguns' doesn't mean you'll get them. Same with people saying 'stop flying to space until a new safe vehicle is created'. There will be no advancement until you walk all the steps between here and there. Stop funding development of platforms for the technology, and the technology itself will never arrive. Stop sending people to space, and the need for the new vehicle (and the R&D to create it) will never appear.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
I thought they carried Tomahawks back in Gulf 1?
Krush
Possibly, but there are more cost-effective ways to carry Tomahawk than a BB.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
I thought they carried Tomahawks back in Gulf 1?
Same with the Arleigh Burkes, a bunch of cruisers, and the entire 688 submarine fleet, all of which are already in service.
The only thing the battleships bring that doesn't exist currently elsewhere is the big guns.
-
so.. basically they want a new toy to fire rocket propelled JDAM bombs?
-
Can't let the Army have all the fun. Naval rocket-propelled artie is logical, considering that there's always a coast somewhere.
-
"...and nothing says, "OBSOLETE" better than a weapon that can hit a target no further than twenty-six miles. "
Studies were done back in the '80's which indicated that they could improve the 16 inch gun useful range to at least 80-100 miles using similar technology as these Destroyers would use. As for operational costs, they were cheaper to operate than aircraft carriers by a large margin. You could run one for years on that $3.3 billion dollars or more you wouldn't have to spend for that proposed Destroyer design. Also a Battleship has little to fear from low-tech terrorist attacks, while a Destroyer-size vessel is highly vulnerable to such damage.
They won't reactivate them since the Navy wants its new toys, but the claim that such ships are worthless in this day and age is simply inaccurate.
J_A_B
-
Naval Architects correct me if I'm wrong, but there is also the problem of the structural integrity of the decks of the BBs. The shock of each salvo causes enormous stress on the ship.
Tomahawk missles can be carried by the Ticonderogas, Arleigh Burkes, Los-Angeles and SeaWolfs. They are also carried by Spruance class destroyers, but these are being phased out. They are deployed in 4 battery "boxes" that have to be mounted on the ship's deck. On the Spruance class, there's only room for 2 boxes.
On the BBs, they removed most (if not all) of the 5" and put the boxes in. Still, they can't really carry that many (maybe 50, can't remember how many they loaded on the ship)
In contrast, a VLS system on the modern cruisers and destroyers carries missiles in 64 (-3) or 32 (-3) verticle boxes for a total of either 124 or 90. Pretty nice package for a ship with 160-200 crew.
Edit: Also, nothing says "Big Al Queda Target" quite like a BB. I think the US Navy is moving to smaller, more versatile ships. It's a world-wide recognition that the evil empire (USSR) is now replaced by smaller, more numerous "hotspots".
-
If you want big Tomahawk platforms for cheap, use the Q-Ship concept. Take commercial ships and mount self contained Tomahawk batteries on them. They don't need to be full combat ships, not if they have an escort that's also fighting against a land-locked force. Cheaper then a 1,600 crew BB.
-
The Navy's idea of building more Burkes and incorporating the technology they are developing for the DDX seems like a good idea too me. Gradual introduction of new tech on a good and proven plattform.
I have been following the DDX development (via media off course) and alot of folks seem to agree that the US is already so far ahead of potential enemies that the Burkes will do for a loooong time.
The industry does not agree ofcouse.. they want the jobs.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
If you want big Tomahawk platforms for cheap, use the Q-Ship concept. Take commercial ships and mount self contained Tomahawk batteries on them. They don't need to be full combat ships, not if they have an escort that's also fighting against a land-locked force. Cheaper then a 1,600 crew BB.
Yup.
One of those and a couple of escorts and you have a cheap and extremly potent force for projecting power to shore. Add a couple of UAV's and a hangar and you are set.
-
Ok, admittedly an area where I'm just a dabbler. What I know about modern NAval surface warfare could be safely engraved on an iron filing with room to spare.
But here is the FAQ page offering a summary of the counter-arguments for reactivating the BBs:
BBG facts and figures (http://www.usnfsa.org/FAQ/FAQ)
Here are two interesting paragraphs related to cost and force projection:
"Costs: The Navy’s comparing a capital ship like the battleship with far smaller and far less capable ships, like CGs and DDGs, is misleading, to say the least. Battleships can only fairly be compared with that other capital ship, the carrier. In 1999, the Navy estimated that it would cost $431 million to reactivated both Iowa and Wisconsin. Our shipbuilding experts estimate that it will take about an additional $500 million to extensively modernize both ships. (Converting them to BBGs). (Their present power plants are in good shape and adequate spare parts are on-hand.) Thus, for the original cost of the ill-fated USS Cole, we get two mighty BBGs. In 1999, the Navy also estimated annual battleship operation and maintenance costs (O&M) at $70.8 million for FY 2002. The carrier’s annual O&M costs are five to six times greater than for a BBG (not counting aircraft costs); moreover, they require at least twice as many expensive escort ships. These two BBGs, needed by the Navy, Marine Corps and the Army, should best be separately funded as joint “national assets”, outside the Navy’s budget and manpower ceilings, thus meeting a key Navy objection to bringing back these ships..
