Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Confirmation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Confirmation

    As I thought the IOWA transfer was passed by the House.:

    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
    Stockton on radar to get ship
    House OKs Iowa's docking at port; bill goes to Senate
    By David Siders
    Record Staff Writer
    Published Friday, May 27, 2005


    STOCKTON -- A defense spending bill approved late Wednesday by the House of Representatives would dock the historic USS Iowa at the Port of Stockton.

    The measure, plugged into the $491 billion budget just days before it passed, was a victory for the city and a blow to San Francisco. A nonprofit group there has lobbied since 1996 to draw the Navy battleship to the Bay.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who had said she would support a bid by San Francisco, will not oppose the battleship's move to Stockton when the Senate considers the bill, a spokesman said Thursday.

    The Senate is likely to consider the bill in June. Absent opposition from Feinstein, the USS Iowa's move is likely to pass without a fight, said Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, the lawmaker behind the move.

    "We got the Iowa!" Stockton City Manager Mark Lewis said.

    "The Big Stick" carried President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the Casablanca conference in 1943 and sailed in both World War II and the Korean War. It was muscular and swift -- almost three football fields long and armed with nine 16-inch guns -- but now rests mothballed in Suisun Bay near Benicia.

    The approved measure -- at the bottom of Page 362 of the National Defense Authorization Act -- would direct the Navy to release the 887-foot ship to Stockton provided the port submits a "donation application for that vessel that is satisfactory."

    The port has been assembling that application since 2001. It would build roads and a bridge to create sufficient access to the ship, which would sit at the east edge of Rough and Ready Island. The port would donate a dock, 15 acres for parking and a 90,000-square-foot building for exhibits, port Director Richard Aschieris said.

    Tickets would cost about $12.

    Aschieris cautioned that approval of the bill is not final but said Feinstein's announcement Thursday is pivotal.

    "That's really what I need," Pombo said, "if she's OK with it."

    One woman with whom the decision was not OK is Merylin Wong of Historic Ships Memorial at Pacific Square, which aims to draw the battleship to San Francisco. Wong said she would travel to Washington, D.C., to rally against the measure, which she said is "highly irregular."

    She, like Rep. Susan Davis, D-San Diego, believes the measure circumvented standard procedures in which the secretary of the Navy is given flexibility to determine where decommissioned ships go.

    Wong said San Francisco is more accessible to the masses of tourists and military buffs who would visit the ship. The Port of Stockton is a poor choice, she said, "unless you're pretty sure that Stockton is a place where people would come."

    Lewis and Aschieris said people would.

    "I think there's a lesson or two that we could teach San Francisco," Lewis said.

    A Navy spokesman could not be reached Thursday for comment. Pombo said he talked recently with the secretary of the Navy and believed the Navy would not object to Stockton.

    Aschieris said he expects the ship to attract more than 125,000 visitors a year.

    The port already is considering tours for youths who would stay overnight and eat breakfast on the dreadnought at dawn.

    Contact reporter David Siders at (209) 943-8580 or [email protected]

  • #2
    The Senate is next:

    June 10, 2005

    Defense authorization bill in limbo while Senate debates judicial nominees
    From CongressDaily


    Four weeks after the Senate Armed Services Committee wrapped up its work on an fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill, the legislation still has not made it onto the Senate calendar.

    It appears the earliest it could move would be the week of June 20, but that depends on the Senate completing work on comprehensive energy legislation by then.


    The goal, sources said, is to vote on the bill before the July 4 recess.


    Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Thursday criticized the Senate's lengthy debate on judicial nominees, stating that the defense authorization bill should be a priority.


    "The Armed Services Committee reported it out in a bipartisan fashion, and we're going to have to spend a couple of weeks on that bill here," Reid told reporters. "We are way behind the curve, and that's what I think we have to focus on, and we are going to focus on that."


    Consideration of the authorization bill likely will take a week or more, with dozens of amendments anticipated. Amendments might include cuts in major weapons systems, like the pricey missile defense program.


    Lawmakers affected by the 2005 round of base closures also are expected to use the authorization bill to stall or halt the process. The House passed its defense authorization bill May 25.

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't see the words "The iowa will be stricken from the USN register" anywhere in that article.

      It just says moved.

      Comment


      • #4
        The language in the bill strikes the IOWA from the NVR same as the language in the Senate bill that removes the WISCONSIN from the NVR.

        Neither is a done deal but its getting closer.

