Big Battleship Doctrine 2

[B.Smitty]

But what is the availability? During the past two gulf wars, we usually never use more than 2 or 3 ships at a time. In fact GG gave an example of some foreign ships that provided NSFS in the last thread. So why do we need more than 1 or 2 ships? Especially when theres DDG's to help out?

Because 1 or 2 ships won't be where you need them, when you need them! The reason the foreign ships had to provide NSFS is because they were within range! There were undoubtably U.S. destroyers and cruisers in the theater, but they were off performing other tasks. How do you know your one, deployed BB will be where it's needed?

Here's a simple exercise for you to illustrate my point. Go get a globe. Put one dot on it somewhere in the world's oceans. That dot is your one and only deployed Iowa BB.

Now rotate the globe to the other side of the planet. Put your finger down. This is where your NSFS is needed. Now how long will it take you to provide it when your one and only asset is on the other side of the world?!

No, it was the most heavily guarded air space, not the most sophisticated. if you watched videos of F-117's doing strike runs you would know that. Because they use a lot of AA fire type weapons, flak, bullets ect. I remember in those videos you just see a crap load of bright objects come flying into the air from every direction when the F-117's get into range of the target.

Yes, they had lots of AAA. You also would see numerous SAMs fired off as well. You didn't see the fighter aircraft that were shot down, or the ones destroyed on the ground. The point is, airpower was able to neutralize a "heavily guarded airspace" (love it when you manufacter terms) and still perform the mission. And, we've gotten far better at doing it since then.

In order to use air munitions, you have to fly the aircraft into hostile airspace, meaning your risking a multi-million dollar aircraft thats burning thousands of dollars of jet fuel.

As opposed to risking a single, gigantic, "shoot me, mine me, torp me" BB, burning tons of oil and carrying 1500 sailors.

Aircraft are expensive, and jet fuel is also expensive. And a bomber costs a lot of money. It's basically a giant gas hog in the sky. We don't need eyes on the target, we have UAV's for that and a variety of other systems such as satellites ect.

They do, and we have already bought them and are committed to keeping them.

Stealth plus smaller, more lethal munitions means fewer aircraft need be risked to hit the same target set.

And actually concentration of fire isn't much of a valid point since the aircraft has to fly back and rearm and refuel.

And it can do so at 500+ kts.

A ship thats already in the area can just unload 5" and 16" shells without entering into hostile territory obviously a couple ships can unload a higher concentration than a bomber or two since the ships can fire again and again without leaving the area. Not to mention VLS based munitions.

A ship IS in hostile territory if it's within 5" or 16" gunfire range.

Not to mention,a ship with VLS systems will indeed have a better variety of weapons.

Huh? TLAM and gun. What else?

Look at the loadout chart for just an F-18. It can carry various dumb bombs, various JDAMs, JSOWs, various WCMDs, various LGBs, Mavericks, HARMs, cruise missiles. In the future, you can add SDB, and various other advanced munitions.

Now add to that unique weapons carried by heavy bombers like MOAP and other large penetrators.

If munition flexibility is what you want, airpower wins hands down.

And lets not forget the idea of heavy suppression, which air munitions cannot perform.

But 5" and 155mm guns can. I never said I was against naval gunfire.

Activating the two Iowa's cost about the same as building the first DD(X). And again, lets not forget that the first DD(X)'s won't be able to start covering NSFS until somethin like 2013 I think.

Activating them, yes. How 'bout crewing them? Yanking old timers out of retirement to teach you how to operate & maintain the damn things? Just finding enough sailors!

[Dreadnought]

Activating them, yes. How 'bout crewing them? Yanking old timers out of retirement to teach you how to operate & maintain the damn things? Just finding enough sailors!

1) The Navy isint as bad off "crews" wise are you are stating you are underestimating their numbers greatly.

2) Who do you think taught even the youngest sailors the ropes of BB,CA, & CL sailing to begin with from the very beginning?
Yes the retirees and who better then the men that have been there long before the Iowa's, South Dakota's etc. were ever retired and were entered into service.

The very same men that volunteer their time to serving the Home Port Authorities and maintaining the ships in their Cat "B" status as well as the museum ships etc.
They come from all walks of the Navy not just retired BB sailors they come from all ship classes as well as professions.

Ever been in any VFW post on an early sunday morning for breakfast? You'll find more sailor, grunt, flyboy etc. experience in that room in one hour then you will find in any tech manual from the shelf from some official snot nose that says things cant happen because they are too old and we dont have the manpower.
Those men my friend are the experienced living past. A fountain of knowledge and experience beyond doubt. The question is are we too ignorant to draw from that fountain of knowledge because of its age or because of our own stupid pride.

