Big Battleship Doctrine

[Defcon 6]

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-279R

GAO report. Dec 13, 2005.

[Dreadnought]

They are/were laughable in terms of air defense

No offense Smitty but I think you need to do some reading on the battleships in the pacific campaigns along with european waters alot of reading.

You are comparing two classes of ship that are completely incomparable to say the very least.

Dont just read articles about the battleships read the books instead they are far more intuitive as well as informative.

[Defcon 6]

Lets not forget the Kirov class Battlecruisers. Nuclear powered, they are what I would imagine to be a good basis for a future BB concept.
length: 826 ft
beam: 93 ft.
tonnage: 26,396

and currently the most advanced gun system in the world. the 130mm twin barrel AK-130 MR-184. Capable of firing x34 130mm shells a minute.

AND it has a whole bunch of SS-N-19 missiles. The largest ASW Missiles in the world.

The Kirov has all the features I have been trumping except for a handful which could easily be implemented.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Didn't anyone have anything to say to this?

yes, But I'll be nice.

You really need to read other peoples post. The article you posted was about the ADT/DARPA tank round that I brought up. It developmental work on a 120mm scramjet tank round. The AF is just letting them use the test facility.

From your article: On July 26, AEDC fired a hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet projectile developed by GASL Inc., of Ronkonkoma, N.Y and funded under contract to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)..

FYI GASL was bought by ADT.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Whatever happened to my opposition? I think GG gave up.

No but between a few bruised ribs and trying to get work caught up, havn't been posting as much.

And B.Smitty has been doing a good job.

You should read through the discussion that Sniper and I had many months ago. Or do I need to go thorugh all that stuff again?

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

The USMC all by their lonesome? Nope, didn't say anything about that. In fact I onnnlllyyyyy pointed out that an opposed naval landing would be the result of exactly that.

What? You "didn't say anything about that", but you did say it "would be the result of exactly that". Which is it?

It's hardly a foregone conclusion that we'd pull a D-day on China if they decided to invade Taiwan.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Regardless there would still be a war to fight. Ontop of that nuclear war is irrelevant here.

Umm, no. After the first few hundred nukes, there wouldn't be anything left to fight over.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

You should have read that thread I gave you which very clearly stated that opposed naval landings such a Iwo Jima and Overlord wouldn't be ruled out in modern warfare.

Ruled out? Of course not. Likely? Heck no.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

You NEED to read the latest GAO report at gao.gov

I read the last GAO report you posted. It was essentially a statement of facts. It had little to say on any proposed BB refit, other than gross generalities.

It did have a few other interesting things to say,

"DOD officials believe the level of risk associated with current fire support capabilities is acceptable given that other joint capabilities such as tactical aviation and longrange bombers could also contribute to providing joint fires to support theater commanders’ war plans. For example, combatant command representatives told us they would be able to execute war plans with acceptable risk using current fires support capabilities. Also, DOD officials from the joint staff, combatant commands, Navy, and Marine Corps do not believe that reactivating battleships would be cost effective nor would the modernized battleships significantly reduce those risks or provide the best means to meet long-term joint fires capability requirements. Navy officials stated that the battleships would be expensive to operate, have munitions that lack accuracy, and are manpower intensive. Both Navy and Marine Corps officials stated that planned capabilities, including the DD(X) destroyers with the advanced gun system firing long-range land attack projectiles and extended-range guided munitions for existing DDGs, will help to mitigate existing joint fires gaps if
executed as planned. However, Marine Corps officials support purchasing a larger
number of DD(X) ships than are included in current Navy plans."

So it seems the links you've provided tend to hurt your case more than help it.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Tell that to the 58,000 dead in Vietnam. Or the 400,000 dead in World War 1.

Huh? Only a small fraction of those numbers were killed in opposed amphib landings, and none of them in Vietnam.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

lol. right. jumping ahead of yourself there. because first you have to establish air dominance.

Huh? Let me try again using smaller words. There won't be any amphib landings without air dominance, period.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

And so what exactly would you plan on doing instead? Launch tomahawks for a couple years straight! lol.

Yes. Plus mine their ports, sink their navy and reinforcing Taiwan.

