Oh ......this is about old battleships, not old 49 Buick roadmasters........?:o)
Nostalgia has no place in modern warfare IMO....Short of my M1A and 1911A1 of course.....
Stay safe !
Posted on 06/18/2005 5:32:42 AM PDT by SLB
The Navy wants to let go of its last two battleships. But a group called the United States Naval Fire Support Association is doing its best to torpedo that plan. Both sides are firing salvos across newspaper op-ed pages.
The issue: Does a weapon that was born in the 19th century and came to maturity in the 20th century still have a role in the 21st?
The answer could well decide whether the battleships Iowa and Wisconsin rejoin the fleet-in-being - or whether they'll join their sister ships Missouri and New Jersey as floating museums to an age gone by.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
They do not run with a 2700 man crew in their current configuration. They currently run on a crew of 1100 -1200 hundred. The reason is because they no longer carry 160 anti-aircraft guns which were individual crew served weapons.
You are also incorrect about their fuel system. During the 80's refit their boilers were upgraded to burn marine diesel as all of our gas turbine powered ships do. Their enormous fuel capacity allowed them to act as tankers to refuel their escorts. You are using their as built specfications which are invalid points in making your arguements.
In a hull the size of the Iowa, quite alotta firepower can be crammed into it.
Built from the keel up with new higher output engines, modern electronics fire suppression andgenerators, the hull could eventuall be fitted with teh railgun in development.
Refitting the Iowa to do the above would be akin to a complete rebuild.
Not sure whether the cost of refit versus scratch building a new ship would be worth it.
But looking at the hole that was punched into the unarmored U.S.S. Cole, the armor on the Iowa is an advantage.
The Cole was almost a loss.
The Iowa has counterballasting capability.
So the old Lady has a few lessons left to teach at least.
Just wish some in the design bureau would listen!
Any number of potential Korea scenarios justify keeping these battlewagons around.
The Iowas vertical protection was designed to resist aerial bombs. The ships have armored decks for the first three decks totalling 12" of vertical protection not including a fourth splinter deck. Acoording to Summerall who has written one of the best researched books on the Iowa Class it would take an armor piercing bomb dropped from an altitude of 10,500 ft to penetrate the ship's vertical protection. No current missile which pops-up before it dives on its target goes to that altitude nor does it have the warhead weight or explosive power to do as you say. The Missouri was hit by a kamikaze during the battle of Okinawa which was carrying two 500 lb bombs which only caused superficial damage to the superstructure.
Propulsion is one of the upgrades being talked about. With modern propulsion systems, these points are irrelevant.
Plus, when you consider the placement of Phalanx anti-missile defense systems in conjunction with the massive armor plating, the Missouri would be invulnerable to missile attack irregardless of where the missile would strike at. Phalanx systems would serve to better protect the lesser-armored areas.
If I'm, not mistaken, we haven't been able to manufacture the sheels or powder bags for a couple decades now.
How about 6,600 on an aircraft carrier. How many of them do we have? 12-15. We are only talking about two ships so the manpower requirements issue is not as big.
True..and improved gear/intelligent refits (w/PGW and surveillance equip.)..."a real tough nut to crack."
"An Iowa would need as many as a carrier group and even with the newest fuel, she still smokes like a locomotive, making her an easy target."
The Iowa or any oil powered ship does not make smoke. Look at any picture of an Iowa class or any other oil fired ship and you see no smoke. The only visible smoke that ever came out of stack came from a coal-burning ship. An oil fired ship can make smoke to create a smoke-screen for stealth purposes if it needed. Oil fired boilers came out during WW1 with the benefits being greater power, easier to refuel, easier to run and no smoke. No smoke made it harder to see one's enemy coming over the horizon. It is also made it easier to see in a sea battle. Coal fired smoke was so heavy during the Battle of Jutland it was nearly impossible for the admirals to signal their fleets or see targets. The British had a few oil fired ships at this battle and the advantages were clearly seen.
"To put a battleship to sea today would mean various companion vessles, tenders, submarines, etc for supply and protection"
That is required with any navy anyway, so your point is moot.
Invulnerable?
I always shudder when that term comes up in military hardware discussions.
One can make the case the Phalanx system could protect the newer ships from anti-ship missles and therefore this negates the Iowa's heavy armor plating advantage...
It seems that we have technology to negate other technologies.
One wonders what Rummy gets to see in terms of future technologies that may make this whole discussion a moot point? Frankly, I'll let him make the call for us and sleep very soundly at night knowing he's there to do the right thing and think forward and not backwards.
If the battleship deserves to be a part of the firepower support mission, he'll do it.
Technology is advancing so rapidly that one can see 10 or so of these newer ships using computer controlled firepower combined with advanced technology precision-guided munitions making a tremendous impact. 75 155mm shells fired from multiple ships by computers that enable the shells to arrive like a freight train -- one right after another -- would be rather impressive effect whether they are AP or HE shells.
Perhaps the key is in the "Jointness" of the future military's missions. Who says we can't have multiple platforms attacking targets to achieve the desired effect?
2 or 3 hundred 155mm shells followed by a bunkerbuster. Hmmm... Sounds like a good show to me.
Think of a combined solution and perhaps this debate becomes a little less polarized.
Battleships have unique capabilities when you look backwards. However, while I love the notion of seeing them at sea again, I am reminded that we have a unique military that uses combined forces with speed and agility to win battles and wars.
Read Rummy's statements about where he sees our military in the future. Big hint -- smaller, smarter, lighter, more agile and able to project power far faster than ever before.
The lethality index of our armed forces seems to be at an all-time high while minimizing civilian casualties. Now that is one hell of a remarkable American acheivement.
Oh ......this is about old battleships, not old 49 Buick roadmasters........?:o)
Nostalgia has no place in modern warfare IMO....Short of my M1A and 1911A1 of course.....
Stay safe !
Unless you can figure out how to make them sail on land, the BB's would have been of zero use in the two most recent conflicts.
Not to mention obsolete power plants, the fact that the ships aren't configured for modern electronic gear, and on and on and on.
"Read Rummy's statements about where he sees our military in the future. Big hint -- smaller, smarter, lighter, more agile and able to project power far faster than ever before"
Not the whole thing. Parts of it will be though. The tank has still proved its worth in the curent war. But don't always think that technology can always win a war. An opponent with inferior technology and more superior numbers can overwhelm and defeat a technologically superior foe. Witness the destruction of the Wehrmacht in WWII. Though technically superior they were overrun by the Russian,American and British hoardes. Also consider the Korean war when the Chinese entered into it. These are lessons which should not be lost on us.
My grand dad always drove a Buick Roadmaster. Luxury that was without peer in the 1950's.
However, that destructive power does very little good and can cause extensive collateral damage if the shells do not land where you want them to.
The problem encountered with the USS New Jersey in Lebanon in 1983 was accuracy.
The poor accuracy in Lebanon and the 1989 gun turret explosion on the USS Iowa that killed 47 sailors convinced the Navy that the era of the Big Gun was truly over.
Sorry, I wrongly assumed that most people are well aware that technology is not the answer. It is only a key to the answer. That should have been part of my response.
We should never forget it is the human factor that wins wars. All the technology in the world is useless if the people using it are not highly trained and motivated by the right reasons and with great leadership.
Again, we are looking backwards though. The types of battles we will most likely be fighting are not the same as 50 years ago. The technology that has been battle proven is quite stunning in its effectiveness.
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.