There are many retired BB, CL and CA sailors still out there (my father being one BB not to mention the men (BB,CA,CL, Armed Guard) he has lunch with every week) that still remember as well as yesterday their roles and duties aboard ship even at their age (Average 66-79yrs) As they say your never to old to give what you can to serve your country and certainly never to old to teach the younger generations what you can although methods may have changed since their time at sea the principal of sea warfare remains the same.

[Bill]

Also, how many combat aircraft have we lost, post-Vietnam in combat?

More than the cost of a brand new Iowa, at least.

[Bill]

Act like I'm from Missouri. Show me. Which 16in round are you using, and which 2000lb bomb?

What mode of detonation (Subsurface, surface or air burst)?

I want to lock you in solid to a projectile and mode, so you cannot wiggle yourself out of this like you try to do on these threads.

I would think just going by memory that a Mk84 prox fuzed bomb would have a significantly larger lethal radius than a 16" shell. In fact, i'm sure it does. The lethal frag radius for a Mk84 airburst is like 300 meters(the US A team that got wiped out in Adirtistan a couple years ago was about 300 meters away from a 2k lb JDAM airburst and almost the whole team was killed). I've posted the lethal radius for the Mk13HC VT projectile here in the past. Just by memory i'm gonna say it's like 2000sq yards.

[Bill]

GG: " So what do you think are "proper targets" for a 16" gun?"

Infantry positions, Armored formations, Arty positions, rail yards and marshalling facilities, industrial facilities, port facilities, airfields, radar sites, AAA sites, C4i sites, and of course, any ship dumb enough to be within 23nm.

[Dreadnought]

Lets not forget convoys, bridge heads, dams etc.

[Bill]

My list was by no means comprehensive, merely representitive.

[Bill]

I keep comparing them because they are some of the systems proposed for NSFS, not 2000lb bombs. And this line of discussion was specifically about the ability of 16" rounds to minimize collateral damage - one of the stated USMC requirements.

A Mk7 AP projectile is a sub-MOA projectile even with the currently worn barrel liners, and in a delayed fuze burst it would have a reasonably small damage footprint. It is also one of the best penetrating munitions ever designed and fielded by the US Military.

[Bill]

Because 1 or 2 ships won't be where you need them, when you need them! The reason the foreign ships had to provide NSFS is because they were within range! There were undoubtably U.S. destroyers and cruisers in the theater, but they were off performing other tasks. How do you know your one, deployed BB will be where it's needed?

Here's a simple exercise for you to illustrate my point. Go get a globe. Put one dot on it somewhere in the world's oceans. That dot is your one and only deployed Iowa BB.

Now rotate the globe to the other side of the planet. Put your finger down. This is where your NSFS is needed. Now how long will it take you to provide it when your one and only asset is on the other side of the world?!

This ignores the simple fact that the vast majority of the time when the US goes to war it picks when and where it will go to war.

That simple fact severely undermines your above argument.

[Bill]

Yes, they had lots of AAA. You also would see numerous SAMs fired off as well. You didn't see the fighter aircraft that were shot down, or the ones destroyed on the ground. The point is, airpower was able to neutralize a "heavily guarded airspace" (love it when you manufacter terms) and still perform the mission. And, we've gotten far better at doing it since then.

No, really, we havn't.

Between the retirement of the EF-111A and the F-4G it left a SEAD/EW hole in the USAF that has yet to be filled.

That is a fact.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought
Yes, they had lots of AAA. You also would see numerous SAMs fired off as well. You didn't see the fighter aircraft that were shot down, or the ones destroyed on the ground. The point is, airpower was able to neutralize a "heavily guarded airspace" (love it when you manufacter terms) and still perform the mission. And, we've gotten far better at doing it since then.


Ummm Snipe im not sure where that quote came from but it was not I who claimed it to be so. I have no idea of where that came from. I believe you meant B.SMITTY.

[Defcon 6]

More than the cost of a brand new Iowa, at least.

I like how he made the parameters "after vietnam" convienent. After the last major war.

[Defcon 6]

Because 1 or 2 ships won't be where you need them, when you need them! The reason the foreign ships had to provide NSFS is because they were within range! There were undoubtably U.S. destroyers and cruisers in the theater, but they were off performing other tasks. How do you know your one, deployed BB will be where it's needed?

We have 4 Iowa's, 2 that we can count on. We only need one for NSFS. One in the Atlantic Fleet, and one in the Pacific Fleet.

Here's a simple exercise for you to illustrate my point. Go get a globe. Put one dot on it somewhere in the world's oceans. That dot is your one and only deployed Iowa BB.

The United States chooses where and when it goes to war.

Now rotate the globe to the other side of the planet. Put your finger down. This is where your NSFS is needed. Now how long will it take you to provide it when your one and only asset is on the other side of the world?!

Evidently M21sniper was right, you don't know what your talking about. You need to take a good look at current fleet deployments.

