Big Battleship Doctrine

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I personally cant wait until they unveil the very first one and she goes to sea trials
to run her through the paces then we shall see if it can in fact do what they say it will do.

I'm more worried that what they say it will do is not what we actually need, at least not for the price.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

I'm more worried that what they say it will do is not what we actually need, at least not for the price.

I think we all agree the price is extreme for what they will get. And yet this will not be for a few years to come. That is why so many opted for the refit of the battleships until the DDX were to come into its own. Then return 2 of the battleships to cat "b" status for another year or two until the world settles a bit and then return the two back to fully open museums like the other two already are. Everybody says they are outdated and by todays standards they are but they can still fill the fire support role for our marines better then any other ship in the naval inventory even today

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I think we all agree the price is extreme for what they will get. And yet this will not be for a few years to come. That is why so many opted for the refit of the battleships until the DDX were to come into its own. Then return 2 of the battleships to cat "b" status for another year or two until the world settles a bit and then return the two back to fully open museums like the other two already are. Everybody says they are outdated and by todays standards they are but they can still fill the fire support role for our marines better then any other ship in the naval inventory even today

Hmm.. Well I personally don't feel the supposed "deficiency in NGFS" is really one of our nation's most pressing military problems, so reactivating ancient BBs wouldn't be where I'd spend the money.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

Hmm.. Well I personally don't feel the supposed "deficiency in NGFS" is really one of our nation's most pressing military problems, so reactivating ancient BBs wouldn't be where I'd spend the money.

If it were to help our marines/troops take whatever ground or beachhead they needed to in order to fufill their mission how can we put a price tag on it in a realistic sense when for surely the DDX program far exceeds the funding needed
to refit two of them to have in stand by status. If we are expected to achieve our military goals whatever they may bring then we should also have the means to achieve these goals with a limited amount of risk and or casuality to our troops by giving them the supportive fire needed. IMO a five inch gun is not going to achieve this. And if we were not to have air superiority then what will we protect them with outside of extremely expensive missles and or bombs. For if that needs to happen then get the calculator out to configure the final bill for supportive fire. It will far exceed the cost of 16" dumb shells.

I side with the ones that are taking that ground or beach head and what they need to be capable of doing just that in a limited amount of time.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I side with the ones that are taking that ground or beach head and what they need to be capable of doing just that in a limited amount of time.

I see little likelyhood that the Marines will be used to take an opposed beachhead in the foreseeable future, ESPECIALLY if we don't have absolute air dominance. There's just way too much risk involved.

If we have air dominance, then you can expect the Marines will have priority fires from every available asset including heavy bombers.

And even in this scenario, I'd be more worried about them getting to the beach than supporting them on and beyond the beach.

Parking an amphibious taskforce 30 nm off a contest coast leaves them open to all manner of attacks, from subs to land-based AShMs to mines to suicide boats and FACs.

Supporting forces ashore can, has and is being done without BBs, or NGFS for that matter.

If we need to quickly bulk up that type of fires, I'd be more inclined to develop a palletized, naval MLRS that we could strap to LCSs or even container ships.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

I see little likelyhood that the Marines will be used to take an opposed beachhead in the foreseeable future, ESPECIALLY if we don't have absolute air dominance. There's just way too much risk involved.

If we have air dominance, then you can expect the Marines will have priority fires from every available asset including heavy bombers.

And even in this scenario, I'd be more worried about them getting to the beach than supporting them on and beyond the beach.

Parking an amphibious taskforce 30 nm off a contest coast leaves them open to all manner of attacks, from subs to land-based AShMs to mines to suicide boats and FACs.

Supporting forces ashore can, has and is being done without BBs, or NGFS for that matter.

If we need to quickly bulk up that type of fires, I'd be more inclined to develop a palletized, naval MLRS that we could strap to LCSs or even container ships.

I agree with you however alot of opponents of the gun fire support team fail to realize that Ddays forces included 8 battleships and 23 cruisers and that does not include the 84 destroyers and or other craft. So the next time we have to that the bill would be considerably higher then ever imagined. The missles/bombs that would be needed to do such a landing IMO would far outweigh the cost of have two BB's in stand by status. But thats just my opinion.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I agree with you however alot of opponents of the gun fire support team fail to realize that Ddays forces included 8 battleships and 23 cruisers and that does not include the 84 destroyers and or other craft. So the next time we have to that the bill would be considerably higher then ever imagined. The missles/bombs that would be needed to do such a landing IMO would far outweigh the cost of have two BB's in stand by status. But thats just my opinion.

