Quote:
Originally Posted by SteaminDemon
First question is for Gun Grape. If the shells were capable of going out to 350NM or further would you be in support of the proposed ship that Maximus has come up with? I would, even if it is 100 NM.
|
If they are small shells. Big bullets, with big casualty zones don't do me any good if I am in an engaged fight. The standard for 16in back in the 1980s was that anything within 2000 meters was "Danger Close" So big bullets mean that I have to engage them way off. OK if you are in the desert. bad anywhere else.
You can do this with things like GMLRS
LiveLeak.com - Taking out Insurgent sniper
A 12/14/16in round couldn't even be considered.
Quote:
|
The Iowa's have their pro's and con's, as does every ship afloat. To say they offer nothing at all is simply not true, as is saying bringing them back will be an end all, which is simply not true as well.
|
What do you think an Iowa, in their present configuration, brings to the Navy?
Quote:
|
Other reasons include their outstanding plant redundancy and reliability, and their ability to aid the fleet in churning out parts. To add to that, our repair ships are not what they used to be (as far as numbers go) and we could sure use some more ships that have a machine shop that can not only support their needs, but that of other ships also.
|
Most classes can fab parts for their own ships use and the bigger ships LHA/LHD/CVs all have machine shops that can support the rest of the Taskforce.
Quote:
|
So a ship that can carry that extra fuel for her escorts is a plus.
|
Then don't waste the money of a 60yr old hull. Use it to build a new oiler
Her firepower. That is another plus for the fleet. It can and should be improved upon. VLS and improved 5" guns along with extended range 16" projectiles, Goalkeeper CIWS, among other things. Gun grape, help me out on this one, There is a radar, I can not remember the designation, but it is able to track multiple targets like AEGIS is able to, and would be able to be installed on the Iowa's. I heard of the MK 160 (improved fire control), but it is not the one that is on my mind.
Quote:
|
The pork barrel projects, cost plus fee nightmares, LRLAP, DDX, ERGM, LPD overruns and so on. Battleship reactivation and the costs associated with implementing the 16" extended range munition program would be a drop in the bucket compared to the above mentioned.
|
Why do you think that the BB reactivation or 16in ER projectiles would not be the same pork barrel nightmares that everything else is?
My biggest problem with people that want to reactivate the Battleships is that even they talk about how the ships need armament upgrades, radar upgrades and comm upgrades. If you are going to spend all that money build a new hull and design it to your specs and needs. Not work around a 60yr old hull where you have to make design compromise after compromise.