14" Naval Artillery

[kverdon]

Howdy,

I'll throw my 2 cents into this discussion. In my collage days I did a paper on the design and reactivation of these ships. I found out a few interresting things.

On the Firepower of an Aircraft Carrier vrs a battleship: An Iowa class BB CAN deliver a higher volume of fire on a target per time than can an aircraft carrier. If you wish references to this I could did up my paper and give you the numbers.

On their protection: Yes, it is true that the Iowa's only had a 12" belt of armor but it was STS Steel and sloped. The Belt armor was actually an internal armor belt that angled in at, I think, 19 degrees from the verticle. Now I don't think I have to educate anyone HERE on the efficacy of angling the armor . The Naval Institutue Press book on the Iowas lists the EFFECTIVE vertical protection of the Iowas at 18". The turrets are protected by about 19" and the Control tower about 18".

Most German and Japaese designs had vertical or almost Vertical horizontal armor. Comparing the Iowa to the Bizmark or Yamato is like comparing a Panther to a Tiger (mkVI). The analogy is almost perfect. Compared to the Yamato for example, the Iowas had guns of a smaller size (16" vrs 18") but with a longer caliber (50 vrs 45. Thus the Iowa's carrier a smaller main gun but had equal or superior penetration and a higher ROF. The Iowas carried a thiner belt armor but it was sloped and the Iowas were faster.

All in all, the Iowas were probably the best balanced Battleships ever built. The problems with them now are they are tough to justify having arround. Yes, they can deliver devistating firepower and absorb mucho damage but there currently not many applications you can use that type of firepower on, it tends to creat lots of collateral damage . I really wish we could keep one arround as it, as Oddball would say, it "can give you a definate edge" when you need it.

KEvin

[Major Tom]

Now, we all throw some credible stuff at why they should or shouldn't retire these battleships. For whatever reason the USN has decided to mothball them, possibly scrap them. Maybe keeping one in deep reserve for whenever a major amphibious landing needs support might be a good idea, but, keeping it in full working order, when the possibility of a major amphibious landing is not in the near future is not economically feasible.

Possibly the 'Big Gun' will come back into play when technology wars become too expensive to wage. As it is now, the mission that these ships are capable of could be fulfilled by a much more inexpensive, and probably better protected (ie. using evasion instead of armour) monitor.

Personally, I am very uninterested in modern warfare and would love to see these big warships come back into play, but, the necessity of having something this large to supply fire support within 30 KM of the coast is a very limited mission for such a unit.

[I/O Error]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Your posts are getting borderline manic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, Jeff? If you want to make this personal, you are going to "lose" this debate. Personal statements have nothing to do with this, so kindly take a deep breathe and just chill out.

Sheesh man...

Anyway, moving along: The modern Battleship is much cheaper than a carrier, and is slightly less vulnerable.

The USN has been so afraid for DECADES of the threat of submarine warfare against our carriers that we have the FINEST ASW force in the world. The old diesel boats used by the Chinese (going back to a previously made post by somebody) are, fortunately, very outdated.

Are they quiet? For a few hours on batteries, yes. But it takes them about half a day to recharge that loss, and we can hear their diesel engines about a hundred nautical miles away on a good day. (Not an exaggeration, they have VERY old equipment)

Also, the fire control computers and the basic torpedoes they fire are, in most cases, over 30 years old. A few old-model Kilos have shown up in the People's Liberation Army Navy's fleet, but precious few. Not to mention, we watch those things like HAWKS.

(Anyone else find the "Army Navy" thing a bit of a mouthful? Ah well, guess they didn't want a seperate branch for the Navy.)

So, if the battleship is vulnerable to attack, the carrier is even MORE so. Aluminum vs. over ten inches of steel IS a real difference, and the battleship is DESIGNED to be hit, with a hyper-abundance of airtight compartments and system redundancy.

So, that's it for torpedoes. Than there's aircraft and missiles.

Four words: Aegis Cruisers and CIWS

So, on to the role that the battleship can perform that nobody else can:

We have established that the sheer power is unbeatable, so I assume you folks need more reasons.

1.) More accurate (and cheaper) than bombs and missiles. Despite all the hoopla, Tomahawk missiles are not all that smart. Case in point: a short time after the war, we fired a retaliation attack of cruise missiles onto Baghdad, so they knew not to light up our planes with radar again.

