Dreadnought

Monday Aug. 15th.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Navy, seeking a greater role as the United States wages wars far inland, is pushing an expensive, experimental destroyer it says will be able to bomb targets well away from shore.

The Navy is trying to improve its ability to conduct fire support - using heavy guns to assist Marines or soldiers ashore, much like land-based artillery does. The frequency of such naval fire support missions have declined during conflicts of the last half-century, and the Navy has turned to expensive cruise missiles instead of guns to hit targets farther inland.

The proposed destroyer, called the DD(X), would fill a gap opened with the removal from service of the last battleships more than a decade ago, Navy officials contend. But the DD(X) has its critics, who say the Navy is betting on technologies that aren't fully developed and argue the ship is too expensive.

The first DD(X) is projected to cost $3.3 billion, but sister ships would be cheaper, the Navy says. Since 2004, however, the Navy's estimated costs per ship have gone up almost 50 percent for ships built after the first of their class, the Congressional Research Service says.

One proposal before Congress would cap the price per ship at $1.7 billion, forcing the Navy to redesign the DD(X) to something smaller and probably less capable.

The Navy also has reduced the number it wants to buy, from between 16 to 24 down to between eight and 12, prompting fears that the military won't give shipyards enough work and force one to close, the congressional researchers reported recently.

One group wants to see the World War II-era battleships USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin make a comeback, arguing their ability to bombard targets inland with their massive 16-inch guns is unmatched in the fleet. The vessels are inactive but could be returned to service with sufficient investment.

But Navy officials say they don't want the battleships returned to active duty, and there are proposals in Congress to turn them into museums.

Current cruisers and destroyers mount only 5-inch guns with a range of about 15 miles. The guns of the Iowa and Wisconsin can hit targets 30 miles distant with unguided shells carrying 1,900 pounds of high explosives.

The Navy says the guns of the DD(X) will far exceed the capabilities of those on the battleships and the current fleet.

The ship would carry two 155-millimeter guns that fire rocket-propelled rounds. Current test versions of the gun have hit targets 68 miles away. The Navy hopes to reach 96 miles. Navy officials also talk about an electromagnetic rail gun, possibly available by 2020, that can hit targets 350 miles away.

Where the battleships fire unguided shells and destroy targets though massed firepower, rounds from the guns of the DD(X) will be guided by satellite positioning data, like many modern aircraft bombs and missiles, and be far more precise.

The first DD(X) isn't expected to join the fleet until 2013 or so, presuming it continues to receive funding. The Navy also is working on a rocket-propelled shell for its current warships, but that is unlikely to be ready until 2010.

The Navy makes other big promises regarding the DD(X): It will be stealthy and as difficult to detect as an attack submarine; it will have a radar able to pick out targets from along crowded coastlines; it will be heavily automated and need only a small crew.

The ship will also carry at least one helicopter, unpiloted drones, small guns to fight off attacks by small boats, and surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles.

Many of those who are pushing the return of the battleships as an alternative to DD(X) are members of the United States Naval Fire Support Association, a group of retired military and security officials, who say the absence of battleships exposes ground troops to significant risks.

"The highly effective and versatile battleships are an incredible bargain and should be readied for rapid reactivation, instead of being turned into museums," William L. Stearman, a Navy veteran and the group's executive director, wrote in an e-mail. "Our constantly dwindling fleet could use their massive infusion of firepower and their commanding presence, so effective as an awesome, massive visible show of force where we want to get people's attention and respect."

But Rear Adm. Mark J. Edwards, the Navy's surface warfare chief, says the Navy doesn't want the battleships back for several reasons, most notably the 1,300 to 1,500 crew who are required to operate each one. Plans for the DD(X) call for a crew of 150 or fewer, making the ship far less expensive to operate.

Navy officials also prefer the precision and range of the new destroyer's guns over the raw destructive power of the battleship's.

Cant wait to see them prove this...lmao

Franco Lolan

I don't see the need for a shore bombardment platform as much as I see a need for smaller, stealthier, faster, more deadly ships.

Anon

Probably because you're just a kid, and not a US Marine.

Franco Lolan

Hehehe. Thinking of it.
Have a friend in the USMA. He tells me great stories, and he says the contacts I can use from my career will assist me once I enter into the policy world. I'd like be in a light infantry unit if I'd go to USMA. On the other hand, my grandfather was a leatherneck in Korea and the USN would probably be the primary fighter in any conventional conflict against the PRC. Is Annapolis as good as the USMA in getting people into policy positions, however? I have to think about it. I have until Oct. 31 to write a letter to Sen. Mel Martinez (and my cousin in Venezuela's boyfriend's mom is best friends with him so I could probably get his nomination and my credentials are great). I need to analyze myself, ask myself my goals, and see how to achieve them.