Manpower Demands: A BBG will require a full complement of about 1300 (achieved through automation and modern 5-inch guns with smaller crews). The carrier needs 5,600, including aircrew. For three of the Navy’s most essential missions, however, the highly survivable BBG would be clearly superior: providing extreme range Tomahawk strikes, fire support in littoral regions and a forward visible intimidating presence in high threat areas closed to the more vulnerable carrier. (We believe, however, that large carriers will long remain indispensable for, inter alia, maintaining local air superiority, long-range strikes and staging platforms for long-range missions [as demonstrated in Afghanistan]. BBGs will complement and take the pressure off carriers.) Within the present range of its 16-inch guns (adequate for supporting forced entry and other littoral operations up to 25 miles inland which will meet Marines’ present, pre-OMFTS requirements) one BBG could, in 24 hours, accurately, rapidly, around-the-clock and in all weather lay down a weight of ordnance equal to that delivered from our entire 12-ship carrier fleet. With the advent of more of the more capable F/A 18 E/F on carriers, one BBG loading 60% extended range (out to over 100 miles and later with scramjet projectiles possibly out to 1000 miles) and 40% conventional projectiles will still be the equal of 4.5 carriers. (The large dollar and manpower costs of a carrier are, however, entirely justified, as would be those [much smaller] of a BBG.) In laying down 5-inch fire only, one BBG could equal 15 destroyers (DDG) that would have a combined manpower complement of 4,875 (vs 1300 on a BBG) and total O&M costs of $600 million (vs $70.8 million). If the BBG also used its nine 16-inch guns, the comparison would be off the chart. In the highly unlikely chance that the DD(X) could have a crew of only 95, the crews of 14 DD(X)s would equal that of one BBG, but all 14 together would have only a small fraction of a BBG’s tactical firepower, indispensable for NSFS, and would have far less mission versatility. This math clearly validates Chairman Stump’s above statement (page 1)."
One major point is that I think you will have less difficulty getting Congress to recommission and fund two existing BBs for less than develop and build new ships for far, far, more. I think the Navy expended a lot more capital (no pun intended) than it had in that area saving the Seawolf program. Now just getting upgrades to existing systems is a major hurdle.
- SEAGOON
-
Sandy
from what I read after they reblended the powder for the 16 inch rounds they got them to be way more accurate then they were when used in lebanon, and missed alot.
They also had other rounds in the works that could go further then the 20 miles or so.
They carried 32 tomahawks. (I think) (it's been awhile and the books are in storage. )
Not that it maters at this point, the navy will never bring the back, they have been trying to kill them off since the Jersey did so well in Vietnam.
-
Hi GTO,
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Sandy
from what I read after they reblended the powder for the 16 inch rounds they got them to be way more accurate then they were when used in lebanon, and missed alot.
They also had other roads int he works that could go further then the 20 miles or so.
They carried 32 tomahawks. (I think) (it's been awhile and the books are in storage. )
The group pressing for their reintroduction actually puts their capabilities at substantially more:
"Weapons and other systems: Those who (mistakenly) regard battleships as outmoded would be astonished at the potential capabilities of a modernized Iowa-class based battleship guided missile (BBG). It would be one of the world’s fastest capital ships! It would have 96 VLS cells which could accommodate 96 one thousand mile range Tomahawk missiles or a combination of Tomahawks and the latest anti-missile/air missiles. nine 16-inch guns that can fire conventional rounds or soon developed guided extended round projectiles with ranges out to over 100 miles (using technology that has already been successfully tested in 16-inch guns) and very possibly eventually out to 1000 miles in ten minutes (with scramjet technology now being tested) and eight 5-inch 54 guns (or four 5-inch 62 guns which can fire the 51nm range autonomous naval support round [ANSR]) for limiting collateral damage. (These 5-inch guns alone can equal the 5-inch firepower of up to 15 modern destroyers [based on comparative ammunition load-out capacities].). The continuous process of extending 16-inch and 5-inch ranges would be a realistic prime example of “spiral development” in practice. It would be a practical, on-hand test bed for these and numerous other systems aboard. Note: A BBG can load over 1,000 16-inch projectiles both conventional and extended range and these can be replenished at sea, a prime Marine Corps requirement. VLS dependent missiles cannot be replenished at sea.
