Author Topic: Navy presses for New Destroyer  (Read 1536 times)

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Navy presses for New Destroyer
« Reply #15 on: August 16, 2005, 02:13:47 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2005, 02:26:25 PM by GtoRA2 »

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
Navy presses for New Destroyer
« Reply #16 on: August 16, 2005, 02:21:20 PM »
Hi GTO,

Quote
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."
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Navy presses for New Destroyer
« Reply #17 on: August 16, 2005, 02:23:45 PM »
Quote
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.

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Navy presses for New Destroyer
« Reply #18 on: August 16, 2005, 02:30:16 PM »
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.

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
Navy presses for New Destroyer
« Reply #19 on: August 16, 2005, 02:41:38 PM »
Hi GTO,

Got it from here:

BBG Facts and Figures

- SEAGOON
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline Hangtime

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10148
Navy presses for New Destroyer
« Reply #20 on: August 16, 2005, 02:57:42 PM »
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
The price of Freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness...

...at home, or abroad.

Offline XrightyX

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 277
Navy presses for New Destroyer
« Reply #21 on: August 16, 2005, 03:07:26 PM »
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
« Last Edit: August 16, 2005, 03:20:12 PM by XrightyX »

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Navy presses for New Destroyer
« Reply #22 on: August 16, 2005, 03:09:11 PM »
Looks like an ugly alluminum death trap posted by a guy who doesnt know when a pic is WAY to big.

Offline XrightyX

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 277
Navy presses for New Destroyer
« Reply #23 on: August 16, 2005, 03:15:38 PM »
Sorry, it shows up tiny on the official page.  :(  I'll fix it and just link the page.......

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Navy presses for New Destroyer
« Reply #24 on: August 16, 2005, 03:32:28 PM »
It was a nice pic, but its a pain to have to scroll to read what you wrote.

Offline XrightyX

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 277
Navy presses for New Destroyer
« Reply #25 on: August 16, 2005, 03:42:28 PM »
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?

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Navy presses for New Destroyer
« Reply #26 on: August 16, 2005, 03:54:14 PM »
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.

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Navy presses for New Destroyer
« Reply #27 on: August 16, 2005, 04:29:15 PM »
Dirty hippie scum refuse the Battleship Iowa to be a museum in their crap hole town of San francisco.


The news story.


Good, I would rather go to stockton, then SF anyway.  Least in stockton the bums dont **** in the street right in front of you.

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Navy presses for New Destroyer
« Reply #28 on: August 16, 2005, 04:31:47 PM »
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.

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Navy presses for New Destroyer
« Reply #29 on: August 16, 2005, 04:34:24 PM »
Guns
 You forgeting the coolness factor of 16inch naval guns.


:D

Don't they give the Marine in you a woody?