        Comment


        • #5
          LOL, so one house strikes one, and the other strikes the other? That's pretty funny.

          To strike them they're going to have to revoke the 1996 NDA. That will require a presidential signiture.

          Comment


          • #6
            I doubt thats a problem. Unless you know something I dont.

            Pesrsonally I think the battleships should stay in CAT B at the very least.

            Because no one disagrees(Or shouldnt) that adequate NGFS is virtually non-existent and it will be some years(some say longer if ever) before it is.

            I did my part by writing my Senators and Represenative.

            To no avail I might add.

            Have you?

            Comment


            • #7
              "Because no one disagrees(Or shouldnt) that adequate NGFS is virtually non-existent and it will be some years(some say longer if ever) before it is."

              Gun Grape disagrees, he said so. According to him, all is well in NGFS land, and the USN needs no additional systems.

              Care to share in a LOL with me? ;)

              Yes, i've written to every member of congress, both house and senate, wrt my views on this matter.(gotta love the ole' email cut and paste eh?)

              Until the NDA of 1996 is rescinded by presidential signiture the USN can't strike the Iowas, end of story.

              The day that happens, it's over.

              Until that happens, it's not.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                Gun Grape disagrees, he said so. According to him, all is well in NGFS land, and the USN needs no additional systems.

                Care to share in a LOL with me? ;)

                No I don't disagree that NGFS is inadequate. Where we disagree is spending money on bringing back obsolete ships. Ones that even the USMC says don't meet the NGFS requirement. Turn them all into amusement parks, sell the excess equipment and add money to NGFS systems that do meet the requirement.

                Comment


                • #9
                  That's not what you said just yesterday.

                  Want me to post the exact quote?(aw hell, i'm gonna post it anyway, with a link even):

                  My statement, Your response:

                  (M21)
                  The USN has OBVIOUSLY not done that(fielded a system that provides equivelant NGFS capability as the Iowas, as per the NDA of 1996), and is NOWHERE NEAR CLOSE to doing that.

                  (G G)
                  Sure they have. GAO even certified that they were doing what they were suppose to.


                  http://worldaffairsboard.com/showthr...9&page=5&pp=20

                  And just for the record, the GAO report said no such thing. :)

                  BTW, this statement slipped under my radar the other day, so i'll add it here now, and then thrash it:

                  "(G G)
                  Well you now know that the B-52 carry Harpoon. All were upgraded for them when they upgraded for Have Nap."

                  Nope. 19 B-52Hs were converted, not all of them. Further, i did not concede the point that the capability was withdrawn, i merely said 'for the sake of argument let's assume they still have the capability'.

                  PS: Beyond the battleships, no system in service, or likely to enter service in the next 10 years, will help one iota with NGFS.
                  As i showed you in the GAO report, an official US Gov't document, the BB's can meet the USMC requirements so long as the ship to shore standoff requirement of 25nm is waived.

                  Want me to post it again? I know you Marines have a hard time with big words. ;)

                  Aw hell, for you bro:

                  "The 16 inch guns with a range of 24 nautical miles used on battleships unable to meet range when 25 mile standoff is required.

                  Minimum accepted threshhold/range to target could be achieved if battleships operated closer to shore.

                  Desired objective range to target could be achieved with previously tested but not fielded advanced projectiles".

                  Just for the record, the USMC threshold/range requirement is 41nm, including the 25nm standoff range(that's in the GAO report too). IOW, the requirement is to be able to put munitions on target up to 16nm inland with a 25nm standoff range.

                  Given the 24nm range of the Iowas Mk8, and subtracting the 25nm standoff requirement, that means the BBs can meet the inland engagement capability if they operate 8 miles off shore instead of 25(or 6 miles for Mk13HC rounds). Which is EXACTLY why the GAO report states they can meet the capability if the standoff requirement is waived.

                  Because simple math dictates they can.

                  A Tico or Burke cannot meet the same inland engagement capability with standar 5" ammunition and 5"/62 guns(13.1nm range) no matter how close it operates to shore.

                  Why? Because simple math dictates that they cannot.

                  There is a longer ranged 5" munition(20.1nm) that has been bought in very limited numbers, but to meet the USMC requirements even without the standoff requirement a Tico or Burke would need to operate a mere 4.1 miles offshore.

                  I can assure you, that's not going to happen.
                  Last edited by Bill; 18 Jun 05,, 01:31.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well boys. Weve debated this ad nauseum.