The BBG would have up to 8 data/video-linked unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) (for reconnaissance, BDA, spotting, laser terminal guidance and other missions) (See below.); advanced anti-ship missile/air defense systems (e.g., AMRAAM); 25mm and 40mm rapid-fire guns to protect against small boat attacks; Harpoon anti-ship missiles; and the NIXIE system to protect the screws from torpedoes. It would have a Cooperative Engagement Capability and would enhance its support of ground forces with FIREFINDER phased array radar for counter-battery fire and Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) to integrate fires in support of Marines and soldiers. In addition, it would have the latest state-of-the-art electronics; a mine detection, sweeping and destruction capability (possibly using future remote mine detection devices) and a limited ASW capability using borrowed SH-60 KNIGHTHAWK helicopters. It will have 20,000 tons of steel protection, including armor plate up 17-inchs thick, triple armored belts, triple bottoms, extensive compartmentation and other passive and active defenses. These will be by far the world’s most survivable warships."
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"...and nothing says, "OBSOLETE" better than a weapon that can hit a target no further than twenty-six miles. "
Studies were done back in the '80's which indicated that they could improve the 16 inch gun useful range to at least 80-100 miles using similar technology as these Destroyers would use. As for operational costs, they were cheaper to operate than aircraft carriers by a large margin. You could run one for years on that $3.3 billion dollars or more you wouldn't have to spend for that proposed Destroyer design. Also a Battleship has little to fear from low-tech terrorist attacks, while a Destroyer-size vessel is highly vulnerable to such damage.
They won't reactivate them since the Navy wants its new toys, but the claim that such ships are worthless in this day and age is simply inaccurate.
J_A_B
you didn't address the crew size needed for one. 1500 sailors is ALOT of manpower. Especially when they can do the same job more accurately on a smaller ship with a comliment of only 150.
-
Seagoon
Were did the info come from? I want to read more. I love these ships. In highschool I debated about joining the navy to get on one.
Guns,
The manpower is a drawback, but the Iowas bring more to the table then the smaller ships for lots of reasons. A big one being they are here, and are not subject to budget cuts like a whole new program.
-
Hi GTO,
Got it from here:
BBG Facts and Figures (http://www.usnfsa.org/FAQ/FAQ)
- SEAGOON
-
Nothin sez 'we own you' better than an Iowa class battleship parked off your coast..
We did some early RPV work in 1990 off the USS Wisconsin.. later, in late Febuary and Early March 1991; she engaged her drones and 16" guns in support of advancing ground forces. The fire was exceptionally accurate and effective.. so much so that shortly afterwards as she prepared to engage an Iraqi installation on an offshore Island the entire Iraqi force on the Island immediately surrenderd, waving white flags at the RPV trolling overhead that was eyeing them up for vaporization.
First time an opposing force surrendered to an unmaned drone without a shot being fired... and a very proud day for me.. I built the packs and key elements of that drones control and telemetry system. :D
-
I'm not sure what the pro-BB crowd wants...seems they are just operating under the old adage of "bigger is better".
However, it just doesn't hold up for these ships. The guns give you 30 miles along the coast (but remember, the ship isn't going that close, mines are cheap and in abundance in the Persian Gulf for instance).
The AA and ASW escorts required for a BB make the BB redundant. How is this? The Aegis ships (a cruiser and destroyer) themselves could carry 1/2 their missile component as Tomahawks, that's 106 Tomahawks. A LA sub can carry another 12-16 I believe. The claim on the website that 2 helicopters would provide an ASW component is ridiculous....
The crew for these 3 vessels is only maybe 400-450, less than 1/3 of the total crew of the BB.
As for the "flag-flying" mission, Ticonderogas are pretty darn impressive:
USS Bunker Hill, the lead VLS Ticonderoga ship (http://www.bunker-hill.navy.mil/)
-
Looks like an ugly alluminum death trap posted by a guy who doesnt know when a pic is WAY to big.
-
Sorry, it shows up tiny on the official page. :( I'll fix it and just link the page.......
-
It was a nice pic, but its a pain to have to scroll to read what you wrote.
-
Hey GtoRA2,
What's your in-game name?
Just saw that you live in Fremont. I live over in SF, work in Palo Alto...
Actually, the coolest picture I've ever seen of one of these ships was when my brother (ex-surface warfare officer on the USS Cowpens, CG 63) and I were riding over the Golden Gate.
CG 65 passed underneath heading out to see. It was awesome. He took the pics, I'll see if he can send them to me...
I've heard there is a Fleet Week in the Bay Area sometimes. Have you been to one?
-
GTOra2 I think for in game ID.
Havnt been on for sometime cause the joystick died, and I havnt gotten around to getting my new stick setup.
Havnt been to a fleet week since I was a kid, but I think they have them every year.
The Iowa is floating out in the bay, you can see it with google earth, or from one of the north bay bridges.
Their is a group trying to get the navy to release her as a musuem to be put in SF. I doubt the current mayor would sign off on it though.
-
Dirty hippie scum refuse the Battleship Iowa to be a museum in their crap hole town of San francisco.
The news story. (http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=3727235)
Good, I would rather go to stockton, then SF anyway. Least in stockton the bums dont **** in the street right in front of you.