(Fortunately, the falcon driver who got painted had a HARM, so he got away, but we wanted to be SURE the message got through)

Three of the missiles were lost midway to the target. We found out from the Iraqi News Agency that they had accidentally crashed into a skyscraper.

They were 50 miles from their target in Baghdad. A CIVILIAN building got in the way, and they got plowed right in. Oopsie.

So, then there's aircraft. The fact is, pilot training is strenuous and VERY expensive. The Air Force is found of saying that after a decade of flying, they have a good pilot. So we REALLY don't want to PISS AWAY THE LIVES OF OUR GUYS.

Pilots cost MONEY. Bombs/missiles cost MONEY. BB shells are DAMN cheap in comparison, and so are the operating, maintenance, and personnal costs.

800 men is not a huge expenditure for the USN. A US Carrier carries over 3000. Hmmmm?

BB shells are massively powerful. The idea of collateral damage was brought up, as WELL IT SHOULD BE. True, nobody REALLY wants to have a 16" shell land on some poor civvie's head.

However, most military installations are NOT build in highly built up areas. Security, land costs, and disguise are only a few reasons for that. So, most targets that an airplane could engage "safely" (read: no dead ICs) could be safely engaged by a battleship, with a MUCH higher safety rating and chance of total destruction.

I mean, did you guys read my earlier posts about what exactly we have to take out heavily fortified ground targets? Right now, it's just aircraft. And we are NOT willing to absorb the kind of losses such a deep strike mission would entail.

A few SA-13 or better sites and a couple of old AAA batteries = a lot of letters for the squadron commander to write home. "Dear Mrs. Smith, I regret to inform you that..."

C'mon. We can do better than that. The battleship gives us better than 100 miles range, with NO chance of interception and the best gunnery rating ever in the history of warfare.

I mean, the Iowa-class BBs were the first units to be given the Predator unmanned drones for targeting. Not only does that ENSURE their accuracy, BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS THEM REAL-TIME OBSERVATION OF THE TARGET. In other words, better intelligence than EVER. Our pilots do not have time to see a changing situation on the ground, so all a tank battalion has to do is move a few hundred yards away and the bombers WILL miss.

BTW: Intercepted communique from Iraqi Brigade commander, 1991.

"For the last three months, the American air force has bombed my command nonstop. We managed to fool their bombers, and I have lost less than a half-dozen tanks, with no crews lost. Yesterday the United States 1st Cavalry engaged us. My entire command is lost, we have no choice but to fall back"

What does this mean? Yes, "the bomber will always get through" he just won't do much good.

You think the Kosovo campaign did anything? Hit a few bridges, and that's about it. It was the sanctions that did it, not our Air Force!

So, the battleship offers better reliability, better power, incredible range, lowered cost, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum.

(Incidentally, the combat range of a modern fighter, fully loaded with ordanance, is on average about 200-300 miles, round trip. Not far, is it? Compare that to a one way range of over a HUNDRED MILES for a 16" shell.)

End result? We DON'T have a good or even acceptable) replacement for the battleship, and there is STILL a need for them.

The whole world KNOWS how "effective" simple air power can be. Not very.

The whole world KNOWS how effective 16" artillery shells can be. *shudder*

Few live to tell about such an experience. The Battleship is similar to the B-52. Aging, but with a role that can NOT be replaced.

(I mean, do YOU have a replacement in mind for a bomber than can destroy every living thing in an area 2.5 miles long and over a mile wide?)

The point of a military (in the modern sense) is NOT to kill the enemy, but better yet to scare him so he NEVER attacks. The Battleship did, does, and could continue to do EXACTLY that. Ever seen the records for the sheer amount of resources the Russians planned to throw into taking out any Atlantic-based Carrier and Battleship task groups if a European War broke out? The numbers are staggering, especially the figures that say they were risking over 2/3rds their entire fleet of Backfire (do I have that name right? oops) bombers and in most cases AIR TANKERS WERE NOT TO BE PROVIDED. The Russians didn't CARE if the bombers came back, the targets were too important!!

If THAT'S not deterrance, what IS?!

The Battleship is needed. Bring it back.

------------------

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!"

[Forever Babra]

8 Feb, 1984. USS New Jersey fired almost 300 rounds of 16" at Druze and Syrian positions in the Beqa'a. Syria calls for cease fire.

