You got that right. Wisconsin is already a museum.
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
What they seemed to be concerned about is places like Korea. The marines are looking toward the next campaigns.
Ah, another Poppy/Cheney/Dubya/Rumsfeld fan. Operative word, "cheaper" = "I want more tax cuts".
Carthage tried to win the Punic Wars "on the cheap". Point.
Blah blah blah...yeah yeah yeah it's all Bush's fault right?
Just another faux Repub giving Clintoon a pass.
You got that right. Wisconsin is already a museum.
The Battleships, though impresive from a show the flag perspective, are too expensive in manpower. Additionally they are "Capital ships" and therefore "High Value". Risking them close to the beach is unacceptable (note: they are tough but NOT unsinkable - Would you want to be the guy to explain to the American people that you just lost the USS New Jersey to a bunch of camel jockeys?)
They also are too few in number (2 left + 2 museums). A better option is to roll out the 8" MCLWG (Major Calibre Light Weight Gun) from the 70's. Pictures here:
www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-h/dd945-l.htm
It will fit neatly on a Burke class DDG (330 men vice 1500+ for BBs) and NOT a capital ship. We could have 24 or so relatively cheaply. This puts 2 in each theater at all times. The Burkes also don't need to be escorted with Aegis onboard already.
Most of the problems with the 5" and 6" ERGMs can be resolved with an 8" version (Lower initial velocity and more volume to work with). An 11 calibre (7 foot long) unguided projectile was in developement back when Pentagon budgets disapeared after Vietnam. Add a cheap GPS/Laser option and precision required by the Marines is there.
Range would have been about 75 miles (with RAP and a payload of about 200-300 lbs) This works well for the Marines desire of 32 miles range from the beach and the Navy desire to remain 25 miles offshore (57 mile min range)
A Rocket assisted conventional shell with GPS/Laser would deliver about 120-150 lbs at a range of about 32 miles. This round exists (in storage) for our now retired US Army/USMC 8" Howitzers. A conventional (ie Cheap) round has a range of about 17 miles and is still useful for prep bombardment on the cheap if we can get inshore. (not bad with VT/air burst against small fast boats and for oilrigs and the like)
Another problem with a 16" shell is that it is too large to use close to the Marines. The 200-300 lb warhead in an 8" shell means we can pull any barrage in closer without risk to the "little green men". The greater through weight for 8" versus 5"/6" means a decent number of submunitions can be carried for Anti-Armor bomblet to break an Armored counter attack or to lay an instant minefield to cover a flank.
The 8" option takes care of the ondemand fire support that airpower can not provide in the immediate time after a landing. This is also the most cost effective option since you don't need all that fuel (with the air tankers and associated support) to fly B-52/B-1/B-2 from rear areas. Remember all that tanker support, decreases the support available for the airbridge to get our initial reinforcements into theater.
Bottom line, Marines need to lighten their artillery requirements to be more responsive in the future (They would like to dump the towed 155mm but with no Naval fire support they must haul their own.). The 8" MCLWG on a Burke gets it to them quick, cheap (relatively), and in quantity. (keeping in mind that quantity has a quality all it's own)
One factor you're forgetting with the whole "spotting" issue...the Marines and Army both have forward observers that can call in the fire.
But on a Naval vessel, something like that could use seawater for cooling., indirectly through a secondary coolant loop, or more directly through a primary coolant loop (not getting the electricals wet, of course).
You know...it's no wonder I don't hardly come out of the Canteen anymore.
You try to post a thread here about something that concerns you and all you get for the most part is friggin attacks from people who claim to be Conservatives.
Not to mention internet retards who couldn't stick to the topic of the OP if you held a gun to their head.
Some of you are no better than the Libtards.
You crap on the ideas that people are putting out there all the while providing no plan or forsight of your own.
I'd expect that of Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi...not from people here.
All of the Armchair Generals in here are pathetic.
Y'all can do what you want to with this thread. It's obvious that no one here really wants serious debate...they just want to flame.
I'm out of this. Hope you guys feel good about yourselves running the OP from his own thread with your stupidity.