-
some of you guys are not realizing the how important the manpower issue is. It's the same in all services. Congress sets the max allowable personell that a particular service can have. This is were you get alot of services civianizing alot of home station units. This frees up GIs to go on deployment and fight wars.
Also consider that you can't just figure the cost of the crew's salery. All the support elements pretty much double the salery cost per 1 crew member. They are not going to go to congress to ask for more people so they do things like this to "free them up" so to speak.
-
Guns
You forgeting the coolness factor of 16inch naval guns.
:D
Don't they give the Marine in you a woody?
-
Hope they can get her up the river.. she's a mighty deep draft.
Would rather they kept her in Mothballs at Vallejo.. once she goes 'museum' she's not likeley to be returned to service. She had a pretty extensive modernization last time she was rolled out, my info is she's restoreable.
They still got the Glomar Explorer in the Anchorage by the Martinez Bridge? Been 30 years since I saw the mothball fleet...
-
Not sure on the Glomar.
I would rather her stay in the reserve, and the last I heard the hulls had at least another 50 years on them for the Iowa’s.
The Navy does not want them, and not just cause they are manpower hogs.
I think how good the jersey did in Vietnam embarrassed lots of Navy guys who happened to think the airplane is the end all be all of warfare
:D
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Guns
You forgeting the coolness factor of 16inch naval guns.
:D
Don't they give the Marine in you a woody?
Oh they make this Marine Hard into the wind. But like all things that are considered "outdated" in the military they have there place.
Nothing says love to a Marine more than softening up a beach prior to a landing. 16in Guns are great at that.
I'm not really arguing against bringing back the BB I'm mearly saying that it isn't feasable in the eyes of the Navy.
-
BB's are too manpower intensive..to expensive to run as far as fuel costs go..and would need major electronic modernization just to be part of a battlegroup. They never even got NTDS or any data links when they were last reactivated.
The DD(X) and LCS type ships are just what the Navy needs. We have not had any major technilogical advancements in our warship designs since AEGIS was designed in the 70's. Even the Arliegh Burkes are from an early 80's design.
The cost is worth it in every aspect. These ships will have new radar, new guns, new missile launchers, new propulsion system, new combat system design and only 85 crewmembers. Not to mention a pretty revoulutionary topside design.
They have to build something to replace the aging "TICO's"..they are already decomissioning the first few. The FFG's will be gone soon. The Spru-Cans are already gone. They can't expect the Navy to put everything in one class of deficient ships (Arligh Burke). And even the first Burkes are getting old and their material condition sucks.
-
Whats wrong with the Arligh Burkes?
I have no problems with the Navy getting some new ships, my love for the old battlewagons just wont die.
-
maybe they'll park the BB's next to the space shuttles. ;)
Good post ASTAC.. yah nailed it. Still; would love it if the Navy kept at least one of these things operational.. just for those special occasions where nothin sez lovin like an 30 knot 880 foot 52,000 ton leviatian with 14 ton broadside parked on your doorstep.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Whats wrong with the Arligh Burkes?
I have no problems with the Navy getting some new ships, my love for the old battlewagons just wont die.
They are slow. (Slower than the Cruisers and Spru-cans). They have no backup air search radar. Thay are cramped. They only have one gun.
Basically they are overweight slow, and have no redundancy. They do handle pretty well at sea though.
-
The LCS is deffinatly a needed asset.
-
Oh yaeh and half the Burkes don't carry their own helo, and the ones that do , do it at the expense of no Harpoon missiles and no towed array sonar. Basically it will take two Burkes to do the job of one TICO.
-
Wow, yikes.
How slow is slow?
What did they replace?
-
One thing is for sure... warships will prolly never look as good as they used to. Or maybe we will think they look good in a few decades.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Wow, yikes.
How slow is slow?
What did they replace?
Slow is max around 30 knots..though with battle overide out we could overtourque the shafts and go faster.
A Spru-can would go almost 40..most WW2 destroyers could acheive 40 knots..
Our aircraft carriers can do 50+ (scoff if you'd like but I've tracked em on radar going that fast)
The burkes replaced all the older ships we got rid of towards the end of the 80's/early 90's. IE knox class FF's our Nuke CG's etc.
-
I think nothing will top the ships that came out of WW2 for looks.
The Iowas are the great looking ships.
So were the cruisers of the Era, now they are all ugly and top heavy looking.
-
Nah Nils.. you have a mariners eye. The Iowa class BB's and the Baltimore Class Cruisers were among the most beautiful weapons of war ever built. The only othe country to build a modern warship that had the same panache were the Russians.
Baltimore Class
(http://www.modelshipbuilding.com/images/judy-pitts8.jpg)
-
I dont doubt the Nukes can go that fast.
hmm only 30 nots.
Still faster then the OHP class frigate though?
-
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/bb-62-8406362.jpg)
Awsome...
