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
They are still valuable assets in this fight.
BTTT
the 155mm gun will have a range of 100 nautical miles. Novak's statement that the gun wouldn't be able to reach the shore doesn't seem true. Novak seems to be overly pessimistic about the DD(X).
Also, I thought the Navy was going to use an electric rail gun in these ships. What happened? Is the technology not in existence yet?
Wisconsin and Iowa are in very good shape, though.
How about keep them and build a new class of shore bombardment ships?
Contemplate twenty-five inch guns with fifty mile range and a five ton projectile. Of course sub-munition rounds and rocket assist as desirable. Maybe a bit of terminal guidance, maybe smooth bores like M1A1 Abrams.
Ollie North has written on this too. Talked with Marines in the field.
They all seem to think that the new guns on the DDX won't cover them adequately.
Have studied the main gun turret manual. Very old fashioned system, DC motors with series resistors in the armature circuit for speed control, all right out of the 1920's, but of fine materials and workmanship. Still practical. Useful.
The United States Marine Corps wants them. Good enough for me.
But aren't they going to have to spend more to convert to the new DDX ships?
It seems to me as Novak has laid out that it would be more cost effective to the Navy to bring back the two Battle Wagons with the proper upgrades.
They're currently not IN commission.
There is precisely 0% chance of their ever being back IN commission, too. This is basically a moot debate.
Lets see, in the War on Terror they could shell...Basra? That's only several hundred miles from the Sunni Triangle.
And let me know when you figure out how to get Wisconsin and Iowa to Afghanistan.
I believe the following is true.
A six inch (155 mm) gun for shore bombardment is too small. Projectile is too light, maybe 100 - 120 pounds. Need eight inch or larger, projectile 250 - 300 pounds. The sixteen inch 2,000 - 2,700 pound projectiles are much better. The landing force has all the 155 mm it needs as part of their own equipment.
The landing force needs a heavy hitter on one minute notice at all times day or night. Aviation is not suitable as a carrier cannot fly enough missions to keep loitering aircraft up over the target area 24 hours a day and at the same time put in 25 tons of ordinance in thirty seconds, repeat as desired.
155 mm can reach 100 miles only with RAP. Warhead is very small, and the projectile inaccurate without terminal guidance (expensive).
The marines are correct. Ideally something modern would be available instead of 1920's technology of course.
The Marines don't have to pay for them.
The main cost is the obscenely large crews needed for these ships, especially compared to the tiny crews of the next generation of highly automated Navy vessels.
And really the effectiveness comparison should be to GPS bombs, not the DD(X).
How so?
Well let's see there our efforts in the Philippenes...Horn of Africa...you forget...the WoT isn't just limited to what you see on TV.
And which one of those is going to require the Marines assault a defended beachhead? Which is a situation where air power cannot be employed to greater benefit?
You are correct about commissioning, of course. I should have said "fleet reserve". Could be brought to "ready reserve" if desired.
The growing threat of China...the continuing threat from the knucklehead 30 klicks North of me...Iran...the areas where we are involved in the WoT in the Pacific.
Did you miss the part where the Commandant of the Marines says that even their VMF and VMA squadrons can get weathered in?
They aren't just the big guns...they serve as TLAM launch platforms as well.
They could be a launch site for Predator and other Armed UAV's.
The guns on a Battle Wagon have never just supported Navy and Marine assets.
The Navy is decommissioning Tarawa class LHAs because they don't have the funding or the manpower to keep them in commission. And you want them to dump billions into a platform with virtually no useful purpose in the current war. Good plan.
The world has changed with GPS bombs. I assure you in any sort of opposed amphibious landing there will be loitering aircraft at all times, and GPS bombs are more accurate than 16" shells.
And I've noticed that people somehow find this very hard to believe, but:
16" Bombardment Shell: 154 lbs. explosive
Standard 1,000 lb Bomb: 385 lbs. explosive
Standard 2,000 lb. Bomb: 945 lbs. explosive
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.