Kick ass and take names

[I/O Error]

Hu-RRAH!!

I'm telling ya man, they're the next best thing to the Wrath of God.

(That's just fun to type. Wrath of God, Wrath o... Okay, I'm shutting up now, stop staring at me like that! )

[Jeff Heidman]

IO, this is getting old.

You continue to refuse to address the points made.

The 16" gun does NOT have a 100 mile range. Please quote me a source that makes that claim.

You harp on and on about how crappy airpower is, but every single failing you mention is shared by the BB. A 16" shell cannot see its target any better than a 1000lb bomb can.

The airpower argument is a non-starter. Every example you went on about is irrelevant to this discussion. Could the Iowa have hit those targets you claim were missed by Tomahawks? No? Then what is your point? Could the addition of a few BBs have made a difference in Kosovo? No? Then why bring it up? Red Herring?

Carriers are not as vulnerable as a BB because a carrier does not need to get within a few miles of the shoreline to launch a strike. They can stay out at sea, undetected.

A diesel sub is absolutely quieit (even an old one) when it is not moving. It can run on battery for hours and hours at very slow speeds, and they do not have to go fast because they are cheap and the Chinese have a lot of them. They are old and low tech, but so is an AK-47. Their torpedoes might be junk, but that does not mean the Iowa is going to dodge them once they are fired. To attack a carrier, an enemy sub has to go out into the ocean and find it, which it will never succeed at. To attack a BB, it just has to sit and wait, since you know where it is going to go.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW: Intercepted communique from Iraqi Brigade commander, 1991.

"For the last three months, the American air force has bombed my command nonstop. We managed to fool their bombers, and I have lost less than a half-dozen tanks, with no crews lost. Yesterday the United States 1st Cavalry engaged us. My entire command is lost, we have no choice but to fall back"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And gosh, he doesn't mention being attacked by any battleships, so what is the relevance to this discussion?

The difficulty tactical airpower has in destroying hidden enemy forces is well known. Your bringing up a single example of that and then making the rather dizzying leap to the conclusion that we should build battleships is a bit suspect, to say the very least.

Jeff Heidman

[Xavier]

I just read all the posts... I'm not an expert in modern weaponry but I think battleships are may be not a good answer for modern military crisis. Most of you are arguing about the BB firepower and it's invincibility. Yes, BB are very powerful but I think occidental armies are now more looking for effective weapon in precision. Because of public opinion, you have to practise now the (in)famous chirurgical warfare. A 14' shell is not very chirugical-like. The risk of civilian, non military casualties is too big. So, in a lot of today's crisis, BB are useless (think to the Iowa in Lebanon in the 80's)...

Well, my english is really awful, I just hope my opinion is enough clear

[Slapdragon]

One of the reasons for the Iowa being mothballed is that they are really expensive to run, and no matter how impressive a 16inch gun is, it is not as flexible as the new Mod 4 5 inchers which can fire 30 rounds a minute and hit with 10 meters of initial aiming point at 35 kilometeres, or 20 meters at 160 kilometers (that is not a misprint, the Mod 4 has a range of 160 kilometers to the 16inchers range of 32 kilometers). The new DD21, if they ever get off the design board, will need 90 crew people, will carry more missiles than the Iowa, will be much quieter (a submariner friend of mine told me the Iowa was so loud that Russian subs could use it to hide inside of US fleets undetected) will be stealthy (the Iowa has 3 times the cross section of even the Nimitz, the next brightest thing in the fleet). Only in armor protection do they fall down.

[Marlow]

Arguments in support of BBs from people who know more on the subject than anyone on this board:

http://www.usnfsa.com/

[Xavier]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever Babra:

8 Feb, 1984. USS New Jersey fired almost 300 rounds of 16" at Druze and Syrian positions in the Beqa'a. Syria calls for cease fire.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Druze? Syrian? in 1984,the real danger for the US (and french) expedionary forces were certainly not the Druze or the Syrian but the Hezbollah fanatics. These fanatics managed to fully destroy two building occupied by US and french soldiers by suicidal attack in Beyruth...

[Guest Mirage2k]

I/O Error,

I think you're still missing the point that a few others have brought up. Yes, the BB is a great shore bombardment platform, and can take some punishment, but the Navy just isn't prepared to spend the money needed to maintain even one ship. The maintenance costs of equipment tend to increase exponentially as the equipment ages (a huge problem that defense planners will have in the next few years as they try to balance the maintenance of old equipment with the procurement of new systems). And right now there just aren't enough reasons to justify having them around.

