Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 212

Thread: Are battleships obsolete?

  1. #61
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape
    How much money will it cost to develop that round?
    Not much. Check the costs of developing ERGM. And it's like the other members have been saying, it's not an arguement about high price. The reality is that the DD(X) got canned.

    Because Burkes already carry a weapon that, quite frankly, blows that out of the water.
    Too bad we don't use it for everything. I'm not going to argue with you about something silly like this...the guns are there, and so is the mission and requirements.

    Tac Tom has a 1,500 mile range, can be programed and shot in 5 min. Can loiter over the target area. reprogramed in flight. Can attack up to 3 targets with the same submunitions you want to use and can provide real time intel and post strike BDA.
    It's a terrific weapon to be sure.

    We don't need battleships. The Navy and MC don't want BBs. Case closed
    Recent Navy analysis found that the need for replacement NSFS
    capability continues to exist
    • Navy officials stated that their analysis confirms a capabilities
    gap exists during the early stages of a conflict

    • Analysis confirms that ships are best gap filler based on:

    • Immature theater
    • Lack of air superiority
    • Capacity
    • Number of people placed in danger
    • All weather
    • Capability (24 hours/7 days per week)
    • Cost
    Last edited by Defcon 6; 01 Jul 06, at 05:04.

  2. #62
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by Galrahn
    How? In what way? What are the NFS requirements for the USMC? Why is the USMC developing a platform to land troops 150nm from shore as the established STOM requirement (MV-22 and CH-53K) if the NFS requirement can't support the troops 150nm from shore?
    Question #1 - What are the validated requirements
    for naval surface fire support (NSFS)?

    Past efforts to address NSFS requirements
    • May 1992 -- Navy’s NSFS Mission Need Statement identified NSFS shortfalls and
    listed several alternatives to address them
    • February 1993 -- Navy begins development of Cost and Operational Effectiveness
    Analysis (COEA) for NSFS
    • Navy plans called for COEA to be followed by an Operational Requirements
    Document (ORD) to provide detailed NSFS characteristics
    • October 1994 -- Navy concludes that the assumed NSFS requirements needed to be
    reevaluated and updated to guide NSFS plans
    • December 1994 – Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) approves revised NSFS plan and
    in January 1995 directs that Navy initiate upgrades to the 5-inch gun and develop
    precision-guided munitions for use in the modified 5-inch gun.
    • Initial operational capability before 2001
    • December 1994 – Navy signs memo transmitting COEA stating that retirement of the
    battleships with their large caliber guns had eroded Navy’s capability to provide NSFS
    for forces ashore
    • COEA proposed a variety of gun and missile weapon systems as solutions to the
    NSFS requirement


    Past efforts to address NSFS requirements (cont.)
    • November 1995 – Operational Requirements Document for an extended range
    guided munitions for use in existing 5-inch guns signed
    • October 1996 --The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory published
    NSFS Road Map Study Phase1report
    • Report concludes that there was a need for a new vision to convey the evolving
    role of NSFS--recommends that the Navy with the Marine Corps and Army
    establish requirements for Navy fire support for the joint land battle
    • December 1996 -- Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC) memo
    to CNO outlining NSFS requirements and their milestones
    • NSFS is essential to augment organic fire support during the critical early phases
    of an amphibious operation
    • NSFS initial operational capability by 2010 and a fully operational capability by
    2014
    • December 1996 MCCDC memo was followed by June 1999 and March 2002
    memos to the CNO. The March 2002 memo
    • reemphasized the Marine Corps requirements for NSFS stated in the
    December 1996 and June 1999 memos
    • recommended establishment of a Capstone Requirements Document to
    address NSFS requirements

    Past efforts to address NSFS requirements (cont.)
    • November 1997 -- DD 21 ORD signed
    • One of the primary missions identified for the DD 21 was to conduct NSFS
    • The first of 32 DD 21s to be procured in 2005 and entered into service in 2010
    • In 2001 the DD 21 was replaced by the DD(X) destroyer
    • Delivery of the first DD(X) has slipped to 2011
    • Marine Corps believes DD(X) with its Advance Gun Systems will help meet their
    NSFS performance requirements
    • April 2002 -- Navy informed Senate Armed Services Committee that they concur with
    the Marine Corps position on NSFS requirements stated in the March 2002 MCCDC
    memo
    • August 2002 -- CNO reports to Congress that a dramatic improvement in sea-based
    fires capability is required to align NSFS with Marine Corps doctrine
    • Report updates Navy’s two-phased approach to provide NSFS support
    • Near/mid term phase is projected to deliver the initial operational capability of
    the ERGM for the 5-inch gun in 2005
    • Far-term approach is to develop a more robust set of NSFS weapon systems
    for installation in the DD(X)

