World Affairs Board - View Single Post - Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

Anon · 06-13-2005, 02:27 AM

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0539r.pdf

The above linked report was written by Roscoe G. Bartlett, Chairman, subcommitee of Projection forces, and was prepared on Nov 19th, 2004(less than 7 months ago).

His reccomondation to the GAO?

A comprehensive study into the feasability of reactivation of the two remaining Iowas, and congressional hearings.

Excerpt:

"...Marine Corps supports the strategic purpose of reactivating two battleships in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 and supports the Navy’s modernization efforts to deliver a sufficient NSFS capability that exceeds that of the Iowa class battleships"

Saying the Iowas do not have any political support by those in power is an outright distortion of the truth. The USMC has in the last 7 months publicly stated it supports the reactivation of the remaining two Iowas.

That is pretty damned compelling support.

What the Battleships don't have is any NAVY support.

The USN is in violation of US Law, specifically PL104-106, and there are some in congress that want to smash the navies collective head against the wall over the waste of billions of dollars in developing, and cancelling, and developing, and cancelling, alternative NGFS proposals instead of just reactivating the Iowas to begin with.

I have just found out that there are going to be congressional hearings wrt the lack of NGFS and the possible reactivation of the Iowas in the next few months. The people that are paying the bills are getting increasingly pisssed off at the Navy over this issue.

Why you ask?

ERGM- 5 billion dollars later and counting, is on the verge of cancellation. It's competitors munition is unfunded by the USN.

LASM was cancelled after 100s of millions were invested in it's development.

DD-21 was cancelled after a 1 bn dollar expenditure.

DD-X has now been cut from 28 hulls to 5, and the entire program looks to be in serious trouble of cancellation. So far well over a billion dollars has been spent on that program. Each DD-X is currently projected to cost as much as 3 billion each(and the ship is still a paper design!)

AGS 155mm gun system: Too large to retrofit into Ticos or Burkes, and it is only envisioned by the USN to be embarked on the DD-X. A ship that now appears as if it is going to be spit canned. There goes a couple billion dollars with it...

TACTOM was sold as an NGFS asset when anyone with any sense knows that half million dollar 500kt munitions with a 1500 mile range and embarked in limited numbers by the fleet is NEVER going to be used for direct fire support in all but the most extreme and desperate situations, and that even in such situations it is far from ideal for the role.

CG-X is growing larger and larger with each passing month, and is now so big(on paper) that it's actually more in the battlecruiser displacement range. It will cost so much that i doubt any will ever be built. It is an extremely ambitious program- exactly the kind that repeatedly fails to produce any tangible weapons systems.

We cannot mount amphibious invasions with powerpoint presentations. We can mount them with ships that have proven themselves completely capable of filling the NGFS role in the biggest war the world has ever seen. The Iowas have also proven themselves EXTREMELY capable at naval interdiction fires in Korea, Vietnam, and ODS.

Stay tuned, this fight is not only not over, it's just about to finally warm up for real.

BTW, wrt the 'lies' USNFSA told about the inadequacies of the San Francisco berthing site, what was at issue was NOT whether the yard could properly maintain a ship in Cat B, but rather that the site cannot REACTIVATE an Iowa from Cat B. All the people that helped to prepare that GAO report seem to be in agreement that in fact, it cannot. This would include the man that was in charge of overseeing their reactivation in the 80s.

Someones lying, but it's not the USNFSA or the USMC, it's the United States Navy.

USNFSA is a non-profit organization that cares about one thing, and one thing only....the proper support of our amphibious ground forces in the event of amphibious operations, and the USNs surface fleets ability to timely interdict enemy land forces operating in proximity to the enemy coastline with a platform that can go where others dare not tread.

If you want to argue the BBs are not needed you have to argue that the leadership of the USMC doesn't know what it's talking about, that their stated requirements for NGFS fires are completely unfounded, and that airpower alone can fill the almost complete NSFS vacuum that currently exists in the USN, and that artillery systems are no longer required. (an argument which the US Army and USMC have repeatedly rejected out of hand).