1. The likelyhood of a large-scale amphibious invasion in the next decade is fairly low. There's always a chance, of course, which is why I would support keeping a BB in port, but the probability isn't large enough to justify sending any out into the fleet.

2. As someone previously mentioned, you have to get fairly close to shore to use the power of those 16" guns, leaving the BB vulnerable to subs and GLCMs. Sure, Aegis-equipped cruisers and destroyers can help out there, but if a BB needs a battle group to protect it, why not just stick with an aircraft carrier?

3. Bombs miss, of course, and you present the enemy with a shot at skilled pilots, but currently air power seems sufficient to fulfill almost any conceivable interdiction mission. Aircraft are more surgical in nature, and "collateral damage" is the current buzzword in the White House. 16" guns are far from surgical. We can debate the pros and cons of air-delivered weapons for eternity, but I personally don't think that a BB accompanied by a full battle group is any less vulnerable than an air strike accompanied by high cover and SEAD aircraft. By the way, are the Predator aircraft you mentioned invulnerable or something? IIRC, they fly pretty slow, and could probably be downed fairly easily.

Also, you wanted us to compare the 100 mile range of the guns versus the 200-300 mile range of the aircraft (that ignores mid-air refueling and the heavy bomber fleet, of course)? Uh...I think the aircraft win that one, buddy.

-Andrew

------------------

"No, it's not that kind of relationship. We're just friends. We are together all the time, but I never touch her porcelain skin, her soft, red lips, like rose petals from the emperor's bathwater! Bathwater, I tell you, bathwateeeeeeer!"

[I/O Error]

Jeff, you don't HAVE to continue reading this if you find it disagreeable...

C'mon man, I honestly think you're starting to take this personally... (Wait, I'm not kidding, wink shouldn't be there.)

Anyway, on to the rebuttal: (I love doing this...)

1.) http://usnfsa.com/articles/techdata/td2.htm

Now then, read the part about the "16/11-Inch Long Range GPS Concept with Sabot "

Unfortunately, I could not readily find a site with better information, but I think you will find that that source blows your argument out of the water.

2.) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A 16" shell cannot see its target any better than a 1000lb bomb can. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Au contraire! Remember my post about the Predator unmanned drone? Those are active, and they allow REAL-TIME view of the target, far superior to anything, even to spy satellites. (due to the fact you have to WAIT for a spy sat)

3.) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Could the Iowa have hit those targets you claim were missed by Tomahawks? No? Then what is your point? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Let me phrase my point better, and answer your latter question about the Iraqi commander's quote. I forgot to say, his unit was in Kuwait, well within range of a battleship's guns for over 3 months.

4.) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Carriers are not as vulnerable as a BB because a carrier does not need to get within a few miles of the shoreline to launch a strike. They can stay out at sea, undetected.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

UNDETECTED?! Wow... my friend, the whole world, from Andorra to Zimbabwe, knows the exact movements of our carrier groups.

Besides, it is not that difficult to "prepare" a coastline for bombardment. If it was, why has it never been a problem for any navy in history? First targets to be hit would be airfields stationed directly on the coast, and other high-risk dangers. You don't have to get right up to the coast for that, you standoff at a range of a 100 miles, as previously posted... Only THEN do you move in, while under close support from airpower, submarines, and ASW forces. (standard practice, no need to revise tactics here)

5.) About the subs. Come now. You can't just IGNORE my previous posts/points in a debate! I said already, we can HEAR the chinese diesel subs when they recharge. You said yourself, they do NOT move quickly after they recharge, so we can tell pretty exactly where they are. Not to mention, they are using old rusting Russian hulls with poor (what's the WATER term for aerodynamics? Damn, I can't remember) AND they do not have as good sound control.

Any subs in the area would be WELL pacified before a carrier and/or battleship group moved in. (Again, standard practice. The USN typically maintains a 100 mile "No Man's Land" around it's carriers. Not much gets in. If a whale FARTS, we KNOW about it)

6.) Yes, even an old sub could theoretically damage/destroy a battleship. The trick is GETTING there. (see above)

7.) The last point you make is the Iraqi commander. Answered above.

Bring it on man...

------------------

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!"

