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
Hello.
I'm out of my element here, since I was not in the Navy.
The Battleships are very old, but so is the B52, and we are still using it.
The manpower and cost would be a problem, but if the Navy is counting on the DDX ship, they may be in for a surprise.
New weapons systems have a habit of taking longer to develope, and costing a lot more than projected.
THe Iowa class ships could be an interim solution, until the DDX comes online.
No important military constituency for armored big gun fire support ships. The aviation guys want the money for more aircraft and the army wants new computerized artillery. The Navy brass don't much approve either since skippering a fire support ship probably wouldn't boost them on their career paths.
Marines want large caliber fire support, though.
Modern large caliber guns are something else. Range and throw weight ten or twenty times WWII weapons.
The best known modern big gun guy was Gerald Bull. He made some real advances until the Israelis shot him. Bull was a real idiot for big guns and took big money from Saddam Hussein to make one for him. The Israelis warned him to knock it off and then shot him in his own doorway when he wouldn't. Nobody saw or heard a thing, of course.
A shame such a smart guy was such an idiot, sheesh.
I feel like a dog watching a tennis match. I know there's a point of contention here, but damned if I comprehend who's got the better argument.
There is a big difference between 155 mm and 16 inches.
As I recall there were studies conducted post WWII to assess the effect of shore bombardment by battleships. In short, the effect was not worth much. By WWII it was realized the battleship was obsolete.
October 3, 1993 in Somalia when the US General was denied Specter Gunship cover for his men.
16 inch guns would have mattered to the enemy that day in Mogadishu.
His last thought, “Of all the ways for me to die, getting shot with a (bleeping) pistol.”
;-)
So would a tank or two. That would have required 2000 fewer officers and men and a couple billion less in expenditures.
Iowa above.
One thing, you can't miss the muzzle flash.
The effectiveness of WW2 ammo might not be so good, but there are improvements that can be done, like cluster munitions.
For beachhead fire support, I'd also like to see something like the Army's Multiple Launch Rocket System. The ATACMS variant has a range of 165 to 300 km (depending on payload size). I'd think that a ship that could cycle a block of missiles out of a cargo hold, launch, and grab another block could put an impressive amount of ordinance on target.
There's a bunch of potential trouble spots where all-weather ship-to-shore firepower might be very handy, North Korea, China and Taiwan being the ones which come to mind first
-PJ
Artists rendidtion of Navy's "Arsenal ship", envisioned to have a 500-cell Vertical Launch System containing a mix of Tomahawks and Army Tactical Missile System. Crew of 50, cost $500M, plus $500M for a full load of missiles. With a small crew, you wouldn't need to bring it back too often -- you could just forward deploy and swap crews by air
Currently shelved. Was not sexy enough for the Navy.
And it was an Aircraft Carrier, the USS Lincoln, that provided air support.
Far be it for me, who was never really in the military, to question the above, but I was always under the impression that naval gunfire, notably from even destroyers, did some real good on D-Day (in Normandy) of immobilizing some of the Germans by making them keep their heads down. I also read in Band of Brothers, and Dick Winters' autobio, that his doctrine was for some of his men to lay down the thickest field of fire possible while the others went in to take the objective.
So perhaps the effectiveness of bombardment is limited in terms of casualties produced, but the keep their heads down factor is an important one IMO.
Some people want to fight the last war. Others seem to want to fight four wars ago. Battleships look cool, but there are far better uses for manpower and money.
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.