Invading the mainland would be moronic in the first degree - especially D-day style.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Well, first your forgetting theres no way to get onshore. Secondly, manned bombers can be shot down. Even our famous B-2. Which couldn't be risked without air dominance. And those stacks of TACTOMS by the way cost 550k a piece. Lets not just ripple fire them all over the place! lol. And tactoms unfortunately can't...u know...invade a country

I'm not forgetting. Invading mainland China in anything less than an all out WWIII-style war would be the biggest strategic blunder in U.S. history. Taiwan isn't worth it.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Yeah, in that case....ww3's over boys, lets go home and hope they don't follow!

They'll all be freezing in the nuclear winter, or succumbing to radiation poisoning, if they didn't die immediately.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

overlord.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a.../mccrabb2.html

"One of the most remarkable facts of the entire war is that the Luftwaffe did not make any significant daylight attacks on D day against Allied forces in the Channel or on the beaches.63 The Allies flew over 14,000 sorties in support of the landings alone while the Luftwaffe was only able to muster 319 sorties the entire day!64 This success is directly attributable to the length of the counterair campaign. The Luftwaffe had been finished. The remnants were tied to the defense of the Reich."

Sounds like air supremacy to me.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Thats incorrect we didn't have it in D-Day. And Iwo Jima was just one. Lets not forget the lesson there, that air support didn't do a whole lot for us!

Using examples in WWII as your rationale for reactivating BBs or building your uber BB doesn't help your case. It ignores 60 years of advances in airpower and precision munitions.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Do you have a reason?

Oooohh.. stunning comback. Maybe you can start chanting "I'm rubber and you're glue" next.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

For a 155mm platform. First of all, the 155mm leaves gaps in NSFS requirements. GAO says this. duh.

Once again, from YOUR GAO doc,

"DOD officials believe the level of risk associated with current fire support capabilities is acceptable given that other joint capabilities such as tactical aviation and longrange bombers could also contribute to providing joint fires to support theater commanders’ war plans."

Besides what does talking about 155mm gaps have to do with my palletized MLRS proposal? MLRS isn't a 155mm gun.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

You don't want to get close to the shore. lol besides, you obviously don't know much about those battleships, since the Iowa has a draft of less than 30' ft. Most inland lakes are deeper than that! lol.

It can be up to 37 feet, fully loaded.

The closer to shore you get, the further inland your rounds will go.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

I got a new term for you. BB(X).
Besides, modernizing and maintaining those Iowa's would cost peanuts compared to the DD(X).

You still haven't posted a link detailing modernization costs.

And BB(X) only exists in your dreams.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Plus B. Smitty doesn't seem to understand the penetrating power of those 155mm's doesn't come close to the 16" shell. The reason the morons in the USN aren't considering it is because they are indeed too busy knocking over third world countries that don't put up much of a fight

Where in your NGFS links did it say the USMC needed that level of penetration?

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Same could be said for ballistic missile subs. Never use em, but we might need to someday.

So does it also follow that acutally using BBs means their purpose has failed - the way it does with SSBNs? No, of course not.

Comparing the two is foolish. We need SSBNs for nuclear deterrence.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

No, thats not how it works.

Yes, it does work this way. PGMs offer a high degree of first-round hits.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Unfortunately your like most anti-bb's, going soft on the idea of war. And maintaining BB's costs peanuts compared to the DD(X) program. Even with it's 1000+ crew requirement.

Amusing. Just because I don't take the fanboy position that tons of armor and gigantic guns blasting gouts of flame and VW-sized shells has a place in the Navy, I've suddenly gone "soft on the idea of war".

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

They could use ESSM. In that was calculated into the refit.

I'm still waiting for the details of this proposed refit.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

The Iowa's actually cost a LOT less money. That entire arguement is pointless.

*Sigh* Yet another quote from YOUR GAO doc,

"The cost of a ship’s crew is generally the single largest expense incurred over a ship’s lifecycle."

1500 sailors = 10 DD(X)s worth of crew.

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

No but between a few bruised ribs and trying to get work caught up, havn't been posting as much.

And B.Smitty has been doing a good job.

You should read through the discussion that Sniper and I had many months ago. Or do I need to go thorugh all that stuff again?

Feel free.

I've been hanging out at another forum with some anti-BB people. I'm startin to like those people, good bunch they are.

Anyways, Lets see what you got this time around.

