Author Topic: Navy presses for New Destroyer (Read 1543 times)

Hangtime · « **Reply #75 on:** August 16, 2005, 11:51:28 PM »

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?

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #76 on:** August 17, 2005, 12:41:28 AM »

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 An old, supposedly outdated, antiquated piece of hardware, capable of doing things nothing else in the inventory can.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #77 on:** August 17, 2005, 01:10:59 AM »

Savage,

That would be a great novel, kinda like the flight of the old dog.

Chairboy · « **Reply #78 on:** August 17, 2005, 01:21:37 AM »

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.

Nilsen · « **Reply #79 on:** August 17, 2005, 02:45:20 AM »

Quote

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

Nilsen · « **Reply #80 on:** August 17, 2005, 02:47:27 AM »

Quote

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/pr/pr_20040113.htm

Seagoon · « **Reply #81 on:** August 17, 2005, 09:34:25 AM »

Hi Chair,

Quote

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

Chairboy · « **Reply #82 on:** August 17, 2005, 09:59:58 AM »

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....

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #83 on:** August 17, 2005, 10:18:16 AM »

Quote

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.

Nilsen · « **Reply #84 on:** August 17, 2005, 10:27:35 AM »

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.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #85 on:** August 17, 2005, 10:58:57 AM »

Quote

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.

ASTAC · « **Reply #86 on:** August 17, 2005, 11:03:44 AM »

Quote

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.

Sandman · « **Reply #87 on:** August 17, 2005, 11:06:47 AM »

Quote

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).

Rino · « **Reply #88 on:** August 17, 2005, 11:13:21 AM »

Quote

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.

ASTAC · « **Reply #89 on:** August 17, 2005, 11:14:42 AM »

Quote

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.