Big Battleship Doctrine 2

[Defcon 6]

Here is 3 TLAM-D MLRS ATACM. Its called ICM

What exactly are you refering to? I pulled that off one of your sources.

Damn, I used it to make you feel better.

Good, at least you can admit it's accurate. Nuff said.

Oh now I see. You didn't mean the 16 inch shells we have now. Some mythical
shells that we will develop in the future. Is that the ChaChing of the cash register for even more cost required to get a BB?

I've always said this. Eventually assisted munitions would need to be developed. And we have had this arguement before. There is nothing that would prevent a guided assisted 16" munition from being developed. And it would cost again, peanuts. It funny that you mention JDAM every so often, yet you fail to realize how little R&D it took to stick a GBU-31 tail assembly on a Mk.84

Now a PGM 16" shell is quite different, but we already have guided shells, so we have one leg up on the R&D costs.

The bigger issue here is how you always raise a stink every time the issue of advanced 16" munitions is brought up. What, did you think we would keep using the same old dumb shells? Check my original post slick. I said we would need advanced munitions and later guns.

This is a hypothetical arguement, if you don't like it, or can't work with it, then give up or get out.

And yes we will still use TNT. It is stable enough to withstand the shock of firing at high charges.

Yes. But all the Mk-80 bombs use tritonol or h6 or similar HE compounds. Modern day HE compounds are far more stable that TNT. Think of C4, you can burn that stuff and it wont go off.

No its because of the amount of metal in the shell and the design of that shell to produce fragmentation. Did you read all of my post?

But it doesn't really matter. Once again you've gone fishing. First off, the current munitions don't fail the current collateral damage parameters. And what have you been saying GG? Nothing. You haven't been making an arguement. You just went off on a rant about fragmentation of 16" shells. Needless to say, proving they have a high frag radius unfortunately doesn't change the fact that they are still useful, and it still doesn't change the fact that air dropped bombs have no suppression capabilities. AKA, if 155mm shells can't do the job, we have nothing as far as gun ordinance goes.

Well it was YOUR argument."Less lethal range better at min Collateral Damage" Flip flopped on it now?

Arguement? Well the question is, what is YOUR arguement? As far as I can tell you don't have one. Besides, your post after we got talking about that had to do with fuzes.

He said-she said. Whatever. At least I made an arguement. Which by the way you have not. I haven't seen you put any arguement forth considering battleships, making it difficult for me to form a solid arguement. So far your determined to simply "fish" and make small corrections. You aren't helping your arguement GG. In fact your only hindering it, by proving that your 2,000 pounders don't fulfill the same mission effects. And tomahawks don't either. So neither of those constitute support for NSFS in the FS triad.

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

You should do some reading.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-ODS-EW.html

The Iraqi IADS was a composite system which integrated European and Soviet search and acquisition radars, and a range of Soviet and European SAM and AAA systems, all tied together with a French built Kari C3 (Command/Control/Communications) network. While smaller than the now defunct Soviet system in central Europe (Western TVD), the system had a respectable capability and comparable if not higher density of SAM and AAA systems, with considerable redundancy in communications links and hardened C3 facilities.


Now looking at my old DS OoB I see that they had Roland, SA-6,SA8, SA-9, SA-13
At the time they were considered one of the better AD Systems outside of Russian

I don't need to do some reading.

They do use AAA fire and other direct AA fires. So I was right.

You haven't proven anything. Your talking technical aspects now. But, regardless, your talking technical aspects of an inferior threat! The fact that Iraq got steamrolled is proof of that. Are you trying to tell me that their defenses rivaled the current defenses of Russia, the U.K or the U.S??

Yeah sure! They did indeed have an inferior threat capability. Regardless of their C3 facilities. I wonder what M21 would have to say about that little tidbit. SA-6, SA-8 and SA-13 are still greatly inferior and aren't sophisticated by any means.

Anyone who disagrees can take a look here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ia/missile.htm

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by TopHatter

A few figures:

Nearly 400 F-105's were lost by all causes in Vietnam, out of approximately840 produced. An appalling loss rate of 50% in a single conflict.

Approximately 350 Navy and Marine Corps A-4 Skyhawks were lost in Vietnam.

In all, some 3300 fixed-wing aircraft were lost in Vietnam.