[Defcon 6]

What? You "didn't say anything about that", but you did say it "would be the result of exactly that". Which is it?

It's hardly a foregone conclusion that we'd pull a D-day on China if they decided to invade Taiwan.

Under the same circumstances, yes we would. In fact on that tank.net forum, they even said so. Former military officers.

Umm, no. After the first few hundred nukes, there wouldn't be anything left to fight over.

That proves you don't understand it then. They would continue fighting regardless.

Ruled out? Of course not. Likely? Heck no.

Under the same circumstances, yes, likely.

I read the last GAO report you posted. It was essentially a statement of facts. It had little to say on any proposed BB refit, other than gross generalities.

It talks about the gap in NSFS that even the DD(X) can't fill. The problem here is that you aren't looking at this from a professional perspective.

DOD officials believe the level of risk associated with current fire support capabilities is acceptable given that other joint capabilities such as tactical aviation and longrange bombers could also contribute to providing joint fires to support theater commanders’ war plans. For example, combatant command representatives told us they would be able to execute war plans with acceptable risk using current fires support capabilities. Also, DOD officials from the joint staff, combatant commands, Navy, and Marine Corps do not believe that reactivating battleships would be cost effective nor would the modernized battleships significantly reduce those risks or provide the best means to meet long-term joint fires capability requirements. Navy officials stated that the battleships would be expensive to operate, have munitions that lack accuracy, and are manpower intensive. Both Navy and Marine Corps officials stated that planned capabilities, including the DD(X) destroyers with the advanced gun system firing long-range land attack projectiles and extended-range guided munitions for existing DDGs, will help to mitigate existing joint fires gaps if
executed as planned. However, Marine Corps officials support purchasing a larger
number of DD(X) ships than are included in current Navy plans.

No I read that. But unlike you I like to look at things from both sides of the coin. And ontop of that I'm not much of a supporter of the Iowa reactivation. In fact, if you remember what this entire thread was originally about, it was about my BB(X) concept. But because this dicussion favors the Iowa I'll go with it for now just for the sake of arguement.

So it seems the links you've provided tend to hurt your case more than help it.

Not really, if you did read the entire report theres statements that do in fact rain all over the DD(X) parade as well. First of all USN officials arent sure how expensive it is, but I have seen the reports and they are about a billion a ship maximum.-

While the Navy maintains annual costs to sustain these battleships, the Navy has not
developed any specific cost estimates for reactivating battleships to their original
warfighting capabilities or for modernizing them beyond these capabilities.
Numerous cost factors would have to be considered to assess such options including
the cost of personnel to operate the ship, materials and labor to improve operating
systems and habitability, and restoration or improvement of munitions and their
delivery systems. Moreover, the capabilities and costs of reactivating or upgrading
battleships would need to be compared to those of other ongoing DOD programs to
enhance fire support capabilities such as the DD(X) program. Our prior work has
shown that decisions on acquisition alternatives should be based on analyses of total
ownership costs during a system’s lifecycle, which include the costs to research,
develop, acquire, own, and operate systems.5


The Initial Capabilities Document
identified four gaps in existing and planned joint fires capabilities: (1) integrated
joint command and control are not well-defined, (2) existing and future acquisition
systems do not provide sufficient capability to engage moving targets under restricted
weather conditions,.(3) existing and future acquisition systems do not provide
sufficient capability to limit collateral damage, and (4) existing and planned systems
do not deliver a sufficient volume of fires on multiple targets simultaneously or over a
short period of time. The draft document is in the process of being reviewed by
subject matter experts within DOD. Prior to the development of this joint
requirements document, the Marine Corps had established requirements in a
document titled “Naval Surface Fire Support Requirements for Expeditionary
Maneuver Warfare” in March 2002. This document established specific near-term,
mid-term and far-term requirements for factors such as system response time,
accuracy and precision, and range.


