End of an era

[Bill]

Effective 17 March 2006, IOWA (BB-61) and WISCONSIN (BB-64) were stricken from the Naval Vessel Register.

www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships...s/BB61.htm

www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships...s/BB64.htm

[gunnut]

Linkies no worky...

[Bill]

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/BB61.htm
http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/BB64.htm

[huh_what]

still not working

[Bill]

They(the second set of links) work for me, i just clicked on em both, both worked OK.

Dont know what to tell ya.

[rickusn]

This from a well respected naval analyst sums up my perspective quite nicely:

"Back in the 1980s, I was involved in some of the studies that lead to the battleships being recommissioned. Even back then, their guns weren't an issue - there was serious discussion of reactivating the ships but leaving the guns mothballed to save money. They were missile-shooters pure and simple; a cheap way of getting a lot of Tomahawks to sea quickly.

Many people here probably remember from the old days that I was a strong advocate of keeping all four ships in commission and returning them to service when they were pulled. However, that ended when the recommissionable fleet dropped to two hulls and the manpower crunch hit in its full fury. Together, those two made it just not worthwhile. I had to let it go; we had more missile tubes than we needed and the battleships just didn't offer us enough to justify their pricetag.

I'm sorry to see the old girls go, I really am. The truth is though, they just don't have a place in the modern fleet, "

[huh_what]

hmmm- the whole www.nvr.navy.mil/ site doesn't work for me. It doesn't even work through google. Can other people access it?

[-{SpoonmaN}-]

This from a well respected naval analyst sums up my perspective quite nicely:

"Back in the 1980s, I was involved in some of the studies that lead to the battleships being recommissioned. Even back then, their guns weren't an issue - there was serious discussion of reactivating the ships but leaving the guns mothballed to save money. They were missile-shooters pure and simple; a cheap way of getting a lot of Tomahawks to sea quickly.

Many people here probably remember from the old days that I was a strong advocate of keeping all four ships in commission and returning them to service when they were pulled. However, that ended when the recommissionable fleet dropped to two hulls and the manpower crunch hit in its full fury. Together, those two made it just not worthwhile. I had to let it go; we had more missile tubes than we needed and the battleships just didn't offer us enough to justify their pricetag.

I'm sorry to see the old girls go, I really am. The truth is though, they just don't have a place in the modern fleet, "

Yeah it seems like the USN has more than enough launch tubes, and will have even more when/if the new designs they're working on come into service. And seriously, the USN faces even less of a threat from it's nearest competitors than the USAF, a few things can slide to save everyone money.

[Saturn5]

hmmm- the whole www.nvr.navy.mil/ site doesn't work for me. It doesn't even work through google. Can other people access it?

Usually I cannot access to the NRV website as well. But if you find the page you would like to see in google that use the cached pages option of google. Then you can see the text of the non-openable NRV webpage. Hope this works.

[Bill]

This from a well respected naval analyst sums up my perspective quite nicely:

"Back in the 1980s, I was involved in some of the studies that lead to the battleships being recommissioned. Even back then, their guns weren't an issue - there was serious discussion of reactivating the ships but leaving the guns mothballed to save money. They were missile-shooters pure and simple; a cheap way of getting a lot of Tomahawks to sea quickly.

Many people here probably remember from the old days that I was a strong advocate of keeping all four ships in commission and returning them to service when they were pulled. However, that ended when the recommissionable fleet dropped to two hulls and the manpower crunch hit in its full fury. Together, those two made it just not worthwhile. I had to let it go; we had more missile tubes than we needed and the battleships just didn't offer us enough to justify their pricetag.

I'm sorry to see the old girls go, I really am. The truth is though, they just don't have a place in the modern fleet, "

Hmmm, i know that same birdie Rick.

[rickusn]

Hmmm, i know that same birdie Rick.

I know you do.

But I dont believe you agree with his assessment?

That the BB's were not reactivated with NSFS as the primary reasoning.

But I think we can all agree that NSFS has been lacking since about the mid-1970's with the demise of the all-gun and converted AAW cruisers that still retained some guns.

This was mitigated somewhat by the BB reactivations in the 1980's but was quite short-lived. Wisconsin only served for three years 1988-1991!! Missouri/Iowa for six and NJ for nine. Commission dates NJ 1982, IA 1984, MO 1986, WI 1988.

The last two BB's were essentially put out of service on their return from GWI.

The Missouri lasted about six months longer than planned so she could participate in the 50th anniversary of the attack on PH. But with only a skeleton crew and most essentail warfighting equipment removed and many compartments sealed up.

The other two, even more ignominously, were decommissioned one during the build-up in October 1990 and the other during the ground-fighting(16 JAN-28FEB) in February 1991.

Ive been reading your posts on the utility of the USMC heres acoupla thoughts.

One reason the USMC will stick around is that they are relatively cheap.

$18b budget vice more than $110b for the Army. Approx 180,000 troops USMC vice 490,000 Army.

It is true the USN provides some services/equipment to the USMC but most of those costs are incremental and therefore relatively insignificant.

Or those services/equipment would have to be provided for in any any event and therefore its unlikely any savings would be accrued. In fact the opposite would likely occur.

My point the Army like the USN and USAF are extraordibnarily expensive.

[Bill]

Doesn't really matter what i believed now.

The Iowas will never be truly replaced.

[rickusn]

Doesn't really matter what i believed now.

The Iowas will never be truly replaced.

I didnt ask what you believed. I said I dont believe you agree with his assessment which pretty much coincides with mine.

And no one has ever proposed replacing the battleships per se at any time during their 60 plus years of existence.

The question and then only from time to time over the same 60 years has been how to provide NSFS. And for most of those 60 years the BB's have not been active.

Anyway. Did you see my thoughts on the USMC that I edited to the post above?

[Bill]

Anyway. Did you see my thoughts on the USMC that I edited to the post above?

The only reason the marines are so cheap is because their equipment is reaching block obsolecensce and the systems that are being replaced are being done so over a LOOOOOOOOONG period of time.

Look at how far they've got the AMTRAK deal spread out- 30 years- lol.

The USMCs monetary needs are IMMENSE.

And as is pointed out in the USMC budget article, that 18bn budget is misleading for other reasons as well. Ie, there are two supplementals that almost double it, and it still barely address modernization costs even at a snails pace.

To refit the USMC in a timely fashion would cost a truly massive amount of money over the short term vs what they're spending now.

[rickusn]

"The USMCs monetary needs are IMMENSE."

Not nearly as immense as the Armys and of course you refrain from mentioning the Army supplementals. Why?