1 F-111F was lost during Operation El Dorado Canyon

29 U.S and 11 allied fixed-wing aircraft lost to direct enemy action during Operation Desert Storm. Many more damaged to one extent or another.

Perhaps half a dozen aircraft were lost to enemy action post-Desert Storm to today.

Smitty, you just got wasted. Nice work M21 and TH.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

What exactly are you refering to? I pulled that off one of your sources.

Good, at least you can admit it's accurate. Nuff said.

The first being the "None of our missiles today have that capability (for none have high explosive loads). " and the second being that I used a USNFSA page for information.Which is where the quote is found.

Here is my answer. Plain and simple. No I don't think it is accurate, They are a pack of dishonest people that will , misquote, manipulate and fabricate things to "Prove their point". They have been discredited and even sued by veterans organizations. I used the frag radius info from their site because I thought it funny to use one of your sorces of info to discredit your "Fact" that a 2k bomb had a larger frag radius. No other reason.

And BTY I think that number is BS. Why, it goes back to a thread long ago and Danger close distances.

Follow me here. A 155 has a killing radius of 50 meters.Casualty radius of 150M Danger close distance is 600 meters

16 in has (According to USNFSA) a killing radius of 2540 meters. No mention of casualty radius.

Danger Close distance is 1000 meters for HE/quick 16 inch according to FM 6-30.
NGF school at Coronado taught 2000 meters. Notice how both of those are still within the USNFSA Kill zone. So at face value, I say B*llshit.

I've always said this. Eventually assisted munitions would need to be developed. And we have had this arguement before. There is nothing that would prevent a guided assisted 16" munition from being developed. And it would cost again, peanuts. It funny that you mention JDAM every so often, yet you fail to realize how little R&D it took to stick a GBU-31 tail assembly on a Mk.84

apples and oranges.

Now a PGM 16" shell is quite different, but we already have guided shells, so we have one leg up on the R&D costs.

And I'll go back to my original challange from long ago. Name me 1 gun/howitzer launched guided projectile that works. Copperhead had a sucess rate of around 20%. And she was laser guided which is a lot easier than any other type of guidence package to harden. One of the reasons we quit that program. Name another

[Defcon 6]

The first being the "None of our missiles today have that capability (for none have high explosive loads). " and the second being that I used a USNFSA page for information.Which is where the quote is found.

Here is my answer. Plain and simple. No I don't think it is accurate, They are a pack of dishonest people that will , misquote, manipulate and fabricate things to "Prove their point". They have been discredited and even sued by veterans organizations. I used the frag radius info from their site because I thought it funny to use one of your sorces of info to discredit your "Fact" that a 2k bomb had a larger frag radius. No other reason.

And BTY I think that number is BS. Why, it goes back to a thread long ago and Danger close distances.

Follow me here. A 155 has a killing radius of 50 meters.Casualty radius of 150M Danger close distance is 600 meters

16 in has (According to USNFSA) a killing radius of 2540 meters. No mention of casualty radius.

Danger Close distance is 1000 meters for HE/quick 16 inch according to FM 6-30.
NGF school at Coronado taught 2000 meters. Notice how both of those are still within the USNFSA Kill zone. So at face value, I say B*llshit.

LOL. So you used a number that your now saying is wrong! Sounds like your dishonest too! At least when it agrees with your agenda.

apples and oranges.

Only because it doesn't agree with your agenda.

And I'll go back to my original challange from long ago. Name me 1 gun/howitzer launched guided projectile that works. Copperhead had a sucess rate of around 20%. And she was laser guided which is a lot easier than any other type of guidence package to harden. One of the reasons we quit that program. Name another

You don't seem to understand how the idea of presenting an arguement. Your fishing again. Theres an old saying, ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies!

Ok, I'll play your game. Name me 1 gun launched guided round that works. And here your always accusing me of wiggling my way out of things. Nice try.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon

Yes. But all the Mk-80 bombs use tritonol or h6 or similar HE compounds. Modern day HE compounds are far more stable that TNT. Think of C4, you can burn that stuff and it wont go off.