Yes, they had lots of AAA. You also would see numerous SAMs fired off as well. You didn't see the fighter aircraft that were shot down, or the ones destroyed on the ground. The point is, airpower was able to neutralize a "heavily guarded airspace" (love it when you manufacter terms) and still perform the mission. And, we've gotten far better at doing it since then.

And tell me, what kind of SAMS were these? I sure as hell didn't see any. The SAMA Iraq had seemed to mostly be outside of Baghdad
Inferior surface to air missiles don't impress me much, and don't help out your arguement. Especially when you can't tell me what type of SAM's they had. They mostly had AAA's and other type of grounds fire.

As opposed to risking a single, gigantic, "shoot me, mine me, torp me" BB, burning tons of oil and carrying 1500 sailors.

And where are the torpedoes going to come from? The BB doesn't have to enter the combat zone. And if the enemy has such sophisticated ability, I would be far more worried about aircraft carriers!

They do, and we have already bought them and are committed to keeping them.

Stealth plus smaller, more lethal munitions means fewer aircraft need be risked to hit the same target set.

No it doesn't. The sortie rate is currently fixed. Let's think of the type of soerties being flown.

And it can do so at 500+ kts.

And burns hella expensive jet fuel doing so. I bet you don't realize a full tank of fuel for a B-52 can cost over 20,000 dollars do you?

A ship IS in hostile territory if it's within 5" or 16" gunfire range.

How do you figure that? If its using assisted munitions. Furthermore, so does any other ship. dead arguement. The navy isn't worried about their NSFS ships.

Huh? TLAM and gun. What else?

Look at the loadout chart for just an F-18. It can carry various dumb bombs, various JDAMs, JSOWs, various WCMDs, various LGBs, Mavericks, HARMs, cruise missiles. In the future, you can add SDB, and various other advanced munitions.

Now add to that unique weapons carried by heavy bombers like MOAP and other large penetrators.

If munition flexibility is what you want, airpower wins hands down.

Your such an ameture. "Look an a F-18's ordinance chart" give me a break. Only if they correspond with NSFS missions! LOL.
Your sitting there telling me that these munitions, some of which are for CAS missions, cause the aircraft to win hands down? WRONG.

But 5" and 155mm guns can. I never said I was against naval gunfire.

Your not getting it. Those two platforms don't fill the NSFS gaps. Furthermore they can complete all objectives. 16" would mean we don't have to use substitutes anymore.

Activating them, yes. How 'bout crewing them? Yanking old timers out of retirement to teach you how to operate & maintain the damn things? Just finding enough sailors!

I don't think you have a clue as to what it would take to crew them. Besides, the GAO pointed out modern propulsion systems if reactivated/modernized. So, your arguement is sunk on that one.

[Defcon 6]

Smitty boy said-

Yes, they had lots of AAA. You also would see numerous SAMs fired off as well. You didn't see the fighter aircraft that were shot down, or the ones destroyed on the ground. The point is, airpower was able to neutralize a "heavily guarded airspace" (love it when you manufacter terms) and still perform the mission. And, we've gotten far better at doing it since then.

Numerous vastly inferior sams. And the point is, there is a huge difference between heavily guarded airspace and sophisticated threats. Evidently you don't understand how inferior and in-effective AAA and other types of AA fire are?

You just don't seem to understand air threat capability.

[Gun Grape]

No, I don't wiggle. Why don't you explain how a 2,000 lb or tomahawk missile which carries quite a bit more explosive ordinance on board will have a smaller frag radius than a 16" HE shell? See, there is no wiggle room there.

If you have an arguement, then make it. Because honestly, you wiggle far more than I.

Well its an easy one to make.

2k bomb (I'll be nice) Mk-84 GP in the PD fuze mode.
Filler is 945lb of tritonal.
Weight depends on Fin/Fuze combination between 1,900 and 2,000lbs
Fragmentation radius is 366 meters/400 yds
Info from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk-84

16in round will be the Mk-13 HCC with PD fuze.
Filler is 145lbs of TNT.
Weight is 1,900lbs
Fragmentation radius is 2540meters/2778 yds

Info from
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
and one of your favorites
http://www.usnfsa.org/Technical%20Do.../16%20standard


Also it jives with Unclass JEM and various Fire Support Manuals that you probably don’t have access to.

Now why is that? Because Mk-13 is designed for antipersonnel/shore bombardment. Smaller explosive charge. Large, scored (on inside) case to maximize fragmentation effect.

Mk-84 is designed primarily for destruction of material. Antipersonnel effects are secondary. It has a half inch thick shell casing designed to hold the explosives not designed to cause effective fragmentation. You get large torn chunks if metal that don’t go far and don’t cover much area where the MK-13 fragments in smaller, more uniform pieces that cover a large area.

This is the same reason that a modern 105mm HE round has the same casualty producing radius as the old M107 155mm HE. Even with the smaller shell casing.