Post by: richyoung on October 11, 2006, 11:25:34 AM
1. Naval gunfire support. We hadn't built any new "gun" cruisers since right after WWII, and hteones we had were worn out. As low-time hulls with big guns, and as the acme of the "battlecruiser/fast battleship" evolution, the Iowas made good substitutes. The 5" on DDs/frigates wasn't felt adequate to support Marines going "over thet beach".
2. As force-on-force balance/equivalent tot he recently splashed Kirov class missle battlecruiser of the Soviet Navy.
3. As a quick way to get to a "600 ship Navy".
4. As a substitute for a CV as the center of a battle group.
5. As a quick and dirty replacement/suppliment to Blue Ridge/mount Whitney command vessels.
Any others rationals floating out there?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on October 11, 2006, 11:49:06 AM
"Nice navy Ivan. Say, seen our freakin' BATTLESHIPS?"
Plus, they provided a quick ability to take a 4-to-1 lead in the space race were the Japanese able to get Project Starblazers off the ground.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 11, 2006, 11:53:13 AM
Rest assured, fistful can always be relied on for interservice rivalry.
Post by: Keith Wheeler on October 11, 2006, 12:02:57 PM
"and the battleship, what, uh what special properties does it possess that other coalition forces don't?"
military officer: "it floats"
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 11, 2006, 12:12:50 PM
Quote
Any others rationals floating out there?
I had a rationale, but it sunk.Brad
Post by: 280plus on October 11, 2006, 12:41:34 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 11, 2006, 12:56:58 PM
Besides, you've got to tailor your recruiting methods to your target.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 11, 2006, 01:06:52 PM
Post by: 280plus on October 11, 2006, 01:07:04 PM
Post by: 280plus on October 11, 2006, 01:11:27 PM
They tried but they never did grease my ass. I was a bit scrappier than most.
Post by: 280plus on October 11, 2006, 01:12:52 PM
LOL...
Post by: The Rabbi on October 11, 2006, 01:24:52 PM
Quote from: 280plus
I don't know, If I saw the Village people headed in my general direction with a grease gun I think I'd RUN!!
LOL...
Run? Dive for it. I'd take my chances with the sharks.LOL...
No, I was never privelaged to serve in the military but had friends in NROTC. One of them reported that on a summer cruise one of the guys got it into his head that he was an officer and could order men around. Men with 30+ years of service. He found out the hard way to what usages grease guns can be put.
Post by: 280plus on October 11, 2006, 01:32:55 PM
Post by: 280plus on October 11, 2006, 01:34:30 PM
Post by: wingnutx on October 11, 2006, 01:44:58 PM
Quote from: fistful
Then they went to a Village People concert.
I couldn't decide if I wanted to be the construction worker or the sailor, so I compromised and went Seabee
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 11, 2006, 01:45:49 PM
"ass" is not acceptable in polite conversation, and therefore not on APS. Unless, of course, you're talking about a donkey.
Post by: 280plus on October 11, 2006, 01:48:29 PM
I was later again pleased with the Nav when I saw Cher straddling that big 16 incher. I'd bet they STILL haven't washed that spot.
I like to imagine whoever picked "In the Navy" as a recruitment song was summarily court martialed.
Post by: 280plus on October 11, 2006, 01:49:55 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 11, 2006, 02:49:24 PM
Quote from: 280plus
Yes, Mom, I was talking about my donkey, they tried to grease my donkey but I wouldn't let them.
Yeah, those Navy guys will grease anything.
Post by: 280plus on October 11, 2006, 03:12:50 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 11, 2006, 05:17:06 PM
Quote from: 280plus
Yes, Mom, I was talking about my donkey, they tried to grease my donkey but I wouldn't let them.
That's alright dear. Now go wash up for supper.
Post by: Parker Dean on October 11, 2006, 07:33:46 PM
I'll never be able to prove it, but IMO the big reason was to show the average Joe and non-military-savvy politicos around the world that we were serious this time. I know BB's can't control the seas like they once did but to most people they still carry a formidable intimidation factor. Naval experts would, and did, laugh but they weren't what I consider the intended audience.
They would still carry a healthy propaganda punch in much of the world but their manpower costs are far too high.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on October 11, 2006, 09:00:11 PM
Quote from: Parker Dean
Getting back to the topic....
