Big Battleship Doctrine 2

[Gun Grape]

So when are you going to get around to your objectives?

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

.
First we need to establish what is necessary and what is not necessary.

OK What?

The Iowa's cost peanuts in the grand scheme of things to operate. However we must face the fact that the Iowa's are outdated and obsolete. However, my original Big Battleship Doctrine pointed this out, listing that indeed, we need a future battleship. Now, issues such as armor may be discussed on the side since armor by todays standards goes far beyond Iowa armor design.

Why do we need a new battleship? This was your thread and the goals you set.

And how about a analysis on your "cost peanuts". Cost peanuts compared to what? And breakdowns if you can.

16" rounds have a role to play in todays combat roles. The USMC has stated that 155mm systems are effective enough for fire support. However, we debating this you need to take into account the current fire support triad. Which includes current "substitutes" for 16" rounds.

Where did they say 155 is effective enough? And if they did, why are we even discussing bringing back 16" guns?

I'm going to provide a NSFS chart so that everyone can take a good look at NSFS mission requirements.

Who decided that this was the NSFS mission requirements? Reference for that?

Are these NGF standards or NSFS Standards?

When debating the effectiveness of 16" systems (and thus the idea of a battleship in general) you need first establish what requirements they don't meet before you start going into what requirements they do meet. And this debate doesn't stay with current rounds.

When dealing with hardened targets, aside from air dropped munitions and cruise missiles we just don't have a gun system capable of handling hardened targets.

Do we need one? Why?

MAybe after you come up with those answers we will know what we are discussing.

[Defcon 6]

How old are you. Cannot put words in your mouth because you havn't committed to any statement.

Yes! Similar to you and your non-existant arguement against battleships.

Smitty and I both asked you what you think the C/D parameters were. We both mentioned the extremes that the US have gone to. I'm the one that mentioned concrete bombs. Only to get the sarcastic "You don't know what your talking about" from you.

Well Smitty said something about the CEP for collateral damage being something like...10 meters. Which is wrong, last time I checked for NSFS it was 50 desired thresh-hold, 20 optimum. Which a precision 16" round would indeed be able to achieve.

Di you have any technical knowledge of the things you are trying to defend or you just posting stuff and agreeing with it because you like the way it sounds?

At least I'm trying to stick to some sort of point. Which has become impossible since you refuse to stand by any point by making an arguement. If you don't know how, I would start with a thesis.

Work got in the way. I could have either sat down and typed this thing for you , or made a quick grand. Oh and I'm feeling a little richer, thank you

get to it. I haven't read your next post yet. So let me get to it.

[Defcon 6]

So when are you going to get around to your objectives?

Objectives. You mean mission objectives? Or...? Please me specific.

OK What?

Lets hold this until later.

Why do we need a new battleship? This was your thread and the goals you set.

Ok, GG. We should let everyone get in on this. Tophatter, and maybe M21 and Dreanought if they want to take a shot. But mine specifics are-

The DD(X)'s won't be able to serve before 2013. So what are we going to do until then? And even then, there won't be an effective quantity of them until 2019. And so far the Navy has decided to only plan 7 ships for the fleet. Which might not change. 7 ships won't be enough. Especially considering that the DDG(X) isn't even in the concept stages yet.

The DD(X) is not going to replace the burkes. That much is clear from the 313 ship plan that USN has drafted. So the burkes will be replaced after 2020 by the DDG(X). Of course the 313 ship plan is not concrete, however it's the most logical step for the Navy so I'm guessing thats what they will go with.

And how about a analysis on your "cost peanuts". Cost peanuts compared to what? And breakdowns if you can.

The GAO made some rough cost analysis estimates, and furthermore knowledgable people on other boards have made statements, and gone into very exact details, that each ship would cost roughly 2.5 billion a piece to reactivate. So lets say 5 billion for both. This includes repairs, necessary logistical changes, new propulsion systems and new gun powder charges. Interestingly enough, the GAO reports we have both read give some valuable information in this regard.

The first DD(X) will cost roughly 3-5 billion. My guess is 5 billion since it's the prototype ship. The price will drop to about 2.8-3.3 billion a piece once full production is in progress.

The problem is those numbers are all FY'05 dollars. FY'2013 dollars would be something larger/higher.

Where did they say 155 is effective enough? And if they did, why are we even discussing bringing back 16" guns?