    Current efforts to address NSFS requirements
    • February 2004 -- ORD for Extended Range Munitions (ERM) signed
    • February 2004 – ORD for DD(X) destroyer signed
    • August 2004 -- Marine Corps issues charter for an integrated process team for
    development of the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) – “Joint Fires In Support Of
    Expeditionary Operations In The Littorals.” Charter states that
    • A significant gap exists in Joint and Service capabilities associated with naval
    fires and expeditionary warfare
    • No single document has ever addressed the overall capabilities – nor the balance
    between different systems – that will be required to provide effective, continuous,
    and sustainable supporting fires for increasingly capable expeditionary forces
    operating ashore
    • Formally stating the overall capabilities required of naval fires will assist not only
    in determining the most effective and efficient balance of capabilities but
    ultimately in determining the cumulative offensive fire power that naval forces
    must be capable of generating
    • Navy and Marine Corps agree that the ICD will be the basis for resolving NSFS
    requirements issues
    • Marine Corps representatives believe that validated requirements will help them
    compete with other programs for funding



    Recent Navy analysis found that the need for replacement NSFS
    capability continues to exist
    • Navy officials stated that their analysis confirms a capabilities
    gap exists during the early stages of a conflict
    • Analysis confirms that ships are best gap filler based on
    • Immature theater
    • Lack of air superiority
    • Capacity
    • Number of people placed in danger
    • All weather
    • Capability (24 hours/7 days per week)
    • Cost


    All from GAO-05-39R

    The current situation is that the mission gaps are from a lack of solutions. I don't care what the solution is, I'm just offering one that I think makes a cheap short lasting temporary solution.

    Your statement is made in a bubble. NFS in the form of a BB or DD(X) is a Navy responsibility that doesn't match the direction of USMC doctrine. In many ways, your statement without substance reminds me very much of the exact problems with the Navy today.
    Yes sir, I understand that. But recent statements as of december 05' have placed the USMC in agreement with the USN, even if they continue to bicker about the requirements. If you want more details please ask, I'm always willing to talk about one of my favorite fields of interest. Thanks for the reply.

  3. #63
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    Not much. Check the costs of developing ERGM. And it's like the other members have been saying, it's not an arguement about high price. The reality is that the DD(X) got canned.
    SO what? DDx got canned. (or very limited production run) The whole point about BBs is the idea that we need guns.

    Well we havn't used BBs for an amphibous assault since World War 2.

    The 1 tour of Vietnam proved that the 5/38 was the most effective NSFS weapon it carried. She was dumped quickly.

    It was kicked to the curb in ODS because it had to worry about mines.
    The only reason it was brought back in the 80s was as a ABL t-hawk carrier.


    Too bad we don't use it for everything. I'm not going to argue with you about something silly like this...the guns are there, and so is the mission and requirements.
    thats the argument. There has been no need for large caliber shore bombbardment since WW2. In the day of PGMs and accurate air support is their a present need? That question hasn't been asked.

    We do know that none of the amphibous operations since WW2 have failed because of a lack of NGF support.


    Recent Navy analysis found that the need for replacement NSFS
    capability continues to exist
    • Navy officials stated that their analysis confirms a capabilities
    gap exists during the early stages of a conflict

    • Analysis confirms that ships are best gap filler based on:

    • Immature theater
    • Lack of air superiority
    • Capacity
    • Number of people placed in danger
    • All weather
    • Capability (24 hours/7 days per week)
    • Cost
    Whats your source for this little gem?
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  4. #64
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought
    *I didnt say no other ships have recon arrangments like the Iowas. Destroyers sure have plenty of sensors and radar and some kind of recon suite among its many radar suites. The Iowas on the other hand use unmanned drones for spotting at intell on gunfire accuracy and some radar upgrades have been implemented. Helo's are shared through out the Navy for recon so that puts that out.
    You make it sound like Iowas are the only ship that carried RPVs. They were neither the first to deploy RPVs nor the only ships so equipped.


    [quote]
    *As far as striking further the Iowas are exactly helpless mind you outside Iowas guns the Toms on the Iowa's pending which version Anti ship (TASM), Land Attack (TLAM-C), and (TLAM-N) TLAM-N range capability is 1500 miles. As well the Harp systems vary in range pending its use 64nm/85nm. And as well have plenty of room for upgraded systems to be adapted and integrated. The room is there were just not using it and filling the space with excuses about manning them.[/quote

    Nope, scratch those Hawks. We havn't made ABL versions of tomahawk in years. And all the ABL ones we had were converted to VLS.

    May have plenty or room for the upgrades. I really doubt it. But does the ship have the power and the cooling capacity for those upgrades?


    Bottom line a Burke could never replace an Iowa two differnt ships two different purposes.
    Your right. But Burkes have a purpose in todays Navy. Iowas don't.

    * The Iowas have already proven they stand the test of time with minimal upgrades (63 years and still afloat and ready). The Burkes are constanly upgraded and have only lived 15 years and undergo constant upgrade.

    I'd take an updated Iowa.
    I'll take those 5 burkes (same manpower) or just 1 Burke. I've seen "The awesome firepower of the 16/50" and I'm not impressed.