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/bb-64-h97206k.jpg)
Beautiful
-
I was watching X day: the invasion of japan last night on Disc. They wer etalking about the invasion of Okinawa alone comprising of a fleet of 1500+ ships. There will NEVER be an invasion of that scale with the current threats we have today. It's just not feasable. Back then you needed the bigger guns at you disposal. Today we have superior air power with pricision accuracy.
It's sorry to say but unless it's a CV the big ships are "obsolete"
The Marines now want an "over the horizon" capability of sea based invasion an that's were the CV22 comes into play. You will still have the amphib vehicles and such but it isn't just 200,000+ GIs hopping in higgens boats and making a mad dash to the shore line anymore.
That's just not the way it works, it is now a full spectrum response of aggression and precision.
-
The centerpiece of an American Battle Group is the Carrier. If the group elements can't outpace the Carrier they are a dangerous liability. Just as in the air, at sea; speed is life... and even though the BB's could make turns for over 30 knots, they still couldn't keep up with a modern CV group.
Have heard of the problems surrounding the Burkes.. won't be sorry to see 'em go.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
The centerpiece of an American Battle Group is the Carrier. If the group elements can't outpace the Carrier they are a dangerous liability. Just as in the air, at sea; speed is life... and even though the BB's could make turns for over 30 knots, they still couldn't keep up with a modern CV group.
Have heard of the problems surrounding the Burkes.. won't be sorry to see 'em go.
CV speed was designed so that if the screening ships wreren't able to protect it from the Russian sub threat, It could leave the area.
It's not vital to keep up with the carrier.
-
On the Burkes.
I remeber hearing back when they were being devoloped when I was a kid, that they were going to be awsome.
First ship with armor in years more survivable.
Lesson learned from the perry class that took the exocet...
Interesting to hear they were not as good as they were sold as being.
-
Survivability is pretty good. No more Aluminum superstructure like the DD's CG's and FFG's had..not really much actual armor. CIC placement is good, being just above the waterline and not in the superstructure. The Chimical Protective system is good with a pressurized interior and airlocks for topside access. Crew space is cramped and when all 4 chill water plants shut down (which happens allot) it gets extremely hot inside.
-
yea but the biggest question on ALL sailor's minds is:
"Do we get to hot rack" :D
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yea but the biggest question on ALL sailor's minds is:
"Do we get to hot rack" :D
Only the Sub-Mariners do that.
-
that doesnt meen the rest of the fleet doesnt want to
"nothing says lovin like 2 spooning sailors on the high seas"
;)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
that doesnt meen the rest of the fleet doesnt want to
"nothing says lovin like 2 spooning sailors on the high seas"
;)
Or a bunch of Marines snuggled tight together in the landing craft.
-
umm
you guys could take on all the rest of the worlds navies combined with just your Arleigh Burks
Or just your SSNs
Or just your carriers.
Or just your CGs.
WTF you need more of anything for.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
umm
you guys could take on all the rest of the worlds navies combined with just your Arleigh Burks
Or just your SSNs
Or just your carriers.
Or just your CGs.
WTF you need more of anything for.
Big Stick philosophy...basically...gott a make the stick bigger!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
that doesnt meen the rest of the fleet doesnt want to
"nothing says lovin like 2 spooning sailors on the high seas"
;)
tsk tsk tsk Guns... *sigh* need you be reminded that being a Marine, yer just slightly further down the military food chain than the Navy.. you know... the ghey guys you worked for.
:D
-
I was always taught that MARINE stood for...
-Musclebound
-Arse's
-Riding
-In
-Navy
-Equipment
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
tsk tsk tsk Guns... *sigh* need you be reminded that being a Marine, yer just slightly further down the military food chain than the Navy.. you know... the ghey guys you worked for.
:D
My
Ass
Rides
In
Navy
Equipment
That and their corpman are pretty much all the little squidlys are good for :D
Marines are a department of the navy and like all department store we have our section. Usually that's the MEN's department.
;)
-
Originally posted by Pongo
umm
you guys could take on all the rest of the worlds navies combined with just your Arleigh Burks
Or just your SSNs
Or just your carriers.
Or just your CGs.
WTF you need more of anything for.
Hey Pongo!! How the hell are yah?
The Navy needs redundancy. Lots and lots and lots of redundancy. "Why?" you ask? Well, because they have lots and lots and lots of sailors.
And a few marines.
Since the marines absolutely detest being toted around by the Army and Airforce, and since the Navy doesn't particularly like toting them around either, the Navy requires lots and lots and lots of ships and sailors so some of them can do other things besides toting marines around.
These surplus sailors generally chip paint, sterilize and repaint ships that just came back from toting marines or cook and deliver food and medical supplies for the sailors that are currently usefully employed in actually toting around the marines. Most sailors, after having done duty toting marines around are either decorated & promoted if they are still cohernt or discharged with medical pensions following mental and physical stress relevant to marine toting.
So you see, we really do need a big Navy.
