Posted on 04/17/2005 8:04:35 PM PDT by tahotdog
Ollie North makes a very strong case for keeping and refitting the last two Iowa-class ships in an article I noticed on GOP-USA.
An Iowa class ship is not a reasonable weapon for conducting wars against other superpowers, nonetheless the last time we were at war with another superpower was in the fall of 1945. For dealing with all the third-raters we end up dealing with these days, an Iowa-class ship is the perfect weapon. It's guns can hit 80% of all the targets we ever need to hit and its cruise missiles can hit the other 20%, and it can carry a lot more of the cruise missiles than anything else we have. It can lay down a volume of fire which nothing else can match or come close to matching and the damage from any sort of a missile hit can be repaired with a paintbrush and a bucket of paint. That's damage which would sink most of our other ships and severely damage one of our carriers. Because of this invulnerability to nearly all kinds of conventional weaponry, an Iowa-class ship can stand in very close to enemy shore positions and support any sort of landing or marine activity.
This one is important. The navy bosses apparently want to retire these ships and "replace" them with destroyers armed with 5" guns, which is ludicrous. This is a better than averge reason for calling congresspeople with an opinion.
The BB's are hardcore and ready to prove it!!
Iowa class ships were meant to absorb hits from battleship guns and to do battle with the Mushashi, Yamato, Bismark, and Tirpitz. An exocet missile is a joke compared to any of that; it would bounce off.
I agree with keeping the battle wagons. Remember, however, the Navy now has smart munitions for five inchs guns that can strike a target sixty three miles away. These munitions are produced by Alliance Technologies (ATK).I don't know if they are now in full production.
A battlewagon can take a hit in the side from an Exocet missile. Eignteen inches of armor plate is always better than one quarter of an inch of sheet aluminum that makes up the hulls of most of our ships.
I don't know about this article - ALL of the Iowa-class battleships were retired years ago (early to mid-1990s).
That said, it was an incredibly stupid move. They are basically invulnerable missile launching platforms (not to mention the 16-inch shells, which, with today's radar & GPS guidance systems, could be delivered with pin-point accuracy to targets some 20 miles away) - and with the anti-missile defenses we have (AWACS, jamming A/C, gattling guns, anti-missile missiles), they can move with impunity on the battlefield.
Yes, the Exocet TORCHED a couple of NEW British ships in 1982, lightly armored and made of Aluminum, which burns like a torch when ignited.
The Iowa-class battleships were built to withstand the impact of 16-inch shells (which leave a football-field - sized crater when impacting on land) - their armor is so thick that no conventional missile today - even IF it got through the defense shield, would do them great damage.
That's something that most people today do not realize. You would basically need a tactical nuclear bomb to guarantee a take out of an Iowa-class battleship today. And our enemies (thus far) have not shown to have such capabilities, least of all the delivery methods.
It was pure near-sighted idiocy to retire these great ships.
In the long run they would more than have paid for themselves....but...they were retired and unretired a couple of times before...so hope springs eternal...but what do you do when they are given away to be turned into floating Museums? Does the Navy still keep title to them?
I do not know. I hope so. Just in case.
The current Exorcet would bounce, yes bounce off the side of an Iowa class BB. Besides the Exocet is easily defeated by the current Aegis system of SM2 and ESSM mixed with the RIM-162 RAM missiles. That is not to mention countermeasures like the Mk 52 Nulka and others.
"The Brits learned in the Falklands the deadliness of the Exocet."
Unfortunately, so did we when an Iraqi Mirage fighter shot 2 Exocets at the USS Stark FFG-31 on March 17, 1987.
And yes, that was a carrier group, not just a carrier! Just like carriers, the BB's needed a supply train of oilers, escorts, minesweepers, etc., just to function. Twelve inch belt armor topside will not protect against a $ 700.00 mine under the keel. You won't sink it, but you'll put it out of action until the flooding is contained and the hull repaired. It is dry dock stuff, and the asset would be lost for the duration, especially in a short conflict.
Admittedly, for a close-in bombardment system, they were the final word in their day. And if we should ever have to stage another protracted amphibious assault, they would be nice to have around.
But just as nice, for the same money, would be a harbor full of Marine LCAC's, prepositioned supply ships, a light harrier carrier, and a ton of other support and supply assets that the cost of the BB would soak up, if we funded the battleship instead.
Of course, we'd also have to deal with the fact that the technology to manufacture 16 inch rifled guns has been lost for 2 generations, and would require enormous investment to reconstitute.
You may be right that we can afford both, but in a future arena of diminishing resources, I think we need to let the IOWA's rest easy in mothballs.
build a few more oh that we only could... i don't even think it's possible to build the 18" to 21" thick armor plate on the sides of the Iowa's anymore here in America
A five inch shell which takes eight minutes to reach its target is wonderful for hitting small targets that don't move. That's about all it's good for however. The whole concept of using the 5" ergm gun on a destroyer as fire support is a sick joke.
"the Navy now has smart munitions for five inchs guns that can strike a target sixty three miles away."
Sorry the project was just cancelled last week.
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTSURF.HTM
April 13, 2005: After twelve years of effort, and two billion dollars spent, the U.S. Navy is starting over in its effort to develop a five inch (127mm) “smart shell.” The failed program, called extended range guided munition, or ERGM, tried to turn 127mm shells into GPS guided projectiles. But the system never worked reliably. So the Navy is holding another competition, to allow other suppliers to offer their designs. The original ERGM contractor, Raytheon, is also entering the competition, using their experience spending all that navy R&D money (plus some of their own) to come up new, more reliable, designs. Making this technology work is an evolutionary process. Such “guided shells” have been around for over two decades. At first, they were laser guided. But these were too expensive, at half a million dollars per 155mm shell (the U.S. Army "Copperhead"). However, better, and cheaper technologies have been developed, that make it easier to get the guidance systems into an artillery shell, and have them work reliably once they are fired from the cannon. The latest army effort, the 155mm Excalibur, has encouraged the navy to consider using that weapon, or at least its technology. The navy is planning on using 155mm guns on new destroyer designs. The larger shell makes a bigger bang when it hits, and provides more space guidance systems. A "dumb" artillery shell will land with 75 meters (or more, depending on range) of the aiming point, the laser guided Copperhead would land within a meter or two. GPS guided shells will land within 15-30 meters of the aiming point.
Old does not mean obsolete. The ships can put unmatched fire power on target. That and even in a modern missile combat enviroment the are nearly unstoppable. There is not conventional missile that can go through 12 inches of steal.
I WW2 a Japanese Kamamazi Zero hit the USS Missiouri right below her deck on her side. The pilot, still in his chairwas thrown into a quad 40 battery killing some of the crew, The structure of the ship was virtually undamaged. The gun was temporally out and som of the railing was gone. Beyond that it was a matter of scapping an painting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.