[kverdon]

Xavier,

BB's useless in Lebanon in the 80? Hold on a second. You may recall that we sent an Airstrike to take out some Syrian Arty and lost a A-6 and an A-7 to SAMs/AAA. Very bad PR and nice PR for the baddies showing off the wreckage plus we had to negotiate the return of a wounded aviator. Sooo, They send over BB-62 to pay the Syrians a visit. The Jersey shelled those Arty positions into rubble. The Palastinians and the Syrians HATED the Jersey becase of the firepower she could drop on them and they couldn't do ANYTHING about it but move further inland. Later there was a meeting of Syrian commanders who put together a meeting in a Underground Concrete Bunker in range of the New Jersey. They thought themselves pretty safe. They ran the Jersey right up to the shore and let fly. Unfortunately the Syrian's hadn't counted on the fact that a 16" round from the Iowas' can penetrate 27 FEET of reinforced concrete. BOOM! Meeting's adjourned . The only wreckage they got to show off was the target!

Now BB's may not be so useful now and certainly can't replace the Aircraft Carrier but the Jersey DID do the Job in Lebanon. Same was true in Vietname. A friend of mine had a Platoon Sgt who was in Vietnam while the Jersey was there. His Platoon was pinned down by group of VC up on a ridge. He called for fire support and got the Jersey. When he called for fire they hesitated as it was "Danger Close" for the 16". He didn't care at that point as if SOMETHING didn't happen they were toast. The Jersey opened fire and after what he described as a visit to Hell with the explosions and the fire arround him. The VC were gone. So was the ridge!!

P.S. The hundred mile range comes from an experimental rocket assisted 8" saboted shell that was to be fired from the 16" guns of the Iowas. Don't know if it ever got off the drawing board though. The normal range of the Iowa's 16"ers is 27 miles.

P.P.S.

It had to be the secret wet dream of every modern captain of an Iowa to get a Kirov in 16" gun range. "Engage Target Main Battery" "JAM THIS" BOOM!!

Kevin

[This message has been edited by kverdon (edited 01-08-2001).]

[This message has been edited by kverdon (edited 01-08-2001).]

[Major Tom]

Unfortunately, special interest groups like The "USNFSA" tend only to really focus on fulfilling their mission statement, without looking at other factors. This is true of practically all special interest groups.

The USN Posesses some rapid fire 8" guns on some of their destroyers. Plus the 5" guns, fired rapidly, can supply a lot of cover.

There was a British study done at the end of the war questioning wether high volume of small calibur weapons or a lower volume of high calibur weapons proved to be an effective means in dislodging an enemy from a postition. The Higher volume appeared to be more effective, as, the VOLUME of bangs proved to be more unnerving than the LOUDNESS or crator. A few 16" hits may be devestating, but, they aren't as effective as multiple numbers of smaller calibur shots.

Carriers are more expensive, and the loss of one will be very devestating to the USN. However, their roles are much more versitile and can adapt better to changing circumstances. The most modern engagement of surface vessels within a reasonable threat would be the Falklands war. No other modern engagement was as evenly matched. The British had the most up to date aircraft, missiles and tracking systems, yet, suffered severe naval losses to Argentenian aircraft (albiet without loss of a single aircraft and at the cost of several Argentenian A/C).

If a ship ventures in close to land they are further increasing their risk. One example is of the HMS London, which was severely damaged by Communist Chinese coastal artillery. The HMS London was a 1930's Heavy Cruiser, heavily modernized in 1939. It's hull was holed many times by 5" coastal guns, and was at a risk of sinking if it did not evacuate itself. Gun armed ships have to get close to land if they are going to be effective bombarders. When they are on the coast, they are sitting ducks. They aren't moving and cannot be very manuverable if they actually get moving due to their proximity to shallow waters.

[I/O Error]

Xavier: Exactly, but then the only guys conventional forces of ANY kind could hit were the Druze and Syrians. The Hezbollah are just ordinary joes for the most part, no way to target them directly.

So we did the next best thing.

Mirage2k: Good points, I give you that.

1.) Yes, of course. Always a CHANCE, so keeping the sucker mothballed in drydock is a bad idea, yes? We agree? At least have one READY in port, right?

2.) Read my link on 100 mile range...