-
Actually..we work well with the Marines nowadays...They are our landlubbing brothers.
We could do away with the other two services and just enlarge the Navy/Marine team and get a more organized and effective fighting force under ONE department..all the "joint ops" BS could go away. No more fighting over the budget.
After all supposedly we already have more aircraft than the Air Farce and we all know that Marines are more effective than the Army :D
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Actually..we work well with the Marines nowadays...They are our landlubbing brothers.
We could do away with the other two services and just enlarge the Navy/Marine team and get a more organized and effective fighting force under ONE department..all the "joint ops" BS could go away. No more fighting over the budget.
After all supposedly we already have more aircraft than the Air Farce and we all know that Marines are more effective than the Army :D
HERE HERE :aok
-
Sounds like an excellent idea. The Chair Farce has nothin to do since the soviets hung up the gloves and the Army would rather be hanging around the barracks where there's hot food, running water and left over fleet week centerfold magazines.
Let the Navy and the mean little dudes with funny hats and bald heads dick around with with the pointy end of the stick for awile.
;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Sounds like an excellent idea. The Chair Farce has nothin to do since the soviets hung up the gloves and the Army would rather be hanging around the barracks where there's hot food, running water and left over fleet week centerfold magazines.
Let the Navy and the mean little dudes with funny hats and bald heads dick around with with the pointy end of the stick for awile.
;)
I'll have you know that when I first enlisted in the Marines I could not put my head in a jar!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'll have you know that when I first enlisted in the Marines I could not put my head in a jar!
I like the mostly dis-used term "Leatherneck" for Marines...It's not deroggatory but actually a historical nickname.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
I like the mostly dis-used term "Leatherneck" for Marines...It's not deroggatory but actually a historical nickname.
yup :aok
For those that don't know the term "Leatherneck" comes from the Marines OLD blues uniforms from the Colonial days. Marines used to actually have leather in their collar to help prevent cuts while fighting.
There's alot of history in the uniform, the "Blues" jacket has the raised color in it still to represent the old leather. Officers still have a sewed in pattern on the tops of their hats called a "quatrifoil" that was used to help Identify them to snipers in the ships riggings.
-
Whats crap sound like when it hits a fan??
"mmmaaaaaaaarrrrrrriiiiiiinnnn nnneeeeee"
In the land of bad things, we called the mean little dudes with big guns and all the white jets buzzin round 'em 'salamander packers'. I dunno why... mighta had something to do with the funny papers they squinted at, turning 'em round and round while yapping into the radios they always seemed to have stacked up 2 deep all around 'em.
In fact, I remember speculating that the reason why the white jets were always around 'em was because the Navy just didn't trust 'em alone in the woods with their radios... obviously they wanted the radios back.
;)
-
but anyway back to ships...The LCS-1 "USS FREEDOM" is under construction now. It is one of two designs. I'm pretty sure it's the Lockheed design they are building. They are detailing the first crew now, and the ship should be ready late 2006 according to the press releases. The crew for LCS-2 shuld be put together soon and I expect this one will be the other design. Too bad DD(X) is so delayed..looking at like 2012 at the earliest for that one.
LCS INFO (http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/lcs/default.htm)
-
Jezzzuzus Cripes inna Mae West....
Navy's new LCS (http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/lcs/images/LCS3_ship_atsea.jpg)
...that thing looks like a Chris Craft! We'll be the biggest baddddest Tuna Killers on the planet! ;)
-
I was just going to mention that the Navy would be much
better served by newer faster transports than super duper
surface warfare vessels.
How else we supposed to get all the junk the Army/Corps
need to operate over to the combat zones?
-
Well, the marines get around on one of these..
(http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Jul2004/040707-N-7586B-095_screen.jpg)
While the navy is kind enuff to make these available for transporting the Army around.
(http://www.neatstuff.net/pics/Neptune-Tug-Boat.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Rino
I was just going to mention that the Navy would be much
better served by newer faster transports than super duper
surface warfare vessels.
How else we supposed to get all the junk the Army/Corps
need to operate over to the combat zones?
Here ya go
LPD-17 USS SAN ANTONIO (http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/LPD17/default.htm)(http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/LPD17/images/LPD17underway4_05.JPG)
-
for some reason, warships without guns reminds me of a similar airforce boondoggle called a Phantom.
besides... what third world sand bandit would be intimidated by a big flat-assed apparently unarmed Bayliner charging around offshore? And what're they gonna use for close in defense... the midship watch with 9mm's?
-
LPD-17 uses the SSDS MK-II self defense system..if you look on the port forward end of the superstructure you see a RAM launcher...close in defense better that the Phalanx CIWS.
-
One... uno.. 'launcher'.
On the port forward side. I see the navy's layered defense program has been somewhat simplified.. logistics I'm guessing?
No hope for a 'launcher' on the starboard aft side? ;)
-
Realizing of course it would be extremely (likely prohibitively) expensive on the front end, I've often wondered what the result would be if an Iowa class BB was FULLY modernized.