And it use to heat up C-rats real good. Just don't try to stomp the flame out. Modern day gun /howitzer projectiles use TNT as a filler if they are to be fired in the upper charge range. (M119A2/M203 propellants). Comp B and TNT can be interchanged for rounds that shoot green and white bag propellant. And BTW you can melt/burn TNT. I don’t see the point.

The reason has to do with stability. TNT with age or heat stays together. If it melts it will solidify. It doesn’t crumble with age. 2 very important qualities when you are stocking war reserve ammo. As late as the 90s we were pulling rounds out that were made in the 50s/60s. Always nice to know that they will not blow up if you drop them.

Bombs can be made with compounds that increase the blast because they aren’t handled roughly (Pushed out a tube at 15thou Gs like an arty round) When those compounds age they will granulate. Same with melting, when they solidify its in granules. The force of sending those out a gun tube would cause friction and bullet go boom in tube. Understand now?

But it doesn't really matter. Once again you've gone fishing. First off, the current munitions don't fail the current collateral damage parameters. And what have you been saying GG? Nothing. You haven't been making an arguement. You just went off on a rant about fragmentation of 16" shells. Needless to say, proving they have a high frag radius unfortunately doesn't change the fact that they are still useful, and it still doesn't change the fact that air dropped bombs have no suppression capabilities. AKA, if 155mm shells can't do the job, we have nothing as far as gun ordinance goes.

It has nothing to do with “Fishing” I was disproving another of your points.
Just like I’m about to with this statement

it still doesn't change the fact that air dropped bombs have no suppression capabilities.

Really By suppression if you mean against personnel then how about
(dumb bombs)
BLU-82 Used in Afghanistan with great effect
CBU-59
CBU-75
Mk-20
CBU-72
Antimaterial (dumb bombs)
BLU-82 again
BLU-68/B
CBU-72
Mk-20
CBU-97
CBU-87
CBU-71
CBU-59

(Smart)
All

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

LOL. So you used a number that your now saying is wrong! Sounds like your dishonest too! At least when it agrees with your agenda.

I think its BS because I have the tech knowledge. They put stuff up to fool people like you, that don't know.

If I was really wanting to be dishonest, I wouldn't have told you that I thought it was BS nor would I have given the reason for that assumption.

I would have said something like "Well even they sometimes get things right ."

Ok, I'll play your game. Name me 1 gun launched guided round that works. And here your always accusing me of wiggling my way out of things. Nice try.

Easy, There isn't one. ERGM,Excaliber,LRLAP and BTERM II are at best hitting .500

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Smitty, you just got wasted. Nice work M21 and TH.

The whole argumet was sort of a waste. Now if you want to put it in more specific terms as applicable to BB reactivation it might mean something.

As an example, of the 400 F-105s, that were lost how many were striking targets within range of a BB when and if one was avaliable? Of those targets , how many were engagable by BB? Was the target within range and not terrain masked.
Those are the ones you amke a BB argument on.

Those 105 pilots had great big gonads. And I salute every one of them. We have the best airborne SEAD due to their sacrifices. And the guys kept getting in those cockpits and doing it day after day.

Not "We need BBs because aircraft are too vunerable". And then cite planes destroyed over Baghdad to reenforce your argument. In other words, Desert Storm would not be a good conflict to base a Pro BB save aircraft argument since Both BBs were present.

[Defcon 6]

And it use to heat up C-rats real good. Just don't try to stomp the flame out. Modern day gun /howitzer projectiles use TNT as a filler if they are to be fired in the upper charge range. (M119A2/M203 propellants). Comp B and TNT can be interchanged for rounds that shoot green and white bag propellant. And BTW you can melt/burn TNT. I don’t see the point.

The reason has to do with stability. TNT with age or heat stays together. If it melts it will solidify. It doesn’t crumble with age. 2 very important qualities when you are stocking war reserve ammo. As late as the 90s we were pulling rounds out that were made in the 50s/60s. Always nice to know that they will not blow up if you drop them.

Bombs can be made with compounds that increase the blast because they aren’t handled roughly (Pushed out a tube at 15thou Gs like an arty round) When those compounds age they will granulate. Same with melting, when they solidify its in granules. The force of sending those out a gun tube would cause friction and bullet go boom in tube. Understand now?

Theres nothing to understand. I wasn't wrong to begin with. I doubt you have any clue as to how stable any of those HE compounds are under g-load.