                    And I take more than my share of blame. LOL

                    But actually the real BLAME lies in the fact that post-WWII that first air power would solve all the immediate future conflicts and farther into the future missle technology would.

                    Ergo gun technology(or even guns at all) were obsolete and very few funds have been expended on them.

                    It is true that now trying to catch up is extraordinarily expensive.

                    Made moreso IMHO by trying to make those projectiles de facto missles.

                    The Battleships guns for or their faults and limitations are still the best that has been come up with.

                    But the range is still short even if you move closer to shore and you cant discount the risks.

                    6" gunfire was found to be wanting in Korea. And in my mind still is.

                    But the USA is not ever IMHO going to do forced-entry amphibious operations.

                    It was brutal in the Pacific. My Marine acquantinces from that period are all dead now. But all of them never wanted it to happen again. No exceptions.

                    Neither does the USMC now.

                    Thats why OMFTS. I never thought it could work. And still dont.

                    IMHO it only replaces dieing on the beach with being blown out of the sky as regards the MV-22.

                    As regards the AAAV the less said the better.

                    And LCACs were designed for (and nothing has changed) for use in benign environments. Forced-entry operations are anything but benign environments.

                    Does this mean that the USMC doesnt have an important role to play?

                    Not Hardly.

                    There job as it has always been is to get there fast in austere conditions to protect US interests.

                    As opposed to full-blown war.

                    Some on both side of the USMC utility debate would disagree but they are equally mistaken.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Sniper:


                      Yes, i've written to every member of congress, both house and senate, wrt my views on this matter.(gotta love the ole' email cut and paste eh?)

                      Until the NDA of 1996 is rescinded by presidential signiture the USN can't strike the Iowas, end of story.

                      The day that happens, it's over.

                      Until that happens, it's not.
                      __________________



                      Actually Ive done face to face talks, hand-written letters and of course the e-mail route. LOL Same response for all. Not interested, have never been intersted and never will. But thanks for your input. And they wonder why I dont vote for tham . LOL Like that does any good anyway.


                      But again why do you think Shrub wouldnt sign???????????????????????????????

                      LOL Sometimes Sniper your a total enigma considering your the most outspoken person I know except me. LOL

                      Do you really think hes going to buck Rumsfeld, the USN or Senator Warner??????

                      Im all for that fantasy world just show me how to get in. LOL

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        (M21)
                        That's not what you said just yesterday.
                        Want me to post the exact quote?(aw hell, i'm gonna post it anyway, with a link even):
                        My statement, Your response:
                        (M21)
                        The USN has OBVIOUSLY not done that(fielded a system that provides equivelant NGFS capability as the Iowas, as per the NDA of 1996), and is NOWHERE NEAR CLOSE to doing that.

                        (G G)
                        Sure they have. GAO even certified that they were doing what they were suppose to.


                        (G G)

                        Actual exerpt
                        He did, and the United States congress reversed their decision and passed a LAW that two of them MUST be retained in CATB until the USN can demonstrate it has replaced them with systems that offer equal capability.

                        The USN has OBVIOUSLY not done that, and is NOWHERE NEAR CLOSE to doing that.

                        I replied:
                        Sure they have. GAO even certified that they were doing what they were suppose to

                        (M21)
                        And just for the record, the GAO report said no such thing.

                        (G G)

                        I should have stated the GAO report number. You think it’s the same one.
                        Force Structure: Navy Is Complying With Battleship Readiness Requirements, NSIAD-99-62, April 12, 1999
                        Notice, its not the Navy that is canning the BBs. Its Congress directing the Navy

                        “The approved measure -- at the bottom of Page 362 of the National Defense Authorization Act -- would direct the Navy to release the 887-foot ship to Stockton provided the port submits a "donation application for that vessel that is satisfactory."

                        (M21)
                        , this statement slipped under my radar the other day, so i'll add it here now, and then thrash it:

                        "(G G)
                        Well you now know that the B-52 carry Harpoon. All were upgraded for them when they upgraded for Have Nap."

                        (M21)
                        Nope. 19 B-52Hs were converted, not all of them. Further, i did not concede the point that the capability was withdrawn, i merely said 'for the sake of argument let's assume they still have the capability'.

                        (G G)

                        For the 4th time your wrong.