Um NO. The Chinese Military is basically at a 1980 level of technology. We do not want to fight in their strength area, Infantry Combat. If we fight the Chinese or NK, we would be a standing off and pounding the heck out of the with air to keep them off our ground holding forces. We do NOT want to get into a straight up land war in Asia.
The battleships got to go inside the enemies strongest defense zone to hit a target, air can stand off. The Chinese navy is currently buying 35 year old RUSSIAN equipment so do not really pose a threat to carrier groups which are better defended and more flexible. The battleships are large slow targets. The carriers are a much more mission flexible too. The battleships are a nice add on, they are NOT vital to the mission.
The Navy does not want Iowa and Wisconsin for the WOT. The USN anticipates a Pacific gunfight with the PLAN and needs the battlewagons to support Marine Infantry. This is about contesting Taiwan, the Spratleys, or the island chain surrounding the Straits of Malacca. The Corps is right. We need gunnery on the high seas. There's also something else that hasn't been figured in. Those 16" guns, if let loose within range of the PLAN Fleet, would cause unholy Shi'ite among their capital ships and transport vessels. There's no answer for the 16 incher, except Yamato's 18" guns, and those are sitting at the bottom of the Pacific.
BTW, we are planning on going into battle with Combined Fleet next time, which is a good thing. PLAN is toast.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Bush's tax cuts and carve-outs for SDI impaired readiness, which he promised us would be de-Clintonized. He didn't do it until the planes hit the buildings.
His continuing passion for tax cuts is getting in the way of future systems. The "Crusader" was the follow-on to the '50's-era M-109 SP gun, and Bush got Rumsfeld to kill it -- to save money for his tax cuts.
The American soldier, when he is sent abroad to fight for us, had damn well better not, in my view, by sent there by a cheeseparing chief executive whose thriftiness is going eventually to get that American soldier into a tight spot.
I don't want to ever hear that the Seventh Fleet had its ass handed to it because we wouldn't spend money for a follow-on to the F-14D, or because we didn't have enough submarines, or because we wanted to save all our coins for cheesebox-on-a-raft gee-whiz "destroyers" down the line the whole point of which is to save money on crew payroll.
I don't EVER want to hear that an American mission failed and American troops got carved up in the field because somebody back home was busy saving money for the Park Avenue crowd at the expense of our men.
Oh, and "Defense contractors, Pentagon bureaucrats, congressional staffers and career-minded officers" aren't involved in trying to save the battleships?
Hate to break it to Novak and others, but the folks who work acquisition in the services really DO care about how the end result will impact the troops.
How does the army get by without 16" guns?
And no, the "Fitzcarraldo" technique is not going to work here.
And how would you have gotten a Crusader to Tora Bora?
Give Clinton a pass?
Bush gave Clinton a pass -- I'll give that raping, lying, corrupt, traitorous m*********** a trial for his life!
Besides, we were talking Navy policy, not DIRTXPOTUS's scummery. But if you want to go there, we can ping Mia, and she'll give us the full, emetic phantasmagoria of what the Klintoons are all about.
I didn't talk about Klintoon on purpose -- I haven't had breakfast yet. So I guess you got me there.
Same way Osama's Talibuddies got their APC's that we were popping in the mountain passes up there -- put it in low gear and drive.
What was your objection, anyway?
What is wrong with tax cuts???
I agree with the fiscal side of your statement (See my post #85 for a cost effective way to get fire support to our Marines).
As far as what is our potential for needing fire support? Here's a partial list:
1. Immediate response to South Korea overrun scenario is Marine Amphibious assault ala Inchon or to reinforce a flank in Pusan type scenario. We keep an Expeditionary Strike Group (Battalion size) plus a Maritime Preposition Force Squadron (Brigade size) in the WESTPAC for this and item 2 below.
2. Immediate response to Taiwan overrun scenario similar to 1 above.
3. Immediate response to Iranian assault on southern Iraq/Kuwait to disrupt their left flank/rear.
4. Control of various choke points around the world such as the Straits of Hormuz that restricts access to the Persian Gulf.
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.