Posted on 09/18/2006 7:41:46 PM PDT by neverdem
>>> That said, I'd stand in line to stand an underway watch on one.
I have been on the IOWA, at sea. I would gladly join you to do it again.
Efficiency. As technology changes, so must the mix and means of employing it. Ask yourself why the F22 was developed. Is it another piece on the chess board, or does it replace one.
Because it's expensive to keep bases open that aren't needed, and expensive to maintain weapons systems that are obsolete or don't fit into the current or future anticipated force structure.
Every dollar spent keeping up old gear or keeping open a underutilized base is a dollar not spent killing naughty muslims.
Seriously, massive guns, lots of them, advanced air defenses, massive armor that could take hits.. and lots of them.
Call them sea-hulks for all their raging raw power (damn that just sounds cool).
and yes, it'd scare the crap out of anyone thinking about messing with us.
There is emotion attached to many weapons systems. But you must ask the Marines why they are still attached to these. I suspect it is simply because they are still useful. Planes have not so far replaced artillery, in part because the air force and navy want to use something other than troop support. Better a knife in the hand than a gun across the room.
As an architect/inventor, I've got a couple of ideas for much faster and smaller ships, ie, outside the box concepts in marine propulsion : familiar things seen in unfamiliar ways. Will only communicate them privately.
Iwoa class Battleships have been in 4 wars WW2, K, V, DS and never damaged by enemy fire. The Iwoa class battleship is probably the finest capital warship ever built. The destructive power of her 16" guns beats anything short of a nuke. Want to get someone's attention? Park an Iwoa class battleship off thier coast.
It's not a matter of men as much as it is material. There's no high tech in riveting and welding. The big problem is that the only mill in Pittsburgh that could and did roll armor was converted into a water slide park several years ago.
NAMSMAN sends.
I think the platform could be built, again. Why not start building the USS Montana BB-67 again? The Montana was slated to have 12 16 inch guns, before it was canceled. The Montana could be built with modern engineering and electonics.
Unfortunately (for discussion purposes) and fortunately (for national security purposes), all data relating to the design vulnerability and survivability testing of U.S. Navy ships is classified at the Secret level. Has been that way since the end of WWII.
We build them very strong but we are not about to tell the enemy just how strong.
awesome pic
"Seriously, massive guns, lots of them, "
What you really want are the new generation railguns that are kinetic energy devices you can maybe rapid fire if you have a big electrical plant.
If I recall the cost of a Battleship at sea for a year was less than what is spent on one Space Shuttle mission.
I would rather have one less space shuttle mission per year and keep a battleship
LOL! Thanks for the BOOM!
Why can't we get more combat vets into office so this isn't a re-occuring problem?
I was mostly leaning toward the proplusion system. That could be improved to save money. IOWA and her sisters would have to be almost split in half to do it. That's why I thought it might be better to start with the Montana class.
The reason I said to start with Montana is that USS Montana and USS Kentucky BB-68 were canceled. Kentucky was used for parts for other ships.
In the fifties, the bow on the Wisconsin was damaged when it rammed another ship. The ship-yard cut the bow off of the canceled Kentucky and welded it on to Wisconsin. Years later, the USS Detroit AOE-4 was built with the Kentucky's boilers.
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.