3-A.) According to military statistics on hits-on-target, the DoD agrees that BB guns are actually MORE "surgical". (better chance of accuracy)

3-B.) The predator aircraft has several advantages: One, low speed, so most automated radars will discard it. Two, it's designed to be at least semi-stealthy, and has no heat emissions. Three, it is painted in that "funky" new paint scheme the air force made to make it damn near invisible to the eye. Four, it flys at over 5'000 feet. (I say 5k because although I THINK it can go considerably higher, 5k is the only altitude I am SURE of. Best to admit that up front, right?)

3-C.) No, my point on the range thing is this: 100 miles one-way equals 200 miles round trip. You see what I mean? I'm saying the ranges are not all that different. Only a slight advantage to the zoomies...

Okay, hope that clears some stuff up!

[I/O Error]

Major Tom: The 100 mile max range of the BB makes the HMS London scenario unlikely at best. Even the "normal" range of 32 miles if well outside the range of all but the best artillery, and we have MUCH better counterbattery radar than the PLA does.

[Forever Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kverdon:

Xavier,

They thought themselves pretty safe...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Among the killed was the General commanding Syrian forces in Lebanon. I'm not a real big fan of American gunboat diplomacy, but if you're gonna practice it, ya better make sure you've got a gunboat!

[Mark IV]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

The 16" gun does NOT have a 100 mile range. Please quote me a source that makes that claim.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>16/11-Inch Long Range GPS Concept with Sabot

The concept was outlined on a briefing slide dated 17 April 1991 and was based upon using shell bodies from the Army’s old 280mm Atomic Cannon from the late 1950’s. The launch weight of the projectile, with sabot, was to be about 650 pounds, with a projectile weight of about 525 pounds. The payload is about 175 to 200 pounds and would consist initially of 248 M46 submunitions (small grenades). The projectile would have terminal guidance using the Global Positioning Finding System (GPS). With a range of 100 nautical miles, this projectile meets all required needs of the Marine Corps for high volume, high explosive ammunition, and greatly exceeds the objective range of 63 miles.

Weighing 500 pounds, this projectile will deliver about 10 times the ordnance of the proposed Extended Range Guided Munitions (ERGM) 5-inch projectile. Since it is larger, it will have about 1/3 the flight time of the 5-inch projectile.

This projectile is relatively inexpensive with a projected cost of about $50,000 per projectile (including powder). At this cost, coupled with it’s range and lethality, this projectile is a much less expensive alternative to Harpoon, ATACMS and MLRS land attack missiles that are currently being proposed for use on ships.

Though only a conceptual design, this projectile demonstrates the capability of the 16-inch gun to exceed the capabilities of the current alternatives (missiles).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://usnfsa.com/articles/techdata/td2.htm

You harp on and on about how crappy airpower is, but every single failing you mention is shared by the BB. A 16" shell cannot see its target any better than a 1000lb bomb can.

I haven't seen many claims that airpower is "crappy", only that it has its limits, and that its capabilities are sometimes overestimated.

First, not even the Navy is suggesting that aircraft carriers replace battleships for naval surface weapon support; the Extended Range Guided Munitions (ERGM) program is designed to provide NSWS with 5" guns. The advanced gun system (AGS) is the long-term solution, using 6.1" guns. These are all gun systems and thus subject to the same limitations of the already existing 16" guns.

Second, there are many ways to acquire a target without seeing it, but cannon shells fly in any weather.

Tomahawks and 16" guns do not replace one another. Just as we concede that 16 inchers are not suitable for precision strikes hundreds of miles inland, it should be acknowledged that cruise missiles are not suitable for suppressing or destroying large enemy formations. Of course, battleships can carry both...

"The Navy estimates that reactivating both Iowa and Wisconsin would cost $430

million. They can both be extensively modernized for about $500 million. This gives us two capital

ships for the cost of a single DDG-51 destroyer."

http://usnfsa.com/articles/repliestonavyfInal0073.pdf

[I/O Error]

Oh yes, that reminds me! I think a LOT of people are starting to think I think we don't NEED carriers, Tomahawks, aircraft, et cetera.

Good LORD!!! Man, we need EVERY tool in the toolbox!! I'm just a simple groundpounder type, but even I can appreciate the unique usefulness of EACH branch. I'm just saying it is a BAD idea to gut ourselves so BADLY buy denying ourselves even the OPTION of this incredible weapon system.

The USN without Carriers?! BWHAHAHAHAHAHA...