Current capabilities to provide joint fires in support of expeditionary operations in
the littorals include the 5-inch 54- or 62-caliber guns for the DDG destroyers and
cruisers with 5-inch 54-caliber guns. The two battleships in inactive reserve, if
reactivated, would provide 16-inch 50-caliber guns. Other joint fires capabilities
include tactical aviation, surface-to-surface rocket systems, and Army and Marine
Corps 105 millimeter and 155 millimeter artillery. Planned capabilities such as
weapons systems and/or ships currently under development are expected to largely
meet near- and mid-term requirements and partially mitigate multiple capabilities
gaps if implemented as planned. Planned capabilities include the DD(X) destroyers
with an advanced gun system firing long range land attack projectiles. Another
planned capability is extended-range guided munitions for existing DDG destroyers.
The DDG with extended-range guided munitions largely meets near- and mid-term
Naval Surface Fire Support requirements, while the DD(X) meets mid-term
requirements and may meet far-term requirements depending on the ultimate range of
the projectiles. However, neither of these capabilities may be available until early
next decade. As we have reported, both the DD(X) and extended-range guided
munitions programs have experienced some technical and funding challenges.7 In
addition, neither current nor planned Naval Surface Fire Support capabilities fully
mitigate joint fires gaps identified in the Initial Capabilities Document such as the
ability to engage moving targets in restricted weather conditions and the ability to
provide a sufficient quantity of fires over a short period of time. However, the DD(X)
with the advanced gun system could mitigate those gaps and the DDG firing
extended-range guided munitions somewhat addresses them. Land- and air-based
systems, such as long-range bombers, may also help to mitigate these gaps.




However, Marine Corps officials support purchasing a larger
number of DD(X) ships than are included in current Navy plans.

[b] more billion dollar DD's right there! lol.





Analysis of battleship alternatives would need to consider many types of costs
Decision makers have at least three alternatives to removing the two remaining
battleships from the naval vessel registry. The Navy could (1) sustain the battleships
in inactive status; (2) reactivate the battleships to their original warfighting
capabilities, with some improvements to bring them up to current ship standards for
habitability and interoperability; or (3) modernize the battleships, their fire support
capabilities, and other supporting capabilities significantly beyond their original
capabilities. In addition to weighing the military capabilities associated with these
alternatives, numerous cost factors would need to be considered for each option
including the extent to which DOD would incur costs for
• mechanical and/or technological systems such as the propulsion system or
communications systems;
• weapons and munitions such as fire control systems and ordnance and
propellant safety; and
• personnel to operate the battleships (e.g., military personnel or contractor
support), and training required to operate the various types of systems.


Cost factors involved in sustaining the battleships in inactive ship status include the
cost of contractor support to maintain the ships for such things as preservation
painting, interior dehumidification, and maintaining the fire and flood alarm systems.
The Navy currently incurs expenses of about $1.5 million per year to sustain both
battleships in inactive status. Of this amount, about $1 million covers additional
annual preservation maintenance and ongoing paint preservation work on the
Wisconsin. The ships are inspected twice a year to document electrical, safety, hull
and general ship conditions. In addition, the deck of the Iowa must be repaired to
ensure its safety. According to Navy officials, this would cost about $1.6 million
spread over two fiscal years.

[Defcon 6]

Costs to reactivate the battleships to their original warfighting capabilities with some
enhancements for habitability and interoperability would include costs to bring the
battleships up to current ship standards. For example, the Navy would have to
replace the analog communications system with digital systems so that they will be
interoperable with other ships; improve the propulsion system, and update chemical
and biological protection capabilities, and improve personnel habitability with
additions such as sit-up berthing and accommodations for women at sea. Moreover,
Navy officials estimate they would need about 1,500 military personnel to operate a
reactivated battleship. The fire control system would need to be improved and the
propellant powder bags for the 16-inch guns, stored off the ships, would need to be
replaced due to age and deterioration. In addition, the damaged number two gun
turret on the Iowa would need to be repaired.

[Defcon 6]

Huh? Only a small fraction of those numbers were killed in opposed amphib landings, and none of them in Vietnam.

And you got that notion why?

Huh? Let me try again using smaller words. There won't be any amphib landings without air dominance, period.

Thats amusing.

Yes. Plus mine their ports, sink their navy and reinforcing Taiwan.

Won't win a war!

Invading the mainland would be moronic in the first degree - especially D-day style.

Yes it would, but if you need to win a war what else do you think your going to do?

I'm not forgetting. Invading mainland China in anything less than an all out WWIII-style war would be the biggest strategic blunder in U.S. history. Taiwan isn't worth it.