I SERIOUSLY doubt we will ever have to do another D-day-sized or style landing (or even Inchon-sized for that matter).

And if we do, we'll probably have years to prepare for it, just like the last time.

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

Baloney. What fantasy world are you living on? Cost is everything.

"The Pentagon may back plans for a less ambitious new DD(X) destroyer to cut costs, .."

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ...cle_004040.php

"he US Congress has expressed scepticism about the program, capping the price at a level substantially below the estimated $3-5 billion per ship, and cutting advance procurement funding - even as they made procurement changes that would increase the cost of the ships. "

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ives/index.php
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...2006/index.php
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ated/index.php

"The US Navy's embattled next-generation destroyer programme, the DD(X), is entering a key period with several important reviews scheduled and Congress still debating whether to keep or scrap the effort."

http://www.janes.com/regional_news/a...0726_1_n.shtml

Actually thats not baloney, it's what quite a few defense analysts at defensetalk.com have even said.

If cost was everything, we would never have went through with the B-2. Tacit Blue when have been killed off the minute some gov. official seen the budget analysis. But the B-2 was worth the price so they built it. A Nimitz Carrier costs about 12 billion dollars. Plus billions of dollars in aircraft sitting ontop of it. So, yes, it is all about getting their money's worth.

The reason there is so much controversy over the DD(X) is because it doesn't solve all of the problems. theres still gaps in the mission requirements. Haven't you read the latest GAO report?

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I think we all agree the price is extreme for what they will get. And yet this will not be for a few years to come. That is why so many opted for the refit of the battleships until the DDX were to come into its own. Then return 2 of the battleships to cat "b" status for another year or two until the world settles a bit and then return the two back to fully open museums like the other two already are. Everybody says they are outdated and by todays standards they are but they can still fill the fire support role for our marines better then any other ship in the naval inventory even today

Actually that picture is of the DD-21. The DD(X) looks like:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dd21/

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

Hmm.. Well I personally don't feel the supposed "deficiency in NGFS" is really one of our nation's most pressing military problems, so reactivating ancient BBs wouldn't be where I'd spend the money.

A ridiculous statement.

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

I SERIOUSLY doubt we will ever have to do another D-day-sized or style landing (or even Inchon-sized for that matter).

And if we do, we'll probably have years to prepare for it, just like the last time.

I seriously doubt you have much of a clue as to what that would entail! This summer we could have come very close to just that. The Chinese hardliners backed a movement to invade Taiwan, but luckily the rest of the chinese government overturned the movement!

The Cuban Missile Crisis, if that had went sour and started world war 3, well. Once again, we would have had opposing naval landings.

The only reason we don't think about those types of things right now is because we are too busy knocking over third world countries. Go figure.

[Defcon 6]

I see little likelyhood that the Marines will be used to take an opposed beachhead in the foreseeable future, ESPECIALLY if we don't have absolute air dominance. There's just way too much risk involved.

Sorry bud, but thats the price of war!

If we have air dominance, then you can expect the Marines will have priority fires from every available asset including heavy bombers.

But even air superiority doesn't amount to anything if it's over contested airspace.

And even in this scenario, I'd be more worried about them getting to the beach than supporting them on and beyond the beach.

That doesn't make any sense. So your whole big idea is to focus on sticking soldiers on the beach and then letting them get slaughtered????? Good idea!

Parking an amphibious taskforce 30 nm off a contest coast leaves them open to all manner of attacks, from subs to land-based AShMs to mines to suicide boats and FACs.

thats what happens in war.

Supporting forces ashore can, has and is being done without BBs, or NGFS for that matter.

No it hasen't. Not in the case where we don't have air supremacy.

If we need to quickly bulk up that type of fires, I'd be more inclined to develop a palletized, naval MLRS that we could strap to LCSs or even container ships.

Thats a really stupid idea.

[Defcon 6]

Marines fear scuttling battleships

December 5, 2005

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST


U.S. Marines, while fighting valiantly in Iraq, are on the verge of serious defeat on Capitol Hill. A Senate-House conference on the Armed Services authorization bill convening this week is considering turning the Navy's last two battleships, the Iowa and Wisconsin, into museums. Marine officers fear that deprives them of vital fire support in an uncertain future.

