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

rickusn · 03-22-2005, 19:58 PM

I was going to agree with you on this(even typed that at least we agree on something) but I cant:

"The reasons the BBs were retired was because of man power and money. And manpower is all about money, so in the end...it was ALL about the almighty dollar."

Heres why:

Ive shown time and again that the manpower issue is disinformation at its best(worst?).

The SSGN conversion is only the latest example that the money issue is the same kind of disinformation.

Its basically what I said in a previous post:

The USN never really did (hasnt, dont and wont) want(ed) the battleships in service and Congress never really did (hasnt, dont and(so far) wont) want(ed) to pay for it. But Congress certainly could(should?) they funded the SSGN's for cripes sake.

Thats the reality. Anything else is lame excuses.

Phase II of the battleship modernization was canceled in 1983 I thought it was later.

Why? **See below**

In 1995 the BBs were stricken and I quote " due to the expenditure necessary to ensure continued, reliable service; the costs of which would be disproportionate to the ships value."

Stripping the ships of useful materials and equpiment started months before their actual decommissionings. The Missouri the last would have been retired by Sept. 30th 1991 but because the USN wanted her to participate in the 50th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack she was kept in commission with a caretaker crew.

And like Ive said over and over and over: You have to convince the USN and/or Congress. Hasnt been done yet.

Im well aware of what the BBs did in the 1980's. Posted all of it over the years. This isnt the 1980's.

Your information on the abilities of the BB as anything other than NGFS is nearly 20 years old. They are no longer configured as such and even if they were all systems would be totally, hopelessly obsolete.

**They didnt even have NTDS or Link-11/14. It was a quick way to get Tomahawk to sea in #s and as insurance of a sort until the USN got all the carriers it wanted . Which was soon eclipsed by the new VLS ships and VLS conversion of most of the Spruances.**

The USN bluffed and nobody called them on it. LOL

**Not only that but by 1990 the USN had their (16) 15 deployable carriers which is what they were after from the beginning. They had their Tomahawk VLS programs well in hand not only on the CG/DD/DDG classes but on 14 SSN also.**

If the end if the Cold War hadnt happened which the USN used as an excuse they would have had to invent other justification . The USN had in fact already programmed their decommissionings. Talk about luck of the draw.

Even their stellar service during ODS didnt save them. Didnt even come close.

Your words "as presently configured" they are capable of and only capable of limited NGFS.

And Ive stated repeatedly that they are the best weve got but apparently its not enough either. Or they would already have bee reactivated. Note again the incredibly expensive SSGN conversions.

I have yet to see anyone with power and influence clamoring for immediate or even near future 2-5 years reactivation.

"And ASUW, and STRIKE. The Iowas clearly have an ASUW and STRIKE capability besides NGFS. Stating otherwise is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

"If they were as impressive, awesome and do everything as some would have you believe they would still be in service. This simply is not the case."

Distorting the truth to back your argument won't win you any points with me."

The only person distorting the truth and misrepresenting facts is you. Not to mention totally misunderstanding history. "As presently configured" they can do neither. Any electronic systems onboard are totally obsolete if in fact any are still aboard. They have racks for Harpoon and armored box launchers for Tomahawk all for show with no subtance.

Touting their machine shops is ludicrous BTW.

And I dont need to win points only hardcore BB supporters do and they havent. And not with me. I think Ive shown Im actually on their side. Although its quite obvious you missed that. LOL

When they do let me know. Ill be the first to congratulate them.

Until then they will stay in CAT B as "possible" NGFS assets at best and thats it.

If you have hard info that says otherwise please share it. I shared the latest I found.

Notice. Pay attention here. The whole article is about NSFS and in particular NGFS abilities of the battleships. Also notice the dates of those quoted. LOL Even one dead. And Lehman hes the one who canceled their Phase II mod in the first place and in fact limted thie reactivation mods. But hes the battleship supporters hero? LOL

No wonder its pretty much a dead mainstream issue.

Notice there has been no public support of this article.

I was hoping there would be more interest there isnt.

All this has been is an excerise in futility. Nothing but a rehash of the same old stuff.

Got Sniper all antagonized once again. Me too to a point. But Im getting sorta used to it. LOL

Why we tolerate each other is sometimes beyond me.

For me Sniper makes my reasoning so much clearer.

For him who knows. LOL

Ive never seen two guys on the same side of an issue appear(or is it actually) so diametrically opposed. LOL

Wish I wouldnt have posted the damn article in the first place.