It has nothing to do with “Fishing” I was disproving another of your points.
Just like I’m about to with this statement

No you wern't. You didn't make an arguement. Your fishing. You can disprove my points all day, because you haven't made any point. To be sure, your not on either side of the fence.

Just like your about to do with this statement? Well no, sorry.

Let me put it in terms you can understand.
TNT is cool. HE can be used in shells. I'm guessing you don't know much about g-force stress on tritonol. And oh yeah, bombs don't perform suppression since the plane has to leave the area after dropping it's payload. makes it rather hard to you know...suppress anything. And even if you were going to use a number of aircraft...why bother when you could have a ship thats already in the area fire the munition instead? Thus doesn't need to burn expensive jet fuel, and doesn't need to enter hostile areas either.

Really By suppression if you mean against personnel then how about
(dumb bombs)
BLU-82 Used in Afghanistan with great effect
CBU-59
CBU-75
Mk-20
CBU-72
Antimaterial (dumb bombs)
BLU-82 again
BLU-68/B
CBU-72
Mk-20
CBU-97
CBU-87
CBU-71
CBU-59

(Smart)
All

Incorrect. (not smart?)
You'd better go review the mission effects/requirements.
It doesn't have anything to do with personel unless that was the target. Last time I checked such a mission effect could apply to a multitude of systems. In which case aerial dropped bombs are not effective.

[Defcon 6]

The whole argumet was sort of a waste. Now if you want to put it in more specific terms as applicable to BB reactivation it might mean something.

You haven't put forth any arguement so far. Really your wasting my time.

As an example, of the 400 F-105s, that were lost how many were striking targets within range of a BB when and if one was avaliable? Of those targets , how many were engagable by BB? Was the target within range and not terrain masked.
Those are the ones you amke a BB argument on.

Nice try, but taking it out of context by modern day standards.

Those 105 pilots had great big gonads. And I salute every one of them. We have the best airborne SEAD due to their sacrifices. And the guys kept getting in those cockpits and doing it day after day.

And wondering whether they would make it to what was it....40 sorties? After which they were free to go home? Salute them all you want, because they never came home. Because some idiot had them go waste their lives when priority targets wern't on the "strike list" so to speak.

But nevertheless, again, you don't make a point here.

Not "We need BBs because aircraft are too vunerable". And then cite planes destroyed over Baghdad to reenforce your argument. In other words, Desert Storm would not be a good conflict to base a Pro BB save aircraft argument since Both BBs were present.

Your fishing again.
but:
16" shells, that are-
A.) Guided
and
B.) Assisted
=
Problem solved.

Oh yeah,
and later guns that are-
A.) AGS

combined with a modern firing system
=
effective

Go back and read the first couple of posts. In which I clearly state new munitions would have to be developed. And don't bother with your history lessons, since 16" PGM's have never been developed for practical use. Thus talking about planes lost in vietnam disproves the BB arguement is pointless.

You just don't get it. I didn't propose we reactivate obsolete systems. I'm all for modernization and new R&D applications.

And what more is interesting, is you don't put forth the relevance this has with the DD(X). Okay, so lets say BB's are so in effective as they are in your little history lessons, that doesn't tell me why we should build a fleet of DD(X)'s instead.

Thats what I mean by the fact that you have no arguement. Your fishing. You like to correct people when they are wrong, but you offer neither a counter-point or an alternative solution.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Smitty, you just got wasted. Nice work M21 and TH.

Wow, fabulous comeback Defcon. Your rhetorical abilities are AMAZING.

BTW, I stand by my comment, since vietnam we have lost a handful of aircraft out of many tens of thousands of sorties to enemy fire. We know how to take down an enemy IADS. We fly high enough so that AAA and MANPADS aren't an issue. We now have stealth and new standoff munitions.

The "what if the enemy IADS prevents us from using airpower" argument doesn't hold water.

Citing statistics from Vietnam, Korea or WWII or whatever ignores the tremendous advances made in the areas of aircraft, PGMs, SEAD/DEAD, stealth, and airpower doctrine since then.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

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.

It maybe a very accurate dumb projectile, but when the USMC is talking about minimizing collateral damage, I assume they mean being able to "hit a house and not damage the mosque next door". (Disclaimer: I have not seen any official collateral damage requirements)

No dumb projectile will do that. Even GPS-guided projectiles may have problems. A 10m CEP still leaves a large margin for error.