I'll never be able to prove it, but IMO the big reason was to show the average Joe and non-military-savvy politicos around the world that we were serious this time. I know BB's can't control the seas like they once did but to most people they still carry a formidable intimidation factor. Naval experts would, and did, laugh but they weren't what I consider the intended audience.
They would still carry a healthy propaganda punch in much of the world but their manpower costs are far too high.
The argument on that has been fought back and forth on THR. Modernizing the electrical, propulsion and weapons would shave hundreds off the manpower requirements. The savings in billeting space could fit more AA, AS and cruise missiles than any platform afloat today. The Marines had a plan to pull the rear turret and put in a flight deck and hanger space for helos and Harriers. You could fit a hell of an assault force on that ship.I'll never be able to prove it, but IMO the big reason was to show the average Joe and non-military-savvy politicos around the world that we were serious this time. I know BB's can't control the seas like they once did but to most people they still carry a formidable intimidation factor. Naval experts would, and did, laugh but they weren't what I consider the intended audience.
They would still carry a healthy propaganda punch in much of the world but their manpower costs are far too high.
Self-defense weaponry, naval gunfire support, Tomahawks and a company or two of Marines for air assault.
Assuming the thing could be refitted for a reasonble cost and the hull was not too degraded by time.
Which was what the arguments hinged on, cost and remaining useful life of the hull.
Post by: Silver Bullet on October 11, 2006, 10:23:49 PM
Quote
I couldn't decide if I wanted to be the construction worker or the sailor, so I compromised and went Seabee
My favorite Seabee anecdote: What do you call a Marine ?
A Seabee with a light duty chit !
Post by: 280plus on October 12, 2006, 02:13:57 AM
Post by: 280plus on October 12, 2006, 03:04:42 AM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=143812
Post by: HankB on October 12, 2006, 04:16:55 AM
Unfortunately, poltical correctness has limited that utility . . . when we had troops in Lebanon, much was made of the battleships' presence offshore in an artillery support role. Unfortunately, stories at the time indicated that use of the 16" guns was under the control of an army general in Europe, thousands of miles away!
Interservice rivalries played a part in the determination to not use them as effectively as possible, even to the point of ordering deliberate offsets of counter-battery fire in order to minimize enemy casualties.
(One wonders whether or not the fire control officers made occasional mistakes . . . )
Again, these are just things I read in open sources - if anyone reading this has first hand knowledge to the contrary, please educate me.
Post by: richyoung on October 12, 2006, 04:58:54 AM
Quote from: 280plus
One thing I know is the Marines LOVE those 16" guns. Don't forget, during desert storm Iraqi troops were surrendering at the sight of the drone that directed the 16" guns. They wanted nothing to do with actually having one of those shells drop in their vicinity.
Yep - they seem to be muzzled by the Navy higher brass right now - pfficial position is that the DD(X) with TWO, count 'em TWO 155mm tubes is adequate for NGFS - problem is, there won't BE even one of them for 5 or 6 years - all we have now is 5". We deactivated the BBS way too early.
Post by: Parker Dean on October 12, 2006, 03:40:23 PM
Quote from: carebear
.
Assuming the thing could be refitted for a reasonble cost ...
Therein lies the rub. What has been talked about is dangerously close to complete reconstruction, and if you're gonna do THAT, then you might as well pop for something modern with modern area-control capabilities.
Assuming the thing could be refitted for a reasonble cost ...
Post by: 280plus on October 12, 2006, 04:36:54 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 12, 2006, 04:37:59 PM
The economic issue becomes how much you spend on modernization of an old hull. It seems to me more reasonable to just have smaller cannons with modern explosives on smaller modern ships, as suggested above. Also, how much maintenance is required to keep a New Jersey functional?
Let's also not forget the intimidation effect, as mentioned by others.
Finally, the sheer Freudian fun of it.
Post by: 280plus on October 12, 2006, 05:32:36 PM
LOL...
Post by: LAK on October 13, 2006, 12:44:24 AM
-------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: richyoung on October 13, 2006, 05:38:24 AM
Quote from: 280plus
I find it's better to do a search on my ID and then go to anything related to Navy ships. Here's one I found...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=143812
Yeah.. you might recognize a username or two from that discussion....
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=143812
Post by: 280plus on October 13, 2006, 05:40:15 AM
Post by: richyoung on October 13, 2006, 06:27:58 AM
Quote from: 280plus
Were you in there?