06-13-2005, 02:27 AM	#156 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0539r.pdf The above linked report was written by Roscoe G. Bartlett, Chairman, subcommitee of Projection forces, and was prepared on Nov 19th, 2004(less than 7 months ago). His reccomondation to the GAO? A comprehensive study into the feasability of reactivation of the two remaining Iowas, and congressional hearings. Excerpt: "...Marine Corps supports the strategic purpose of reactivating two battleships in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 and supports the Navy’s modernization efforts to deliver a sufficient NSFS capability that exceeds that of the Iowa class battleships" Saying the Iowas do not have any political support by those in power is an outright distortion of the truth. The USMC has in the last 7 months publicly stated it supports the reactivation of the remaining two Iowas. That is pretty damned compelling support. What the Battleships don't have is any NAVY support. The USN is in violation of US Law, specifically PL104-106, and there are some in congress that want to smash the navies collective head against the wall over the waste of billions of dollars in developing, and cancelling, and developing, and cancelling, alternative NGFS proposals instead of just reactivating the Iowas to begin with. I have just found out that there are going to be congressional hearings wrt the lack of NGFS and the possible reactivation of the Iowas in the next few months. The people that are paying the bills are getting increasingly pisssed off at the Navy over this issue. Why you ask? ERGM- 5 billion dollars later and counting, is on the verge of cancellation. It's competitors munition is unfunded by the USN. LASM was cancelled after 100s of millions were invested in it's development. DD-21 was cancelled after a 1 bn dollar expenditure. DD-X has now been cut from 28 hulls to 5, and the entire program looks to be in serious trouble of cancellation. So far well over a billion dollars has been spent on that program. Each DD-X is currently projected to cost as much as 3 billion each(and the ship is still a paper design!) AGS 155mm gun system: Too large to retrofit into Ticos or Burkes, and it is only envisioned by the USN to be embarked on the DD-X. A ship that now appears as if it is going to be spit canned. There goes a couple billion dollars with it... TACTOM was sold as an NGFS asset when anyone with any sense knows that half million dollar 500kt munitions with a 1500 mile range and embarked in limited numbers by the fleet is NEVER going to be used for direct fire support in all but the most extreme and desperate situations, and that even in such situations it is far from ideal for the role. CG-X is growing larger and larger with each passing month, and is now so big(on paper) that it's actually more in the battlecruiser displacement range. It will cost so much that i doubt any will ever be built. It is an extremely ambitious program- exactly the kind that repeatedly fails to produce any tangible weapons systems. We cannot mount amphibious invasions with powerpoint presentations. We can mount them with ships that have proven themselves completely capable of filling the NGFS role in the biggest war the world has ever seen. The Iowas have also proven themselves EXTREMELY capable at naval interdiction fires in Korea, Vietnam, and ODS. Stay tuned, this fight is not only not over, it's just about to finally warm up for real. BTW, wrt the 'lies' USNFSA told about the inadequacies of the San Francisco berthing site, what was at issue was NOT whether the yard could properly maintain a ship in Cat B, but rather that the site cannot REACTIVATE an Iowa from Cat B. All the people that helped to prepare that GAO report seem to be in agreement that in fact, it cannot. This would include the man that was in charge of overseeing their reactivation in the 80s. Someones lying, but it's not the USNFSA or the USMC, it's the United States Navy. USNFSA is a non-profit organization that cares about one thing, and one thing only....the proper support of our amphibious ground forces in the event of amphibious operations, and the USNs surface fleets ability to timely interdict enemy land forces operating in proximity to the enemy coastline with a platform that can go where others dare not tread. If you want to argue the BBs are not needed you have to argue that the leadership of the USMC doesn't know what it's talking about, that their stated requirements for NGFS fires are completely unfounded, and that airpower alone can fill the almost complete NSFS vacuum that currently exists in the USN, and that artillery systems are no longer required. (an argument which the US Army and USMC have repeatedly rejected out of hand). Last edited by Anon : 06-13-2005 at 03:42 AM.