It's in one of the GAO reports discussing NSFS. I don't remember which one. However, that only takes into account, effective enough for now. Meaning that its effective without considering the NSFS mission gaps. The actual term the USMC used was "adequate." However, they are still relying on other legs of the fire support triad to kill targets that could (should) be included in the NSFS missions. I would not make that as a concrete statement since I can only guess how the tactics and logistics would change once 16" guns were brought in.

It would definetely be a case of using less on one leg and more of another. Sounds strange but I'm having trouble describing it better. Maybe TH can give his point of view to clearify the picture? He seems to know enough about what BB's have been doing over the past 50 years and what was asked of them.

Who decided that this was the NSFS mission requirements? Reference for that?

No official source. It's an analysis, but it is logical in its conclusions. And it isn't signifcantly pro-anything. I think it's fairly bi/non-partisan.

If you don't wish to use it, you can form your own conclusions from reading the GAO reports (2 most recent that we have discussed) and the 313 ship plan.

Are these NGF standards or NSFS Standards?

I don't think they are either. From what I can tell it's a free-floating analysis that seems to be considering that actual mission effects laid down by the USMC and the USN. As you can see, that chart does not specify any real standards. It has rough (at a glance) information concerning NSS and NSFS.

To answer your question I'm going to say NGF since none of those are conclusive to NSFS in any way.

Do we need one? Why?

Do we not need one? This is your perspective correct? Not needing one. Neverthelss, we can't go into this topic until you make a conclusive concrete statement.

MAybe after you come up with those answers we will know what we are discussing.[/quote]

But what are we discussing? You need to answer those questions yourself, but simply make a thesis and give some of your basic examples. We can go into more detail after that. Until then I can't tell where you stand, or what you think as far as battleships go. Whether its reactivation or a new bb design.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by TopHatter

The Almighty Cheetah has forgiven you my son. Consume more Cheetos and true enlightenment shall be yours.

No worries Gunny.


Not at all, you are 100% correct. It's also why I posted that link to the rather bizarre Arnheiter case:

I wanted to use the comments being told to CAPT Alexander ("If you get the Dragon's Jaw, you'll bring back the big gun") as proof that big things were expected of the New Jersey but especially the destruction of the Thanh Hoa - a letter perfect battleship target that could be obliterated in an afternoon's work with nearly zero chance of American casualties in the process...

But I knew as soon as I used that quote, somebody (not necessarily you ) would call me on the fact that it was J Edward Snyder that had command and not Alexander and thus I was wrong all around.
Soooo...that's why I made that somewhat weird segue into the Arnheiter Affair, to show that while Alexander didn't make it Vietnam, the high expectations still did.

And thus, it's impossible for her to have struck the Thanh Hoa - succeed or fail - and have no reliable mention of it published (in print or online). And THAT'S the point I wanted to make...in a REALLY roundabout fashion.

Whew...!

My way of reasoning is sometimes rambling and twisted...my apologies.

Agreed I have J. Edward Snyder Jr. as her CO for deployment to Vietnam. Before him was Charles B. Brooks and after Snyder was Robert C. Peniston.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Well Smitty said something about the CEP for collateral damage being something like...10 meters. Which is wrong, last time I checked for NSFS it was 50 desired thresh-hold, 20 optimum. Which a precision 16" round would indeed be able to achieve.

I actually did not say this. I said GPS-guided projectiles would give you a 10m CEP (10-20m based on specs for ERGM).

I then went on to say that, IMHO, a 10m CEP is insufficient - be it for a 5", 155mm or especially 16" round - to ensure limited collateral damage in urban terrain, using a house next to a mosque as an example.

For this you need true precision weapons - the smaller, the better.

Now, as I said before, I don't know what the USMC/USN reqs are for this.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

The DD(X)'s won't be able to serve before 2013. So what are we going to do until then?

Live with ERGM/ANSR, most likely, and rely on overwhelming airpower, TLAMs, etc.

Plus maybe we'll avoid storming opposed beaches.

And if that's not enough, I still like my PMLRS idea for the LCS.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

Live with ERGM/ANSR, most likely, and rely on overwhelming airpower, TLAMs, etc.

Plus maybe we'll avoid storming opposed beaches.

And if that's not enough, I still like my PMLRS idea for the LCS.

And their extreme high cost each?. Maybe we should just give the military the right to print their own money until 2013 instead because thats just about what it amounts to. I would very much like to revisit this conversation in 2013 when DDX is delivered then we will really see how much the taxpayers money was wasted on expensive bombs, missles in a theater where 16" shells could have done the job but apparently with higher casualty rates. Then again war is hell for all involved.