I cannot tell a lie - tho this time, I was lookign more for all the reasons they were braought back LAST time, to see how many still applied today. Not thtat it matters - I'm sure the Navy had the elevation and traverse mechanisms wrecked the MINUTE that the Congress apporved moving them to museums...
Post by: 280plus on October 13, 2006, 06:32:03 AM
Post by: 280plus on October 13, 2006, 06:40:41 AM
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/bb-61.htm
I think the answer you seek is in the second paragraph.
Post by: richyoung on October 13, 2006, 07:18:14 AM
Post by: roo_ster on October 13, 2006, 07:40:53 AM
Additionally, the cost to reactivate and modernize a battleship is about that of a modern guided missile frigate.
If the above is true, I'm wondering just why we haven't do it already? Who would not trade a frigate for the Mighty Mo?
Post by: richyoung on October 13, 2006, 07:45:46 AM
Quote from: jfruser
Additionally, the cost to reactivate and modernize a battleship is about that of a modern guided missile frigate.
If the above is true, I'm wondering just why we haven't do it already? Who would not trade a frigate for the Mighty Mo?..and yes the whole failure to reactivate the BBs stinks - I see we are still flying B-52s, KC-135s, C-130s, & still using M-14s and 113s...
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 13, 2006, 10:18:17 AM
Another angle to consider is that these battleships were built to (try to) withstand large-caliber shells, torpedos, and possibly bombs. But, would that armor be meaningful against modern anti-ship missiles? If not, there seems to be a lot of weight that is hard to justify. On the other hand, with the nuclear plants, energy would be abundant. Still, IIRC the Argentinians sank a few British ships with just a cheap French missile...
Post by: richyoung on October 13, 2006, 11:19:44 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
I am wondering if the Iowa class can be refitted with nuclear power plants and electrical engines. Such a refit would considerably extend their range and independence. Any ideas?
Another angle to consider is that these battleships were built to (try to) withstand large-caliber shells, torpedos, and possibly bombs. But, would that armor be meaningful against modern anti-ship missiles? If not, there seems to be a lot of weight that is hard to justify. On the other hand, with the nuclear plants, energy would be abundant. Still, IIRC the Argentinians sank a few British ships with just a cheap French missile...
Compare and contrast hardness and sectional density of a missle flying at Mach two verses a 2,700 armor-peircing shell travelling at... mach2.
Another angle to consider is that these battleships were built to (try to) withstand large-caliber shells, torpedos, and possibly bombs. But, would that armor be meaningful against modern anti-ship missiles? If not, there seems to be a lot of weight that is hard to justify. On the other hand, with the nuclear plants, energy would be abundant. Still, IIRC the Argentinians sank a few British ships with just a cheap French missile...
Post by: HankB on October 13, 2006, 11:50:53 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
. . . would that armor be meaningful against modern anti-ship missiles?
Probably depends a lot on the missle. I suspect high probability of survival against missles comparable to the French Exocet, but IIRC the Russkies had some pretty big, long range supersonic missles intended to be used against our carriers (Their Shipwreckmissle reportedly flies at Mach 2.25 and carries a 750kg warhead) which, should one of those hit, would probably be at least as damaging as a hit from an armor-piercing battleship round . . .
Post by: richyoung on October 13, 2006, 11:57:49 AM
Quote from: HankB
Quote from: CAnnoneer
. . . would that armor be meaningful against modern anti-ship missiles?
Probably depends a lot on the missle. I suspect high probability of survival against missles comparable to the French Exocet, but IIRC the Russkies had some pretty big, long range supersonic missles intended to be used against our carriers (Their Shipwreckmissle reportedly flies at Mach 2.25 and carries a 750kg warhead) which, should one of those hit, would probably be at least as damaging as a hit from an armor-piercing battleship round . . .Post by: richyoung on October 13, 2006, 12:00:54 PM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
I am wondering if the Iowa class can be refitted with nuclear power plants and electrical engines. Such a refit would considerably extend their range and independence. Any ideas?
Nukes make steam, and the old girls already have real good low-mileage steam turbines in them. Just pipe the steam from the reactors to the existing turbines.If the 16" were converted to liquid propellant, and the secondary armament done away with, ther might be enough room in the unused magazine spaces and the old engineering plant to put nukes - prob'ly need to ask some atomic squids how big the reactors are, & how much they put out - we would need about 200,000 hp equivalent.