I want to serve the nation, and as immature as it sounds (obviously I haven't been there), satisfy a primieval interest/longing for combat.

My fear is graduating from a good school but, not being a billionaire's son, being caught in the government beaurocratic cycle and go nowhere. I also want to make my own money (my Dad does logistics and although he makes a good living, the business is not his, and he's not in the position to start his own, so he encourages me to be entrepeneurial). Ultimately, I'm aiming for a policymaking position such as NSC or SecSt or SecDef. Any suggestions?

Unipidity

Roflcopters.

Ambition is good, but too much can be disasterous. Your looking to become Sec Def at the age of.... 17? Knowing that, I would certainly never ever appoint you to *anything* approaching a policy making post. No slight, but the old hoary says remain true- anyone willing to wield power probably shouldnt be allowed to.

brownboi4eva

WHy does the navy need to bombard the targets in land....the Air Force and planes of the AC can do a much better job than the battleship

__________________
What doesnt kill me, Just makes me stronger :cool:

Dreadnought

True if they are not in fear of being shot down by SAMS or any other ground to air or air to air missles. But a battleship has no fear of such missles, projects power as she sits off the coast and just rains relatively "cheap"destruction without any radar warning and the last thing you will hear is a whistling roar before the ground around you vanishes and last she wont go away until told to do so. Not just certain destruction but "cheap" certain destruction as missles are very expensive compared to shells. Thats why we still need them in this day and age.

Unipidity

Does BB armor structure make it less effective against modern weapons? As far as I know, most missiles perform a pop-up, and impact down into the superstructure, rather than try to punch through the side. Im sure the Iowas are less hindred than other WW2 battleships, but is thier top armor that thick? Enough to make her 'impervious'?

Beaugeste93

No they can't. Properly done NSFS will put more ordinance on shore with less exposure to pilots of getting shot at. Pilots hate getting shot at. Plus, naval shells are a lot cheaper than tomahawk missiles.

__________________
Rule 303

Beaugeste93

the top of their turrets are armored, but even their regular decking is a lot thicker than the superstructure of a modern warship. The standard when battleships were built was that they have armor enough to withstand fire from their own guns. This was fudged a bit with the Iowas, as they were build to withstand 16"/45 caliber fire from NC/SD class battleships, not 16"/50 caliber. Still, an exocet hit to the armor belt won't do much.

all of this is moot of course. The BBs will become razor blades or tourist traps. I think the DDX will be a cool platform, but I just don't think the navys shipbuilding programs are very wise right now. I resubscribed to proceedings recently, and every issue just scares me half the time. Anyway, the DDX will be incredibly expensive, will end up costing a lot more than planned, and will end up being so generalized in design that it does nothing well. And they'll never build enough of them to be a credible threat for NSFS. That being said, it'll still probably kick any other destroyers a$$.

Franco Lolan

How true. I read the Allegory of the Cave yesterday, speaks on that. However, I do feel the fire in me to create a coordinate US FoPo and as a "simple soldier" who will do his duty in protecting US interests "as God [...will show...] him the light to see."

TopHatter

My sweet ass it will!

"Raw Destructive Power of [a] battleship"

Heh heh...these are few of my favourite things...

Yeah, me either. This oughta be good for a laugh and $100 billion in taxpayer's money...

__________________
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
~John Quincy Adams

Dreadnought

TopHatter wrote:
Yeah, me either. This oughta be good for a laugh and $100 billion in taxpayer's money...[/quote]

Yeah I hear you TopHat and the deep sickness in my heart knows they will spend as much $ fighting over this as it would actually cost us to have 4 repeat 4 newly modernized and updated Iowas sitting at the ready just waitng to sail.

Dreadnought

Yeah I hear you TopHat and the deep sickness in my heart knows they will spend as much $ fighting over this as it would actually cost us to have 4 repeat 4 newly modernized and updated Iowas sitting at the ready just waitng to sail. [/quote]

Tell you what why dont they pit the New Jersey against one of their "new" DDX platforms before they decide to scrap the Iowas. I say the Big J only because ive been on her numerous times and understand her to be in outstanding shape not barring any of her sisters. Id pay to see that fight along with many others im sure even a pay per view..lol no holds barred. This would certainly put an end to this arguement once and for all and save all of us taxpayers an awful amount of money and assure us that our Marines get what they need to do the job they do. And if she looses well it would be the first time any of us ever saw a reminiscent battleship duel to the end. An attraction certainly worth recording