Meaning:
converted to nuclear fired steam turbines
the props and such were updated
the latest missle and defense systems were integrated
the necessary comunications updates for command and control
the new updates for the 16" guns were installed
The Iowa class ships are to the Navy what the A-10 is to the Air Force. An old, supposedly outdated, antiquated piece of hardware, capable of doing things nothing else in the inventory can.
-
Savage,
That would be a great novel, kinda like the flight of the old dog.
-
What would the purpose of this vessel be? What, exactly, would it do?
It sounds like massive up-front cost to get a fighter that would have lower per-shot cost. You would have to do a LOT of firing to make up the R&D cost.
The first time a rickety old biplane scratched and clawed its way off the makeshift plywood airstrip nailed to the top of some old ship, the Battleship was obsolete. It took a couple decades for everyone else to figure it out, though.
As far as the BB can shoot, a carrier based plane can travel further. If you're using the old 'it can fire cruise missiles' argument, well, so can a destroyer, submarine, guided missile cruiser, Mazda Miata, deck of playing cards, etc.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Nah Nils.. you have a mariners eye. The Iowa class BB's and the Baltimore Class Cruisers were among the most beautiful weapons of war ever built. The only othe country to build a modern warship that had the same panache were the Russians.
I like the looks of the 60 and 70's ships too like the Leahy and Belknap classes etc
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
for some reason, warships without guns reminds me of a similar airforce boondoggle called a Phantom.
besides... what third world sand bandit would be intimidated by a big flat-assed apparently unarmed Bayliner charging around offshore? And what're they gonna use for close in defense... the midship watch with 9mm's?
That oddly shaped thingy on the deck of that LCS is a very effective 57mm Bofors gun hidden in its stealth cupola. Excellent weapon for the type of job the LCS would do.
(http://www.uniteddefense.com/i/prod/LCS_Bofors57mm.jpg)
http://www.uniteddefense.com/pr/pr_20040113.htm
-
Hi Chair,
Originally posted by Chairboy
What would the purpose of this vessel be? What, exactly, would it do?
It sounds like massive up-front cost to get a fighter that would have lower per-shot cost. You would have to do a LOT of firing to make up the R&D cost.
The fact is that we just don't have the kind of military budget that would support the development of a whole new class of multi-billion dollar vessels. We sometimes forget that the total budget for security (all departments) is only 455 billion, so to develop and deploy even a dozen of these vessels, the Navy is asking for a sizable chunk of the future budget. When we consider the other billion dollar + items like the B-2 bomber (roughly 2 billion each) we can get an idea of how quickly that 455 gets gobbled up. We aren't really operating on a wartime budget basis (for instance DHSS still gets more money than defense) and I can see us moving towards say the WW2 budget were defense got over 2/3rds of the federal budget in the future, the political cost is too high.
So we may not want to modernize the old battlewagons, just as the airforce is sick of having to upgrade their B-52s again and again, instead of getting more B-2s, but we just can't afford to give the services the new high-tech weaponry they want.
- SEAGOON
-
Hi Seagoon,
Your points are salient, but I'd like to address some of them in more detail.
The B-2 vs. B-52 argument is a well known one, but the B-2 is designed for combat when air superiority is not assured. The size of our current B-2/F-117 fleet means that airbases and SAM sites can be taken out ahead of the a B-52 attack, and that's what happened in Iraq. So the B-52 can continue to deliver payloads effectively just as far as the B-2.
In comparison, a newly outfitted battleship would only be able to reach a limited ways into a country and would be suitable only for an extremely limited range of missions. There's nothing it could do that a guided missile cruiser or fleet of aircraft couldn't do better.
If you want long distance artillery from the water, park a bunch of MLRS and Paladin on the deck of a freighter. It's cheaper, and then the vehicles can be deployed onto land once the landing area is secured and used conventionally.
"Chairboy, a battleship could carry cruise missiles." Any ship can carry cruise missiles, and for lower fixed costs.
"Chairboy, battleships are sexy." Undeniably, but the unit cost measured against combat effectiveness is out of whack with other ships.
"Chairboy, shut up." A good point, but I maintain that YOU shut up.
"Carriers are more expensive". True, but carriers already exist and are budgeted for, this conversation is about redirecting DD(X) monies to BBG development.
Remember folks, there's more to activating a mothballed battleship than grabbing a hold of a lever on the bridge and shifting it from 'Decommissioned' to 'Commision', the Simpsons non-withstanding.
On another note, the biggest threat to the US fleet right now is a diesel sub. Air superiority is taken care of, a Sevylor inflatable raft can't get within a hundred miles of a carrier group without being seen, and nuclear submarines make noise from their pumps. A properly equipped diesel sub sitting in an inversion layer running silent and sitting still can maybe pop a CVN (those suckers are fast), but a BBG would be a sitting duck.
Just a thought....