Ive wasted far tooooooo much time on this issue once again for no good reason.

03-22-2005, 19:58 PM	#93 (permalink)
rickusn *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-09-03 Posts: 1,317	I was going to agree with you on this(even typed that at least we agree on something) but I cant: "The reasons the BBs were retired was because of man power and money. And manpower is all about money, so in the end...it was ALL about the almighty dollar." Heres why: Ive shown time and again that the manpower issue is disinformation at its best(worst?). The SSGN conversion is only the latest example that the money issue is the same kind of disinformation. Its basically what I said in a previous post: The USN never really did (hasnt, dont and wont) want(ed) the battleships in service and Congress never really did (hasnt, dont and(so far) wont) want(ed) to pay for it. But Congress certainly could(should?) they funded the SSGN's for cripes sake. Thats the reality. Anything else is lame excuses. Phase II of the battleship modernization was canceled in 1983 I thought it was later. Why? See below In 1995 the BBs were stricken and I quote " due to the expenditure necessary to ensure continued, reliable service; the costs of which would be disproportionate to the ships value." Stripping the ships of useful materials and equpiment started months before their actual decommissionings. The Missouri the last would have been retired by Sept. 30th 1991 but because the USN wanted her to participate in the 50th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack she was kept in commission with a caretaker crew. And like Ive said over and over and over: You have to convince the USN and/or Congress. Hasnt been done yet. Im well aware of what the BBs did in the 1980's. Posted all of it over the years. This isnt the 1980's. Your information on the abilities of the BB as anything other than NGFS is nearly 20 years old. They are no longer configured as such and even if they were all systems would be totally, hopelessly obsolete. They didnt even have NTDS or Link-11/14. It was a quick way to get Tomahawk to sea in #s and as insurance of a sort until the USN got all the carriers it wanted . Which was soon eclipsed by the new VLS ships and VLS conversion of most of the Spruances. The USN bluffed and nobody called them on it. LOL Not only that but by 1990 the USN had their (16) 15 deployable carriers which is what they were after from the beginning. They had their Tomahawk VLS programs well in hand not only on the CG/DD/DDG classes but on 14 SSN also. If the end if the Cold War hadnt happened which the USN used as an excuse they would have had to invent other justification . The USN had in fact already programmed their decommissionings. Talk about luck of the draw. Even their stellar service during ODS didnt save them. Didnt even come close. Your words "as presently configured" they are capable of and only capable of limited NGFS. And Ive stated repeatedly that they are the best weve got but apparently its not enough either. Or they would already have bee reactivated. Note again the incredibly expensive SSGN conversions. I have yet to see anyone with power and influence clamoring for immediate or even near future 2-5 years reactivation. "And ASUW, and STRIKE. The Iowas clearly have an ASUW and STRIKE capability besides NGFS. Stating otherwise is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. "If they were as impressive, awesome and do everything as some would have you believe they would still be in service. This simply is not the case." Distorting the truth to back your argument won't win you any points with me." The only person distorting the truth and misrepresenting facts is you. Not to mention totally misunderstanding history. "As presently configured" they can do neither. Any electronic systems onboard are totally obsolete if in fact any are still aboard. They have racks for Harpoon and armored box launchers for Tomahawk all for show with no subtance. Touting their machine shops is ludicrous BTW. And I dont need to win points only hardcore BB supporters do and they havent. And not with me. I think Ive shown Im actually on their side. Although its quite obvious you missed that. LOL When they do let me know. Ill be the first to congratulate them. Until then they will stay in CAT B as "possible" NGFS assets at best and thats it. If you have hard info that says otherwise please share it. I shared the latest I found. Notice. Pay attention here. The whole article is about NSFS and in particular NGFS abilities of the battleships. Also notice the dates of those quoted. LOL Even one dead. And Lehman hes the one who canceled their Phase II mod in the first place and in fact limted thie reactivation mods. But hes the battleship supporters hero? LOL No wonder its pretty much a dead mainstream issue. Notice there has been no public support of this article. I was hoping there would be more interest there isnt. All this has been is an excerise in futility. Nothing but a rehash of the same old stuff. Got Sniper all antagonized once again. Me too to a point. But Im getting sorta used to it. LOL Why we tolerate each other is sometimes beyond me. For me Sniper makes my reasoning so much clearer. For him who knows. LOL Ive never seen two guys on the same side of an issue appear(or is it actually) so diametrically opposed. LOL Wish I wouldnt have posted the damn article in the first place. Ive wasted far tooooooo much time on this issue once again for no good reason.