Gen. Michael W. Hagee, the current Commandant of the Marine Corps, testified on April 1, 2003, that loss of naval surface fire support from battleships would place his troops "at considerable risk." On July 29 this year, Hagee asserted: "Our aviation is really quite good, but it can, in fact, be weathered."

The Navy high command is determined to get rid of the battleships, relying for support on an expensive new destroyer at least 10 years in the future. This is how Washington works. Defense contractors, Pentagon bureaucrats, Congressional staffers and career-minded officers make this decision that may ultimately be paid for by Marine and Army infantrymen.

Marine desire to reactivate the Iowa and Wisconsin runs counter to the DD(X) destroyer of the future. It will not be ready before 2015, costing between $4.7 billion and $7 billion. Keeping the battleships in reserve costs only $250,000 a year, with reactivation estimated at $500 million (taking six months to a year) and full modernization more than $1.5 billion (less than two years).

On the modernized battleships, 18 big (16-inch) guns could fire 460 projectiles in nine minutes and take out hardened targets in North Korea. In contrast, the DD(X) will fire only 70 long-range attack projectiles at $1 million a minute. The new destroyer will rely on conventional 155-millimeter rounds that Marines say cannot reach the shore. Former longtime National Security Council staffer William L. Stearman, now executive director of the U.S. Naval Fire Support Association, told me, "In short, this enormously expensive ship cannot fulfill its primary mission: provide naval surface fire support for the Marine Corps."

The Navy's anti-battleship bias began Dec. 7, 1941, when the Japanese surprise attack destroyed the U.S. Pacific Fleet's battleships. Although admirals in 1946 vowed never to bring back battleships, they served effectively in the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf wars. Congressional pressure brought the USS New Jersey to Vietnam for six months, leading the Marine Commandant, Gen. Leonard Chapman, to conclude, "Thousands of American lives were saved." The Marines calculated that 80 percent of 1,067 U.S. planes lost in Vietnam could have been saved had battleships fought the entire war.

The admirals moved to get rid of battleships forever when GOP Rep. Richard Pombo proposed sending the USS Iowa to Stockton, Calif., as a museum. The Navy supports that as well as making the USS Wisconsin a museum in Norfolk, Va., and repealing the existing requirement to keep two battleships in reserve. The Navy's anti-battleship campaign began March 15 when Adm. Charles Hamilton briefed the House Armed Forces Committee. It is no coincidence that Hamilton has been the Navy's point man promoting DD(X).

Never has it been clearer how the military-industrial complex functions. Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics and BAE Systems are mobilized behind DD(X). Congressional staffers, eyeing a future in the Pentagon or the armaments industry, know the way to future advancement is not to be pro-battleship.

"The Marine Corps supports the strategic purpose of reactivating two battleships," said a Nov. 19, 2004, General Accounting Office report. Since then, current Marine leaders have adhered to the naval position, but not retired Marines. Gen. P.X. Kelley, the renowned former commandant said in a June statement: "I would hate to see a premature demise of the battleships ... without a suitable replacement on station. In my personal experience in combat, the battleship is the most effective naval fire support platform in the history of naval warfare."

The Army is an interested but silent listener to this debate. Its generals have failed in their fight over stressing tube artillery. If Congress now turns the last battleships into museums, the losers will be the grunts who carry rifles.

[Defcon 6]

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=10546


The requirements described for NSFS in the Hanlon Letter are very substantial in their scope and breadth, especially in regard to NSFS range, volume, and sustainability requirements.

In asking whether the stated requirements are valid and defensible --- and in asking whether or not the resources being expended upon them are justified --- one might examine various important facets of this question, such as:

a ) Are amphibious operations against a capable and determined enemy force likely to occur in the future? Why or why not?

b ) Even if such operations don't seem likely, should a substantial amphibious warfare capability still be maintained? Why or why not?

c ) Is OMFTS/STOM a practical and achievable military doctrine?

d ) Will aircraft be able to supply 100% reliable support for amphibious operations in the mid to long-term future?

e ) Any other facet that might be relevant to the question --- political will (or lack therof) to accept casualties, etc. etc. etc.

Why am I asking this question, "Are the Marine Corps requirements for Naval Surface Fire Support valid and defensible?"

It seems to me that if the USMC leadership allows the Iowa Class to be stricken from the NVR --- without protest and without the US Navy having to certify that it has an equal or better naval fire support capability, as is required by current public law --- the USMC will then have effectively repudiated its own naval fire support requirements.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

So, yes, it is all about getting their money's worth.

So you're admitting that cost is not irrelevant.