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
New Jersey was recommisioned for Vietnam the first time actually was '68 so 70's is close.
An Iowa class BB would run all but a nuke hull down in 24 hours. They can steam about 10,000 miles at transit speeds. Speed is the one thing the Iowas don't lack
This whole arguement is starting to sound like the Airforces arguement to try to get rid of the great A-10 warthogs.
Either the people trying to get rid of these great platforms are arrogant sobs or they are working for the enemy.
SMALL PAY RAISE in 2002?! You're kidding right?
It averaged 6.9 percent with some pay grades getting almost 10 percent. Housing Allowances went way up also as did Hazardous Duty pays.
I thought the added costs of operations was funded through Augments. During the 90's these costs were taken out of hide.
I just don't see your argument that the military has been short changed. There are limits. Taking 70 year old Battleships out of mothballs may not be the best bang for the buck.
I saw a photo sequence of a BTR (probably the same one, but it is doubtful that it was anywhere near the fighting at Tora Bora, as it was on a road when hit, and there were simply no roads anywhere near the fight.
The Crusader could have only been moved to theater one at a time via C-5, and no bridge in theater could have held it up.
One word: Payroll costs.
Two words actually.
There isn't much variety in the ammunition fired by the
16" naval rifle. Theres HE and theres solid shot. Unless
you just need a bunch of big holes in the ground theres
not much point keeping the BBs around.
Aircraft can carry a variety of weapons, including guided
bombs, cluster bombs, bunker busters.. and they can put
them precisely on target, which a BB was never really able
to do (ships are not stabilized enough).
A BB in the Taiwan Strait would be a sitting duck for Chicom land based guided missiles.
Ignore the ones that just name call. The flu, fossil, dog of peace and many other posts are full of people trying to shout down information and discourse.
Personally I enjoyed your posting this. Thanks
It was the same thing with the New Jersey in the Vietnam War. One underground command post withstood several B-52 raids, yet finally yielded upon bombardment from the New Jersey. Think low-tech bunker buster. At the Paris "Peace Talks" one of the North's biggest demands was the removal of the battleship from the theater.
Guided shells have been considered for the New Jersey, including both full caliber and 203mm and 280mm discarding sabot. Guided shells of course were nothing new, one example being the Copperhead, which had a laser seeker. The ground spotter would illuminate the target with a handheld laser.
ping to self for later read
Strain? Last I heard, FA battalions were being retrained and redeployed as infantry.
As is the Battle Ship.
The Marines and the Army always pay, in blood, for stupid decisions made by others. This decision may be right or wrong, but your statement is incorrect.
The Battlewagons are a tribute to a by-gone era that has gone-bye. Stand off JDAMs and a wide variety of other platforms can take out hardened positions.
Battlewagons are showboats and gunboats. Great for scout trips and harbor decorations.
Or they actually have the actual Military experience to understand what they are talking about instead of being old warhorses trying to relive the Cold War. Doesn't make a lot of sense to sink massive dollars into a limited use platform you MIGHT need once every 10-15 years when for the same money you could get much MORE useful, less specialist platforms that can ALSO do the BB's job in a pinch. BBs are designed for one thing, sink other BBS. They have some other limit use adaptations they can be converted to such as AA or ground support. They are NOT the end all be all fire support platform Freepers seem to think they are. Yes, Battleships are "cool" they are NOT a wise use of limited military resources.
Every time this administration takes the side of a criminal alien he must take money out of some other budget. Criminal aliens cost a lot to educate, feed, clothe, and treat for health ailments. GWB likes criminal aliens at the expense of our Constitution, period.
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.