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
What would the purpose of this vessel be? What, exactly, would it do?
It sounds like massive up-front cost to get a fighter that would have lower per-shot cost. You would have to do a LOT of firing to make up the R&D cost.
The first time a rickety old biplane scratched and clawed its way off the makeshift plywood airstrip nailed to the top of some old ship, the Battleship was obsolete. It took a couple decades for everyone else to figure it out, though.
As far as the BB can shoot, a carrier based plane can travel further. If you're using the old 'it can fire cruise missiles' argument, well, so can a destroyer, submarine, guided missile cruiser, Mazda Miata, deck of playing cards, etc.
For the most part, an Iowa class could be adapted during the process of recommission/refit/update to do anything but launch fixed wing aircraft and submerge.
You can put anything on it but a flight deck, so pretty much anything you can do with the various destroyers and cruisers, except run where a VERY shallow draft is required, could be done with a modernized BB.
Further, as it currently sits, it is an extremely tough ship and was very fast for its time, meaning with updated propulsion it would be even faster.
You could hang just about any missile system on it. It could be used for fleet defense given its toughness, and a size that would likely lend itself to adapting ANY fleet defense systems you'd install on a ship short of fixed wing aircraft.
And yes, the 16" guns have a lot going for them, and they can't be found anywhere else.
An Iowa class BB would be no more an easy target than a CV. It would not be sitting out in the middle of the ocean by itself, it would be a part of the Task Group like any other ship. No more of a liability than a CV to attack, and able to contribute to fleet defense like any of the other ships, as well as being a large, tough, and fairly fast multi weapons system platform.
The idea of parking field artillery on a freighter in no way compares to what you could do with an Iowa class ship. Not even close.
Oh, and we are still building CV's last I looked, so it is not simply a matter of CV's are already there and we aren't building any more.
-
Would be alot cheaper and better to build a new ship from scratch.... if you really need a battleship that is. You would need to take it apart completly anyway.
But ofcouse.. you COULD update them.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Would be alot cheaper and better to build a new ship from scratch.... if you really need a battleship that is. You would need to take it apart completly anyway.
But ofcouse.. you COULD update them.
I don't know that it would be cheaper to build an entirely new hull, and an entirely new set of 16" guns along with the control system that goes with them. I do agree that it would be difficult, expensive, and would require major disassembly of the ship.
Everyone agreed after Pearl Harbor that battelships were obsolete. But that wasn't true then. They agreed that after the war they were obsolete. But then they used them very successfully all the way up to the 1st Gulf War. What was old is often new again. Does that maxim apply to the Iowa class BB? Not enough study has been done to know.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
One... uno.. 'launcher'.
On the port forward side. I see the navy's layered defense program has been somewhat simplified.. logistics I'm guessing?
No hope for a 'launcher' on the starboard aft side? ;)
It is on the Starboiard quarter, thus giving 360 degree coverage. RAM can engage multiple targets where CIWS could not, and is much more reliable.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I like the looks of the 60 and 70's ships too like the Leahy and Belknap classes etc
Yeah... but these were just small destroyers. (Yeah, I know, they were reclassified as cruisers, but as such they did not compare with the heavy cruisers of before).
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
for some reason, warships without guns reminds me of a similar airforce boondoggle called a Phantom.
besides... what third world sand bandit would be intimidated by a big flat-assed apparently unarmed Bayliner charging around offshore? And what're they gonna use for close in defense... the midship watch with 9mm's?
Airforce boondoggle? By 67 we most certainly had fixed that
with the E model. Our Navy/Marine cousins never did put a gun
on their Phantoms.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Yeah... but these were just small destroyers. (Yeah, I know, they were reclassified as cruisers, but as such they did not compare with the heavy cruisers of before).
Actually The old "Cruisers" were classified as Frigates...the Ticinderaoga Class was originally classified as DDG-47 hence the reason the hull number was in line with DDG hull numbers at the time. Tico is just a Spruance with SPY-1 radar and AEGIS combat system.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Yeah... but these were just small destroyers. (Yeah, I know, they were reclassified as cruisers, but as such they did not compare with the heavy cruisers of before).
i know...
Just like the looks of em.
-
Leahy was originally classified as DLG-16... but was also considered to be a light guided missile frigate.
I wonder why it wasn't designated as FFG-16...
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
i know...
Just like the looks of em.
Spend a few years on one... they don't look as good from the inside. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Spend a few years on one... they don't look as good from the inside. ;)
I bet. ive been inside the Oslo class from the 60's. Pretty cramped
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Spend a few years on one... they don't look as good from the inside. ;)
Spend a few years living in mud, dodging mortars, diggin holes and crapping in 'em. Yer little DLG was a palace.
Swabbie.
;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Spend a few years living in mud, dodging mortars, diggin holes and crapping in 'em. Yer little DLG was a palace.
Swabbie.
;)
I'll not argue your point. :)