                        I’ll give you a quick Globalsecurity link ;
                        http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/sy...52-upgrade.htm
                        The AGM-142 (or Have Nap as it is commonly called) and Harpoon missile systems were first installed and made operational on the B-52Gs in the mid-1980s. When the “G” models were retired, these capabilities were moved to the B-52H model. While Air Combat Command (ACC) was happy to retain these operational capabilities, they were limited in their ability to employ either Have Nap or Harpoon by the fact that only a limited number of B-52Hs could employ the missiles. In the early 1990s the B-52 Conventional Enhancement Modification (CEM) Integrated Product Team (IPT) began programs to make it possible for any B-52H to carry and launch either missile. At about the same time, the AGM-142 SPO began a second phase of their producibility enhancement program, PEPII for short, to upgrade the AGM-142 missiles to both enhance supportability and lower the missiles cost. As of 31 December 97 these programs provided ACC with the expanded and more flexible mission capability they desired.
                        FAS: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-84.htm
                        After Loring AFB closed and the retirement of the last B-52G at Castle AFB, Calif., the Harpoon mission was moved to the 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale AFB, La. Four B-52H models were rapidly modified (as an interim measure) to accept Harpoon launch control equipment pending B-52H fleet modification. By 1997, all B-52H airframes were Harpoon capable, providing both the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot AFB, N.D., and the 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale, full squadron strength capability.
                        USAF: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=73
                        In May 1994, after Loring AFB closed and after the retirement of the last B-52G at Castle AFB, Calif., the Harpoon mission was moved to the 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale AFB, La. Four B-52H models were rapidly modified (as an interim measure) to accept Harpoon launch control equipment pending B-52H fleet modification. This modification has since been replaced by the conventional enhancement modification to the B-52. This modification incorporates new aircraft wiring and LRUs in addition to new wiring and line replacement units to the external suspension and release equipment. All CEM B-52s are Harpoon capable, providing both the 2nd Bomb Wing and the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot AFB, N.D., full squadron strength capability.


                        I can dig up a few more links if you like. All B-52Hs are Harpoon capable.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          "Thats why OMFTS. I never thought it could work. And still dont."

                          One of the guys at David Newtons board actually came up with the ALL TIME GREATEST OMFTS acronym today.

                          "Operation Market-garden From The Sea".


                          LOL...when i read it i almost fell out of my chair laughing.

                          There is no 'blame' for debating military issues. We're all obviously military junkies, it's what military junkies do(as i type this at 4:05 am on a fri night...lol! In my defense i did take the woman out to see cinderalla man earlier- good movie, got some good booty afterwards too ;))

                          I've enjoyed the debates with you, and so far with GG as well. There's some friction, but that's to be expected anytime you mix a sailor, soldier, and marine together.

                          LOL...fire and a match. ;)
                          Last edited by Bill; 18 Jun 05,, 09:31.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            " I should have stated the GAO report number. You think it’s the same one.
                            Force Structure: Navy Is Complying With Battleship Readiness Requirements, NSIAD-99-62, April 12, 1999"

                            Gotcha, an understandable mixup. Of course, the USN as of 2001 has been in violation of the NDA of 1996, but that's another story.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              " I can dig up a few more links if you like. All B-52Hs are Harpoon capable."

                              Only 19 were ever actually modified according to the source i'm about to cite:

                              "In the mid-1980s, in yet another effort to encroach on the Navy's sea-control mission, 30 B-52Gs were also modified to carry a total of eight "AGM-84 Harpoon" antishipping cruise missiles on the external pylons. 19 B-52Hs were later modified for the same weapons fit. The Harpoon-carrying Buffs usually cooperate with Navy patrol aircraft, such as the Lockheed P-3 Orion, which provide over-the-horizon targeting for the bombers."

                              http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avb52_2.html

                              "Currently, the 96th BS has all the Harpoon-modified aircraft."

                              http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevo...s/b052-22.html

                              I did find this info at FAS which supports your assertion though:

                              "After Loring AFB closed and the retirement of the last B-52G at Castle AFB, Calif., the Harpoon mission was moved to the 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale AFB, La. Four B-52H models were rapidly modified (as an interim measure) to accept Harpoon launch control equipment pending B-52H fleet modification. By 1997, all B-52H airframes were Harpoon capable, providing both the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot AFB, N.D., and the 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale, full squadron strength capability."

                              My how i love conflicting information... :(

                              Feel free to look into it more, it's not particularly relevant to a discussion about battleships, but i'm interested one way or another just because i hate conflicting info, lol.

                              Of course a B-52 pilot on another board did report that the capability was withdrawn. I looked for the discussion, but i can't find it, it was quite some time ago.

                              Who knows.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X