Hilltopper Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 By Jove! I've got it! Mount 16 inchers on F-14s! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hilltopper: By Jove! I've got it! Mount 16 inchers on F-14s! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, no, no! Much better to mount F-14s on the 16" guns!!! Don't you know that there is nothing that the Iowa class battleship cannot do? Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Don't you know that there is nothing that the Iowa class battleship cannot do? Well, I know I got an education by actually reading the posts here, but there always comes a time to defer to a real authority on offensive power. Back to my Pool. [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 01-08-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoop88 Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 Gents: Suggest you read http://www.usnfsa.com/articles/fsao/fsao7.htm Would be interested in your reactions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I/O Error Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 True, they have some interesting material there. BTW, Jeff, I will hopefully be able to reply to your questions (if you care) either tomorrow or the next day. (School work, you know how it is. ) ------------------ Honor, Duty, Courage. Valhalla awaits you, honorable warrior... ------------------------ "If you find yourself alone, riding through green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled, for you are in Elysium, and YOU ARE ALREADY DEAD!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I/O Error Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 Last thing: Jeff, I still think you're: 1.) Taking it personally that I'm disagreeing with you and 2.) Misunderstanding my basic point. BB = too useful a tool to simply chuck out. I am NOT recommending that it in anyway replace current weapon systems. Redundancy is good. Anyway, like I said, I'll have to come back another day. /me sprints off to bed and books. [This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 01-09-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Pattison Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 Read the article, I think his reactivation costs for battleship reactivation are suspect. Also, he doesn't consider the threat modern diesel submarines and mines pose to ships operating close in shore. While the submarines of Iranian Navy may not be a threat, the Chinese diesels are. The North Carolina and South Dakota Classes had weaknesses in the stern and particularly the underbottom. The Iowa classes underwater protection was derived from both these previous classes. It is possible that the Iowas also possess these design flaws, but details of underwater protection systems are still classified. [This message has been edited by Jeff Pattison (edited 01-09-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comstr Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 Why don't they just build a new one? Isn't there plans for a Moniter-type ship carring 16" guns and a hell of a lot of missles? '14's with 14" guns fly too fast. At the end of World War 2 the British mounted a 32 pounder gun in a Mossie fighter bomber (that's what, a 90mm?). Take THAT mister Tiger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoop88 Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 Jeff: I was wondering about that as I read it. The Missouri is now a floating museum at Pearl Harbor. Would not be easy reactivating that ship. In what states of readiness are the other Iowa-class ships? The article does throw out a lot of statistics and other facts that make a strong argument for reactivation. I'd like to see the opposition come up with similarly convincing statistics for keeping the battleships mothballed. Then you can make a reasoned choice based on facts instead of opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error: Last thing: Jeff, I still think you're: 1.) Taking it personally that I'm disagreeing with you and 2.) Misunderstanding my basic point. BB = too useful a tool to simply chuck out. I am NOT recommending that it in anyway replace current weapon systems. Redundancy is good. Anyway, like I said, I'll have to come back another day. /me sprints off to bed and books. [This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 01-09-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IO, I am not even remotely taking anything personally. If anything, I am concerned that you are taking the idea that the BB may not be worth the price personally! As to your 2nd point, I am a lot closer to that than you think. But from what I can tell, that is a pretty significant step back form your previous position. It sure seemed to me (and others, AFAIK) that you were arguing that it *would* replace other weapons. I think I got that from your many posts talking about how great the BB is, and how much other weapons suck. Do not take my bluntness as a sign of personal interest. My level of persoanl interest goes only so far as these types of discussions are a sometimes amusing diversion from getting real work done! Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by scoop88: Jeff: I was wondering about that as I read it. The Missouri is now a floating museum at Pearl Harbor. Would not be easy reactivating that ship. In what states of readiness are the other Iowa-class ships? The article does throw out a lot of statistics and other facts that make a strong argument for reactivation. I'd like to see the opposition come up with similarly convincing statistics for keeping the battleships mothballed. Then you can make a reasoned choice based on facts instead of opinions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I jsut finished reading the article, and you are correct. It does make a rather compelling case. The thing is, I still do not buy it. The picture they paint is almost TOO rosy. Frankly, I doubt the validity of their numbers, especially the financial ones. If it was that cheap, then why *did* the Navy park them? I think the article makes a good case for why it would be nice to have a BB, but I do not buy their cost estimates. I would be willing to bet that the Navy has very different numbers for what those ships cost now, and will cost into the future. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 New suggestion.... Scrap the Iowas, use the cost to build a fleet of C-130 Gunships. Sure the 16" guns are nice... but those C-130s are awesome! I know, I know... they can't penetrate fortifications. But we already have bombs and missiles that do that. And on that projectile that goes 100 miles: Someone alreday said this, but essentially, what that round is is a Tomahawk without the range. No wonder it never got past the drawing board. I thin their are quite a few Navy men with IO's disposition just looking for something useful for the Iowas. To look at it in Historical terms, the arguement to keep the Iowa is akin to people in 1920's-30's arguing the usefulness of the Iron Clads. Move on, I think the Pershing is an awesome tank... but I don't think we need it anymore. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 Yeah, the proposal to launch what is essentially a missile from the gun tubes is an example of somone with a hammer desperately looking for a nail. Since when do you need a 16" gun to deliver a 500lb warhead 100 miles away? The article talks a lot about the things a BB can do (other than their traditional role which is completely moot at this point), but from what I saw there was nothing there that it could do that could not be done by other platforms, with the exception of the ability to deliver massive firepower over a relatively short range. It can hold 128 Tomahawks? 32 Harpoons? Big deal. If we were so inclined we could cram something like 256 Tomahawks into a refitted Ohio. How about that for serious boom! This argument is like someone with a shotgun claiming that it can and should be used as a rifle, and that we should get rid of our rifles in favour of the shotgun. I mentioned this once before, but I will say it again. My general opposition to the idea of re-commissioning BBs is based on a limited budget. If Bush gets another $20 billion, and a decent chunk of that goes to the Navy, then perhaps it might be worth studying to find out what it would really cost, and what alternatives would cost. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subvet Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 It's not often that I get to talk navy stuff here, so I have to chime in. I'm on the fence on whether or not to keep the old battlewagons around. Their use is very limited, but they are the best at what they do. To use the hammer analogy they are like a hammer that can only drive one type of nail, but they drive those nails twice as well. I guess I'd suggest we keep one or two in reserve in a state where they could be activated within a month if need be. If we ever had to take a defended beach these things could prove to be invaluable. There was some talk of ASW and submarines, and this is one subject I know something about. Obviously a battleship would have to have at least one fast attack sub in its group. Any beach that the battleship planned to park off of would need to be cleared by a sub in advance too. As good as suface/air ASW is, it isn't as good as another submarine. I've participated in a few ASW exercises in the 90's. The sub I was on was NEVER "hit" in any of them that I'm aware of. We were very rarely even detected at all. Against older U.S. subs it was almost not even a challenge. I don't think any subs the Chinese have would be that much of a problem. As far as the battleships armor belt being of use against torpedoes, it isn't. A modern torpedo doesn't hit the armor with an explosive, it causes a void under the ship which uses the ships own weight against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoop88 Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 Subvet: Good info, especially on the modern torpedo technology. Jeff Heidman: I agree, never take statistics or cost estimates as accurate unless you know the source. However, the article was originally published in "Proceedings," the U.S. Naval Institute publication, which is authoritative and reliable. Hopefully they check stuff like that before they publish it ... I would like to see the original article to see if the USNFSA "doctored" anything when they republished it on their Web site. I'll do some checking to see if I can find the original. I'll check back with anything I can find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoop88 Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 Try http://www.southjerseynews.com/battleship/u020100j.htm The above story published this year. The U.S. Naval Institute's online archive for Proceedings only goes back to 1999. But this year John Lehman published a five-page story (referenced in the above South Jersey News article) advocating the reactivation of the Iowa-class battleship. Should be interesting, but it costs $5 to download if you're not a member! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 Good article scoop. It gives a non-detailed over-view of some of the arguments for and against. John McCains support is nice. I have a lot of respect for that man. He would make ten times the president the current chump-elect is going to be. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Comstr: Why don't they just build a new one? Isn't there plans for a Moniter-type ship carring 16" guns and a hell of a lot of missles?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There have been numerous proposals in recent years for "monitor" type shore bombardment ships, most armed with 1 or 2 6-8" guns and several missle bombardment systems like Tomahawk, Harpoon, and (my favorite) MLRS/ATACMS. MLRS would certainly be the biggest bang for the buck which is at the heart of this whole issue. ------------------ "It's a boy!" - My wife's OB/GYN Nov. 8th, 4:45am Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesy Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 Why don't we bring back the precursor to Air to Surface Missile! KAMIKAZE! We could use all those F4 Phantoms load em up with explosives and just fly at supersonic speeds or even at 600MPH...use lots of em and you'll overwhelm the opponents ability to defend against them ------------------ "Lack of weapons is no excuse for defeat" - Lt. General Renya Mutaguchi, Commanding General, Japanese Fifteenth Army, 1944-1945 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subvet Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wesy: Why don't we bring back the precursor to Air to Surface Missile! KAMIKAZE! We could use all those F4 Phantoms load em up with explosives and just fly at supersonic speeds or even at 600MPH...use lots of em and you'll overwhelm the opponents ability to defend against them <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey Wesy, are you going to lead by example? [This message has been edited by Subvet (edited 01-09-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Crow Posted January 10, 2001 Share Posted January 10, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Frankly, I doubt the validity of their numbers, especially the financial ones. If it was that cheap, then why *did* the Navy park them? Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Probably because we couldn't man them. As it stands now, if we didn't have women in the Navy, we couldn't man the ships we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 10, 2001 Share Posted January 10, 2001 We won't need the BBs untill we find an enemy not nice enough to give us months to prepare, ala Gulf War, and we need to fight our way onto a beach. Unfortuantly, good men will have to die. Cav ------------------ "Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, 'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade "AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."-- Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy w/gun Posted January 10, 2001 Share Posted January 10, 2001 We've decided to bombard China!?!?!?!? WOW..I havent heard about this before! :P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P Ok...stupid, I know. But I just think It's funny how everyone in this thread is using China as the acid test for modern naval warfare! There are plenty of enemies alot worse than China. And for my 8 cents worth...Isn't a BB totally screwed if a torpedo WAS launched? I know the argument is that a sub would have a hard time getting close but IIRC all that armor on a BB is above the water. Torpedoes hit underwater, underneath armor originally meant to prevent shells above water from penetrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Crow Posted January 10, 2001 Share Posted January 10, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun: We've decided to bombard China!?!?!?!? WOW..I havent heard about this before! :P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P Ok...stupid, I know. But I just think It's funny how everyone in this thread is using China as the acid test for modern naval warfare! There are plenty of enemies alot worse than China.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As far as the Pacific rim is concerned China is proving to be the next naval force to counter. Granted, their capabilities at this time are fairly limited but they are steadily improving and they are being more aggressive in projecting a presence outside of their territorial waters. Their recent acquisition of a couple Sovremennyy DDG's loaded with SS-N-22's (a very deadly missile) has caused some concern out here. With the contention over the Spratley's, the ongoing tiff between China and Taiwan and the U.S. policy to ally with most of the Pacific nations, there is the possibility to draw the U.S. into some sort of limited engagement with China someday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 10, 2001 Share Posted January 10, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: We won't need the BBs untill we find an enemy not nice enough to give us months to prepare, ala Gulf War, and we need to fight our way onto a beach. Unfortuantly, good men will have to die. Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CavScout, I just have to say I still find your sig a stitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts