Posted on 12/05/2005 12:55:30 AM PST by txradioguy
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Marines, while fighting valiantly in Iraq, are on the verge of serious defeat on Capitol Hill. A Senate-House conference on the Armed Services authorization bill convening this week is considering turning the Navy's last two battleships, the Iowa and Wisconsin, into museums. Marine officers fear that deprives them of vital fire support in an uncertain future.
Gen. Michael W. Hagee, the current commandant of the Marine Corps, testified on April 1, 2003, that loss of naval surface fire support from battleships would place his troops "at considerable risk." On July 29 this year, Hagee asserted: "Our aviation is really quite good, but it can, in fact, be weathered." Nevertheless, Marine leaders have given up a public fight for fear of alienating Navy colleagues.
The Navy high command is determined to get rid of the battleships, relying for support on an expensive new destroyer at least 10 years in the future. This is how Washington works. Defense contractors, Pentagon bureaucrats, congressional staffers and career-minded officers make this decision that may ultimately be paid for by Marine and Army infantrymen.
Marine desire to reactivate the Iowa and Wisconsin runs counter to the DD(X) destroyer of the future. It will not be ready before 2015, costing between $4.7 billion and $7 billion. Keeping the battleships in reserve costs only $250,000 a year, with reactivation estimated at $500 million (taking six months to a year) and full modernization more than $1.5 billion (less than two years).
On the modernized battleships, 18 big (16-inch) guns could fire 460 projectiles in nine minutes and take out hardened targets in North Korea. In contrast, the DD(X) will fire only 70 long-range attack projectiles at $1 million a minute. Therefore, the new destroyer will rely on conventional 155-millimeter rounds that Marines say cannot reach the shore. Former longtime National Security Council staffer William L. Stearman, now executive director of the U.S. Naval Fire Support Association, told me, "In short, this enormously expensive ship cannot fulfill its primary mission: provide naval surface fire support for the Marine Corps."
Read the rest here:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2005/12/05/177720.html
Ping!
Manpower. Thats why they will not come back.
That's interesting, seeing as how they were re-commissioned in the early 1980's, not the 1970's. I was on a destroyer in drydock next to the New Jersey when she was recommissioned. Reagan did the ceremony.
And speed. The only ships that they can keep up with anymore are the supply ships. They're obsolete. I'd like to see a new ship built with 16" guns, but refitting the old battleships is pointless. If they can't keep up with the carriers, cruisers, and destroyers, they aren't much use.
They're like holidays -- unobjectionable per se and helpful if well-timed. But pushing them as your Number One priority in the middle of what you have declared to be a civilizational war against the forces of barbarism undermines the mission politically and undermines the troops if you're piking on them.
Example: has enough been done on the subject of hardening of formerly soft vehicles against IED's?
If not, then Park Avenue widows and heiresses and retired board chairmen can take a big, fat number while we get our Marines and Army people properly equipped for the environment we're asking them to operate in.
How many targets in Afghanistan, or Iraq, are within range of the main guns on a battleship?
9/11 occurred in FY-01 and that was a Clinton budget. Hasn't the Defense Budget nearly doubled since then?
Absolutely right. Tax cuts = larger tax base = more money. This is the mysterious alchemy of Conservatism.
But let's get back to the battleship part of the thread. Blue sky thinking for a moment. A nuclear battleship with "electronic" armour and a shiplength Rail Gun capable of whacking Kabul from the Straits of Taiwan: a monster like that would get built by public subscription! I'ld chip in, and I'm not even American...
I read a lot of reports on Tora Bora, never read any mention of APCs within 30 miles of the fighting.
The Crusader was 70 tons. It would have taken two weeks to get it within 40 miles of the fighting. It simply could not have brought anything to the fight, especially as the enemy would have left while we were building the roads to get it there. At any significant range, it could not have hit anything on a far slope.
Heavy mortars were what we needed.
True, the Massachussetts, Alabama, and North Carolina could be returned to service but it would be VERY expensive. They are in ok condition (I've been to all three)
This would require about 8-9,000 men that the Navy does not have and could not afford.
The guns on these three ships are different from the Iowas. They are considerably less powerful and are essentially 1915 vintage technology. (The Iowas are 1930's level)
Seven is still not enough to keep one on station in WESTPAC and CENTCOM areas at all times (minimum 9 would be required without forward homeports)
That would be awesome.. We need to focus on developing new ways of fighting wars instead on depending on old technology. The traditional battleships from WWII won't fit the bill. We need a military that has rapid mobilization capabilities.
Cut some social programs and put more money in the military. Tax cuts are good not evil..
We keep seeing this formulary argument.
Plenty of targets in the Formosa Strait and coastal Korea are within range.
You don't ditch a naval weapon system because you can't deploy it to the Himalayas; neither would you drop the F-22 program because it can't be deployed against Akula-class SSN's.
The question was posed in the context of the discussion. The discussion had to do with the use of airpower in Afghanistan.
But I can see your point. And as long as the North Koreans and the Chinese have placed all their vital targets within -what - twenty miles of the coastland, then we need to bring the battleships back online.
Slightly off topic but I thought I would share this question asked at a Sailor of the Year board in 1988.
Grizzled Master Chief: "Name the Navy's active Battleships?
PO1 Wristpin: "New Jersey, Iowa, Wisconsin and Missouri".
Grizzled Master Chief: (Grinning) "You missed one.....The USS Arizona was never decomissioned."
Only the weatherdecks (and limited interior spaces) are Open to the public. All humidification and corrosion protection is still maintained by the Navy. The New Jersey and Missouri are not being seriously degraded but are not maintained to this level which would allow for a quick reactivation. Iowa is actually in better shape (Turret #2 is nearly repaired and the needed parts are stowed in the turret) I would keep atleast 1 in this condition for future contingencies but see my post #85 for the best option going forward)
The FY 02 budget was the one Rumsfeld was working on. He put in the money to pay for Clinton's drawdowns on weapons stocks for Yugoslavia and Desert Fox, plus a small pay raise IIRC, and it added up to $60 billion. Bush told him to take it all out and pass the word to the armed services: Stand fast on budget requests. He dishonored his campaign pledges to the People.
Then he went back to Rumsfeld that summer with a demand for a $60 billion carve-out from existing programs and priorities for SDI. That was a $120 billion swing.
All that happened before 9/11.
Don't get me wrong: I think SDI on balance was probably a good thing to do. But standing down the total budget and dishonoring your campaign promises on defense so you could do tax cuts for the Yacht Club crowd?
Hasn't the Defense Budget nearly doubled since then?
As a series of war budgets, yes. But you can't do what Bush did at the outset, and then have issues come up like the vehicle-hardening issue and guys going through the scrap-iron heap, while you're still fighting hardest for tax cuts like you were before it all hit the fan. That is NOT cool.
>>a lot easier to have an orbiting B-52 or B-1 overhead<<
This is fine when you're up against an enemy without an AirForce. You think the NK or PRC AF's are going to sit out a war like the Iraqi and Afgans did.
There was a photo sequence of a BTR-60 getting taken out in a mountain pass.....sneaky petes took the photos while illuminating the Taliwhackers and observing the results when NavAir gave the Bearded Ones what they needed.
If the weather is bad enough to make modern air support iffy it is going to make GROUND spotting for the BB almost impossible as well. In such a situation Infantry are NOT going to have a lot of reason to call on the BBs for fire support since both sides are going to be holding what they got not conducting offensive operations.
So this is a case of dreaming up excuses for what a certain person WANTS to think is sound policy, not a sensible discussion of reality by people who actually KNOW what they are talking about.
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.