The USAF has gone to the extreme of adapting BAT anti-armor munitions with SALH seekers for use on UAVs, in part to have a way of minimizing collateral damage. The resulting munition (Viper Strike) has a near zero CEP and a tiny 4lb HEAT warhead. The are also developing another small munition called, appropriately enough, the Very Small Munition for use on tacair. It's small enough that an A-10 could carry up to 36 to 54 of them.

So if the USMC is looking for Viper Strike-level collateral damage reduction here, then there's no way even a GPS-guided 16" round will suffice. (of course, neither will a GPS guided 5" or 155mm).

But all else being equal, a 5" or 155mm round will have a smaller damage footprint than a 16" round.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Smitty is the one that created the question in the first place, when he said that the 16" shell would exceed collateral damage parameters, and thats when I said so you wouldn't fire a 16" shell at those targets.

But if you're proposing reactivating Iowas to be our primary NSFS asset, then what will they use in these cases?

[TopHatter]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

As an example, of the 400 F-105s, that were lost how many were striking targets within range of a BB when and if one was avaliable? Of those targets , how many were engagable by BB? Was the target within range and not terrain masked.
Those are the ones you amke a BB argument on.

I'm going to quote myself from another thread as an example of how valuable even a single battleship could have been off Vietnam:

Originally Posted by Tophatter

Tell that to the aircrews of the more than 50 aircraft lost attacking the Dragon’s Jaw Bridge at Than Hoa. The Dragon’s Jaw was struck by almost seven hundred aircraft with more than 10,000 tons of ordnance between 1965-1968 without success. In 1965 alone, the Air Force and the Navy sent more than 800 sorties against the Dragon’s Jaw and lost 11 aircraft in the process.


SEVEN YEARS LATER...

In 1972, during Operation Linebacker I, Air Force F-4s dropped the Dragon’s Jaw Bridge with 24 laser guided bombs.

USS New Jersey could have dropped that bridge and levelled everything around it with a day's work.

The geography of Vietnam lent itself almost perfectly to battleship gunfire. I can't think of a better location, except perhaps Chile (not likely I know) that runs mostly north to south and barely from east to west.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Not "We need BBs because aircraft are too vunerable". And then cite planes destroyed over Baghdad to reenforce your argument. In other words, Desert Storm would not be a good conflict to base a Pro BB save aircraft argument since Both BBs were present.

Correct. Desert Storm did not show battleships to their full potential. The geography was working against them there.
The contribution to Desert Storm by the battleships was - at first - the same sort role that the 82nd Airborne played at first. Show massive amounts of firepower heading into or being ordered to the region. Same thing with ordering half a dozen CVBGs and however many ARGs: Show Saddam and more importantly the Iraqi armed forces that the United States and her friends are calling in the clans on your ass.
Later, their job was complement the illusion of a massive Marine amphibious landing in Kuwait. Something that worked very well.
Finally, the job was fire-support of the Marines in Kuwait and the shelling of Iraqi-held islands. Again, something they did very well.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by TopHatter

I'm going to quote myself from another thread as an example of how valuable even a single battleship could have been off Vietnam:
In 1972, during Operation Linebacker I, Air Force F-4s dropped the Dragon’s Jaw Bridge with 24 laser guided bombs.
..
"USS New Jersey could have dropped that bridge and levelled everything around it with a day's work."..

And yet in ODS and later wars we routinely see bridges dropped or severely damaged by a single bomb. Technology has come a long ways since Vietnam.

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Correct. Desert Storm did not show battleships to their full potential. The geography was working against them there.

But how many likely scenarios WOULD show battleships to their full potential?

Originally Posted by TopHatter

The contribution to Desert Storm by the battleships was - at first - the same sort role that the 82nd Airborne played at first. Show massive amounts of firepower heading into or being ordered to the region. Same thing with ordering half a dozen CVBGs and however many ARGs: Show Saddam and more importantly the Iraqi armed forces that the United States and her friends are calling in the clans on your ass.

But what got there first? Airpower.

Had Saddam wanted to, he could've headed south into Saudi Arabia long before battleships arrived on scene.