Well of course it isn't. But that wasn't part of the scenario

They'll all be freezing in the nuclear winter, or succumbing to radiation poisoning, if they didn't die immediately.

So would we.

"One of the most remarkable facts of the entire war is that the Luftwaffe did not make any significant daylight attacks on D day against Allied forces in the Channel or on the beaches.63 The Allies flew over 14,000 sorties in support of the landings alone while the Luftwaffe was only able to muster 319 sorties the entire day!64 This success is directly attributable to the length of the counterair campaign. The Luftwaffe had been finished. The remnants were tied to the defense of the Reich."

If you got a point make it.

Sounds like air supremacy to me.

Pretty pointless.

Using examples in WWII as your rationale for reactivating BBs or building your uber BB doesn't help your case. It ignores 60 years of advances in airpower and precision munitions.

Actually I didn't, we were talking about opposed naval landings and you decided to take the discussion beyong the scope of the scenarios presented. Also, WW2 was the last real war we participated in. Even Vietnam was just a war of interest.

Oooohh.. stunning comback. Maybe you can start chanting "I'm rubber and you're glue" next.

Comebacks? Sounds like your still in highschool. lol

Once again, from YOUR GAO doc,

"DOD officials believe the level of risk associated with current fire support capabilities is acceptable given that other joint capabilities such as tactical aviation and longrange bombers could also contribute to providing joint fires to support theater commanders’ war plans."

Besides what does talking about 155mm gaps have to do with my palletized MLRS proposal? MLRS isn't a 155mm gun.

Well according to you its 155mm fulfills all requirements as far as guns go.

Oh...and your palletized MLRS exist only in your dreams. (check your last response).

The closer to shore you get, the further inland your rounds will go.

Theres always other options.

You still haven't posted a link detailing modernization costs.

Because there isn't one. Duh.

And BB(X) only exists in your dreams.

Good comeback
If you can't fight it, deny it! lol

[Defcon 6]

So does it also follow that acutally using BBs means their purpose has failed - the way it does with SSBNs? No, of course not.

Comparing the two is foolish. We need SSBNs for nuclear deterrence.

LOL. Ok, we need BB's for deterrence. Great counterpoint Holmes!

Yes, it does work this way. PGMs offer a high degree of first-round hits.

16" shells could be designed as PGM's.

Amusing. Just because I don't take the fanboy position that tons of armor and gigantic guns blasting gouts of flame and VW-sized shells has a place in the Navy, I've suddenly gone "soft on the idea of war".

I'm not a huge supporter of Iowa armor actually. As most missiles could penetrate it. Actually it didn't have anything to do with "the fact you didn't support BB's"

I'm still waiting for the details of this proposed refit.

There were some details of it in the DAO report. Mainly they named expenses before it underwent any modernization. My estimate would be about 1.2 billion a ship. Which would upgrade it with tactom capability among other things including AEGIS, or the future system being used on the DD(X).

*Sigh* Yet another quote from YOUR GAO doc,

"The cost of a ship’s crew is generally the single largest expense incurred over a ship’s lifecycle."

1500 sailors = 10 DD(X)s worth of crew.

Over the entire lifecycle. And 10 DD(X)'s well at 2.8 billion a ship (which is the current estimate now) lets see...28 billion dollars for 10 ships. Yeah, go ahead and form your counterpoint based on the 1500 crew lol.

Your literally picking at straws now. Oh, and by the way, it is MY GAO report. And until I gave you the link you were more clueless than you are now. The fact is, I'm not afraid to read the facts of the matter.

The Iowa's would cost peanuts to reactivate at a little over a billion a ship. Compared to the 28 billion and up for a fleet of DD(X)'s. So after we've spent 100 billion dollars on a fleet of DD(X)'s we can all laugh at the idea of 3 billion for 2 battleships.

[Defcon 6]

Amusing. Just because I don't take the fanboy position that tons of armor and gigantic guns blasting gouts of flame and VW-sized shells has a place in the Navy, I've suddenly gone "soft on the idea of war".

I very clearly was refering to the fact you were talking about how it was all just too risky. Fighting a war is risky!

Lets all think about that palletized MRLS idead of yours. lol. I notice you haven't been dicussing that much. Frankly the idea of a bunch of rafts with missile launchers is pretty darn amusing.