Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Grape
But you seem to have missed my post that Sabot rounds will not be fired over the heads of friendly troops. So none of those things will except the 5" will be there to provide NGF to troops on the ground.
|
You make it sound like the 5" is the end all. Which it is simply not. There are too many variables in warfare. What about the hard targets that need to be destroyed? Will the 5" be able to do the job? No, so you would utilize your 16" projectile. Having both at your disposal instead of one is much better.
Quote:
And FtS/OMFTS states that in an amphibious operation ships will be at least 25 miles from the beach. So she could almost reach shore.  .
|
I agree. But our current 5" armament does not even come close
.
Quote:
Modern amphibious assaults will be like those that the RM/USMC did in Umm Qasr and Al Faw.
An element lands in an undefended area/friendly territory, assembles and then attacks from a flank while another unit may conduct a standard LCU/AAV type assault , a OTH helo assault or both. No more "Hey did*le ,straight up the middle".
|
How can we really be sure of how they "will be"?
Quote:
|
Now if we are storming Tarawa again, I'll give her a call..
|
Another good point you bring up. The thing is, you never know what your enemy is going to throw at you, so why not be prepared? Example, our submarines, we have not "technically" fired a torpedo since WW2, but we still have our submarines. So does that mean there is no need for submarines at all? No. We need assurance (and they are good at other missions as well).
Quote:
|
You just didn't ask nice enough I've done 7 floats and the only time the shops were working hard was during Deny Flight, where we were flying 24/7 and providing rotation for TRAP alert. Even then the machine shot was able to take a broken pack frame(we were Testing new packs) figure out why it broke, what needed to be done to fix the problem and fabricate replacements for 2 infantry companies. Also had time to engrave various Zippos for us too That was on the Kearsarge..
|
The best zippo I got was from an AOE. It was a gift, and the engraving was unbelievable. But as to the machine shops being able to support the rest of the battle group, it becomes a very daunting task, and given the limitations of an LHD machine shop, it becomes damn near impossible.
Quote:
|
It will more than fill the shoes if the justification fro recommissioning is refuel capability..
|
The refuel capability is a huge plus, but as you and I know that is not the only justification for reactivation.
Quote:
|
No way. Going places never gone before with a ton of work to be figured out. Its the same bottomless pit that SADArm was. A 30 yr project that was obsolete and too expensive when they finally got it to work..
|
Kind of the same happenings of today. Most of the proposed ships are going places never gone before. IE DDX, LCS and so on. They couldn't even get the LPD right. It is deeper than just the ship. Contracting and the dollar signs are causing unnecessary problems. Extended range 16" projectiles however, have already been attempted (even though for a short time due to decom)
Quote:
|
Becaust those ships that are being SLEPed and upgraded don't have 60+ yr old hulls. Its one thing to SLEP a Tarawa at 30-35 yrs, after various overhauls, to get another 15 yrs out of her. A total hull life of 50yrs. Its another thing to SLEP a 60+ yr old ship. Especially for the return you will get. All those wonder rounds will still be on the drawing board or under limited testing 15 yrs after commissioning..
|
How do we know, if we don't try. A drop in the bucket of what was wasted could have been used for fielding the "wonder rounds". An LHD and a BB are two different animals. I feel the return from both ships are assets.
Quote:
|
And the big argument against it is that the hull/steel is the cheapest part of the ship. Why would I want to put a new stereo, GPS, MP3, OnStar, Impact glass reinforced doors, airbags ect in a car that drove off the lot in 1943. The investment doesn't pay off. Better to buy me a new car, with no miles and have those things installed.
|
Well technically, the car that drove off the lot in 43 will only appreciate in value opposed to your new car, which after a few years will drop quite a bit. And also, if that car made in 43 was stronger than the new car, I would rather incorporate those things into the older car and keep my passengers safe while riding in style, as well as saving a bunch of money
Quote:
|
I'll leave the expert opinion to Rusty, but I'm betting bringing them up to mixed crew standards and the sit-up bunks and all the mechanical,and plumbing work, to bring them into the No more "Bring your trash to the fantail for dumping" it may be faster and less expensive to start from scratch. I'm sure the people that would be tasked with doing those mods would eat a lot less rolaids..
|
You do not have to install sit up bunks. That would be a decision the Navy would make based upon final crew requirements and available space. Not all ships have sit up bunks either. But as for mixed crew, it would require separate berthing spaces, which would not really pose a great deal of issues. Male and female berthing spaces do not differ all that much if you have ever been in either of the two. It was not a problem for the AOE's, I don't see why it would be a problem for the BB's.
As far as "bring all trash to RAS 5 for dumping", we still do that. Adding plastic processing machines (disk makers) would not be a big deal. But a pulper on the other hand would require plumbing and other things. The pulper among other things, would be a question that would be better answered by Rusty.
You and I agree that new ships (unlike LCS and scratch some other garbage as well) should be built. But for the short and mid term, Reactivating the Iowa's would right now benefit the fleet in a great manner. Adding the Iowa's would make rotations outstanding. It would allow for a greater In Port/At Sea rotation for the entire fleet, that would not only be a morale booster, but a benefit for the ships themselves. We would be able to have 5 Groups (CVB's, BB's, and LHA's/LHD's that would be able to be deployed around the clock at a far better rotation than what we have now, and will have for a long time. That right there is a huge advantage in both upkeep, capability, morale and family life and would come with a cost that is as I have said "a drop in the bucket" compared to the other programs that have come and gone, and have done nothing to aid the fleet.
While the Iowa's are active, research will most likely occur on how to improve the "new hulls", what works, what doesn't and what can be improved upon for the next generation of ships.
A small investment, that can help improve our fleet is an asset. The Iowa's have proven themselves before, and I do not think they would be a disappointment this time around either.
A little off topic, but not totally, John McCain will be the best bet for fighting the pork in the contracting of today. So, hopefully we will be able to further enhance our Military, while reducing the budget raping that is going on.
You can't keep throwing money at something and expect it to perform....well, minus an exotic dancer....,without first providing objectives, guidelines, limitations and investment protection.
It has been an interesting and informative thread (as are many).
Maximus, you changed your cruiser design from 12 to 8" guns. Why not keep the 12" guns and add one 8" aft of the forward turret, and one 8" aft of the after turret (both raised 8's raised above the 12's or even make em 14's) as well as one port and stbd along with some 155's. If you don't mind re drawing, I think that would add more versatility to the platform.
As far as the 8" projectiles, there are still some in our inventory that you can tool around with.
Take it easy all.