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.
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.
How so?
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."
If you don't think so, go to Lebanon and say the words "New Jersey", and see what reaction you get...
As usual the Marine makes the most sense. Do not then expect to drop Marines off on the beach 10 years from now with these pretty little "boats" to back them up.
As long as the hulls themselves are kept intact they can be rebuilt and recommissioned. Even the North Carolina, Massachusetts and Alabama just one and two years older than the Iowas could be overhauled, modernized and recommissioned. Why stop at 4 when you can have 7?
Where are you going to use them. Iraq has very little, and Afghanistan has NO, coast line. The Persian Gulf is too narrow and shallow for the navy to risk major assets in if we fight Iran. There really is no useful mission for the battleships right now. However, if we fight Korea or China, there would be so they should leave them in mothballs. Navy all ready has enough battleship museums. Have at least two I know of.
Yeah, sure---the battleship "big guns" are going to provide "close action support" by firing into Baghdad from the Persian Gulf.
The answer is carriers---not battleships.
What will the pathetic libs do next! We can't afford to strip our military like this. If we let them have their way, the next thing they will be doing is cutting out the budget for the dirigibles and the gatling guns. this lunacy has to stop.
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)
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.
Ping!
Manpower. Thats why they will not come back.
One word: Payroll costs.
Two words actually.
ping to self for later read