[Anon]

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.

The figures for the Thud are a bit misleading, as that does not include aircraft written off after returning to base, nor does it include cannibilization. Also, the F-105 pilots suffered horribly. By 1968(IIRC), the USAF was forced to start moving KC-135 pilots into F-105 seats- with minimal training.

As far as aircraft lost since the end of nam, don't forget Yugoslavia and Beirut.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

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.



apples and oranges.



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

First point, the kill zone for the Mk13 listed on the USNFSA site is in square yards, not in radius. You have to convert the 2500sq yards into a radius figure. Just off the top of my head without busting out my calculator, if we have a area of effect of 2500sq yards that means we have a box 500yds wide, by 500 yards long. Then, to ROUGHLY convert that to a radius, we have to divide it by 2.

So that would give the Mk13 a lethal radius of about 250 yards.

The lethal radius for the Mk84 is about 300 meters.

As far as what guided gun projectiles are around, there are the Copperhead 155mm(which we've both used, and are both aware of it's severe limitations), and the UK 81mm Merlin round, which suffers from the same SALH limitations.(Paveways also suffer some of the same issues too, btw, especially the early Paveway I).

However, at one point there were no laser guided bombs either, and one could've rightly said, "Point me to any LGB that works", and we wouldn't have been able to do so. The fact is that the legacy technology to make a SALH guided 16" shell is mature and proven, and getting from there to GAINS(GPS guidance) should not be too much an effort, especially given the amount of interior volume in the 16" projectile(less miniturization required, as well as more internal volume for shock deadening material).

[Anon]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

Live with ERGM/ANSR, most likely, and rely on overwhelming airpower, TLAMs, etc.

Plus maybe we'll avoid storming opposed beaches.

And if that's not enough, I still like my PMLRS idea for the LCS.

ERGM is NOWHERE near ready for primetime, and even if it was, it is WHOLLY UNSUITED for most NGFS roles due to it's extremely low flight speed of 500kts. Further, even if it did work(which it does not), it has ALREADY cost MORE than the cost of fully modernizing and reactivating the two remaining Cat B Iowas. ANSR is an AGS munition, which means it will not be in the fleet until AGS is in the fleet, and AGS won't be in the fleet until DDX is in the fleet(2013 at the soonest).

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

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.

One could certainly point to every aircraft lost over Haiphong harbor(which is about 1,000) as unneccesary losses. A single Iowa can threaten the entire Haiphong port area, even today.

[Anon]

Defcon, i've already told ya once....GG has forgotten more about artillery systems than you'll likely ever know.

Claiming he doesn't know the difference between the various properties of explosive fillers is very stupid.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

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.

I'm pretty sure BAT was cancelled. The USN also had a version using the SADARM munition mated with SM-2MR Block II missiles called the SM-4, and that has also been cancelled.

The USMC is smart enough to realize that there are varying needs wrt collateral damage, and also that many times you want to MAXIMIZE the burst radius of munitions to inflict maxiumum damage.

And again, wrt how many aircraft we've lost post vietnam, it is about 50, and would've easily paid for a new build Iowa.

We're pretty good at taking down IADS, but we're not as good as we used to be, HARM has turned out to be a pretty big dissapointment, and we never did take down the Yugoslavian IADS.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

First point, the kill zone for the Mk13 listed on the USNFSA site is in square yards, not in radius. You have to convert the 2500sq yards into a radius figure. Just off the top of my head without busting out my calculator, if we have a area of effect of 2500sq yards that means we have a box 500yds wide, by 500 yards long. Then, to ROUGHLY convert that to a radius, we have to divide it by 2.

So that would give the Mk13 a lethal radius of about 250 yards.

Not really.

Assuming a circular pattern, the USNFSA so-called *lethal fragmentation area* (whatever that means) of 2,778 square yards would translate into a radius of 29.7 yards.

Which of course is nowhere near the *about 200 x 200 yards* area mentioned in on the USNFSA website.

[Anon]

[quote=TopHatter]
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.

---------------------------------------------------

Korea is IDEAL as a target for the Iowas, and that conflict is very likely. The Brits certainly would've found an Iowa EXTREMELY useful for their invasion of the falklands too. Coastal China would also be very vulnerable to BB 16" fire, and finally, if we did have to toss the Chinese out of Taiwan, almost the entire Island is in range of 16" fire.

So as can be seen, the Iowas would still be very useful against many potential(in fact the MOST LIKELY) enemies.