*sniff*

Man, the idea itself is totally crazy!

[Lacky]

Modern torpedo's are not specifically designed to penetrate armor. The primary role of modern naval torpedo's (USN) is to create a large air bubble (void space) under/around the target's hull. This is done to "break the back" of the target, ensuring complete destruction.

Whether a BB could survive water evacuation is a questionable matter.

[I/O Error]

Yeah, both sides sort of quietly dropped that one a little while ago, since NEITHER side could actually prove how effective such an attack would be.

We starting asking the question, "could a submarine get CLOSE enough to do the damage?"

And the answer I came up with is that Carrier/Battleship Battle Groups are the most heavily defended formations in the world. It's POSSIBLE to get in, of course, but then that's even more of a thread with a carrier.

Thus we made Aegis Cruisers, CIWS Phalanx weapons, and the best ASW wing in any navy in the world.

[Jeff Pattison]

While I agree that the Iowa Class battleships are impressive from a fire support point of view, the Iowa's are obsolete and should remain mothballed for the following reasons.

First, high maintainance costs. Because the ships are more than 60 years old, many replacement parts required are not available and would have to remanufactured. While powerplant parts may be available from other ships, the real problem is the acquistion of parts for the 16" gun turrets. All the Iowa's, particularly the New Jersey, are into the end portion of barrel life on the 16 inchers and need to be refurbished.

Second, old ammunition stocks. While new ICM, subcaliber, and precision rounds have been tested, most of the ammunition specifically the powder charges date from 60's and before. Old powder may have been a factor in the cold bore explosion on the Iowa. The question of whether or not existing powder stocks are still safe will have to be answered. If they aren't, new powdered and shells will have to be manufactured.

Third, compared to ships of today, these ships were designed during a period when pollution of the worlds oceans was not a concern like it is today. These ships all leak oil and their waste disposal systems dump sewage straight to the ocean with no preprocessing.

[Jeff Heidman]

My point stands. The 16" gun does NOT have a range of 100 miles, it hsa a range of less than 25 miles.

The proposal is merely that, a proposal. It would have to be developed and deployed, and then what would you have? Gee a rocket fired from a gun! Woopeee!

I am sure it would be practically free. We all know how initial cost estimates for weapons that are nothing more then design concepts are always as cheap as they are estimated at... NOT!

I mean, get real! A 500lb projectile weight? Whats the point? For the same cost you could just design a less smart guided missile with at least that payload and range! You are essentially trying to find a weapon for a gun, when the same weapon would work just as well without the gun to begin with!

Sorry IO, but your "source" is nothing more than a "maybe", so I am still floating nicely on that one.

2. Your predator is nice, but hardly makes any difference. You still have to find the bad guys, and an unmanned RPV is not going to do that better than a manned recon plane. IIRC, the RPV is mostly to adjust fire, not spot targets.

3. Answer the question. How could the Iowa do what airpower could not in the examples you gave? Specifically, how could the Iows hit a target in, say Belgrade?

4. You are mazingly incorrect about the whole world knowing where carriers are. How exactly would they find that out? The ocean is a very big place, when you are not limited to a few miles along some coastline you would like to lob shells into.

5. The subs. You are ignoring my point, not the reverse. You can hear a dielsel when it is running the diesel, but since there is no reason for it to be running the diesel, you will not hear it. A semi-modern diesel-electric can tool allong at a 5-7 knots for hours, and be virtually indetectable. They do not need to go fast, or even go at all, since they can sit and let their targets come to them. The USN tries to maintain an effective ASW ring, as is largely successful simply because they do not need to try to do that close in shore, where the ranges get much shorter, and the background noise much louder.

Finally, the Iraqui commander is a great example of the power of land combat. If he was under the guns of that BB group for so long, why didn't *they* destroy him?

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error:

Yeah, both sides sort of quietly dropped that one a little while ago, since NEITHER side could actually prove how effective such an attack would be.

We starting asking the question, "could a submarine get CLOSE enough to do the damage?"

And the answer I came up with is that Carrier/Battleship Battle Groups are the most heavily defended formations in the world. It's POSSIBLE to get in, of course, but then that's even more of a thread with a carrier. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Why is it more of a threat?

Why is it easier to sneak up on a carrier that could be anywhere within a few thousand square miles in the blue than it is to sneak up on a BB cruising cose in to shore?