Quote:
Originally Posted by SteaminDemon
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.
|
The reason that you think that is when you talk about fire support, you are focusing on Naval Gun Fire. I see NGF as part of the fires triad. One leg of that 3 legged stool. Got something that the 5" cannot handle? Fine, we have planes in a CAS stack with either GPS guided or Laser guided bombs that will handle the problem. Or the AH-1s with Hellfire or Tow2. Its not 5" solution or nothing.
Quote:
[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]
Because the US is the "Big Stick". We get to dictate the terms of the battle. And we have more tools to use now.
Think, If WW2 happened today, there would be no need for the island hopping campaign. Our bombers could take off from the US mainland and our fighters could fly cover from Alaska. Most of the island campaign was to secure airstrips for our fighters and bombers to be able to reach Japan.
Quote:
 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).
|
But sinking ships is still a submarines job. We haven't found a replacement for the sub yet.
Direct beach assaults is no longer part of the way the US fights. And even if we wanted to do it that way, we have neither the ships or Marines to do it on a large scale against a competent enemy.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Look at the last 15 years. And the role that carriers have played.And the missions that they have been used for. Things that could not be replaced by a battleship.
A carrier would have still been needed in the med continuously. What would a BB have done for Northern Watch (Iraq No Fly zone enforcement), Southern Watch (Same in the Gulf) Deny Flight and the IFOR/SFOR deployments?
A battleship would have never been able to intercept the Achille Lauro hijackers so they could have been brought to justice.
A battleship would not have been able to conduct the type operations during the Gulf of Sidra in the 80s?
A battleship could not have provided support for the Afghanistan operation.
It seems to me that the Navy would be required to have carriers deployed all the time. What would the BB do?