    Better yet, give me LCS with netfires, Burkes with 5/62 ERGM/BTERM
    and throw in a few SHs or Harriers for good measure.
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  5. #65
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape
    Better yet, give me LCS with netfires, Burkes with 5/62 ERGM/BTERM
    ERGM?

    You're not asking much

  6. #66
    Global Moderator
    Devil's Advocate
    ArmchairGeneral's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 06
    Location
    Boston, MA.
    Posts
    4,668
    It seems to me that gunfire has 2 main advantages over airstrikes and missiles, 1) rapid response time, and 2) survivability, i.e. it's hard to shoot down a 16 inch shell.

    So, the first questions are 1) are these advantages worth the cost and 2) can we replicate them with another system?

    If we decide that NFS is required, then the questions are 1) can the 5/62 provide what is required, 2) can the 16/50 provide what is required, 3) can AGS provide what is required, and 4) if not any of these, what should be done?
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

  7. #67
    Global Moderator
    Devil's Advocate
    ArmchairGeneral's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 06
    Location
    Boston, MA.
    Posts
    4,668
    As regards the monitor idea, I've been thinking about that, too. How about a monitor with one 16/50 turret, pretty good armor, mid 20's speed, a small Mk 41 with ESSM and maybe ASROC, RAM, a helicopter+UAVs, and maybe a 76 mm or 5 incher? Of course, survivability would still be an issue, so extended range rounds for the 16s would still be desirable.

    (edit) or instead of the 16s maybe AGS?
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

  8. #68
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,125
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter
    ERGM?

    You're not asking much

    Well notice I did include BTERM to cover my 6
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  9. #69
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape
    Well notice I did include BTERM to cover my 6
    OK, I'll give you that one.....IF you give me some details on Saipan being worn out.

  10. #70
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral
    It seems to me that gunfire has 2 main advantages over airstrikes and missiles, 1) rapid response time, and 2) survivability, i.e. it's hard to shoot down a 16 inch shell.

    So, the first questions are 1) are these advantages
    worth the cost and 2) can we replicate them with another system?

    I doubt it's hard to shoot down a 16" shell...but the idea is that if you have 9 guns (18 if u have two BB's) , I doubt even our own systems could deal with all the 16" shells (18 I presume) as well as anything coming from a secondary battery such as a battery of 6.1" shells coming in. Not to mention any missiles fired. And of course we're talking NFS here, not some ship with ESSM, Sm-2/3 and/or possibly mk. 15's. Patriot missiles?

    If we decide that NFS is required, then the questions are 1) can the 5/62 provide what is required, 2) can the 16/50 provide what is required, 3) can AGS provide what is required, and 4) if not any of these, what should be done?
    Bean counters have already decided NFS is required.

  11. #71
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape
    SO what? DDx got canned. (or very limited production run) The whole point about BBs is the idea that we need guns.
    We do need guns. Do we need 16" guns is the question at hand. I'd say yes, because you'd have to build too many less capable ships to otherwise fill the gap.

    Well we havn't used BBs for an amphibous assault since World War 2.
    We've used them in every war since ww2 except for the current one. korea, nam', gulf war 1...and some minor conflicts.

    The 1 tour of Vietnam proved that the 5/38 was the most effective NSFS weapon it carried. She was dumped quickly.
    Gotta love the 5" shells. But the 5" shells were more accurate correct?

    But I need only respond with...NEA scenario?

    It was kicked to the curb in ODS because it had to worry about mines.
    The only reason it was brought back in the 80s was as a ABL t-hawk carrier.
    mines mines everywhere.


    thats the argument. There has been no need for large caliber shore bombbardment since WW2. In the day of PGMs and accurate air support is their a present need? That question hasn't been asked.
    Yes it has, the GAO report even pointed it. Air superiority needs to be established first. And yes, it would be established somewhat quickly even against more advanced oponents, but not instantly. Thats why the GAO and USN and USMC have stated that at the very begining of a conflict, NFS is vital.

    And furthermore on a shell by shell basis I'd wager that if your considering it from an NEA perspective where it becomes a lbs of HE situation, yeah large calibre weapons are needed.

    We do know that none of the amphibous operations since WW2 have failed because of a lack of NGF support.
    But the Iowa's were there participating with 16" support in every war since ww2 except for the current one.




    Whats your source for this little gem?
    The same little gem that was used in the post even directly before or after it.

    GAO-05-39R

  12. #72
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    We do need guns. Do we need 16" guns is the question at hand. I'd say yes, because you'd have to build too many less capable ships to otherwise fill the gap.
    The Navy and MC disagree. Also since their are only 36 tubes left, and I believe no liners. Where will we get replacments? There is no longer a capacity to make 16" tubes.

    I'll take more ships anyday. Because with only 2 Iowas, it would be easy for an enemy to figure out when they are unavaliable. And even avaliable, how long to get on station? With 1 per coast, you only have a deployment every 2 years. Not including yard work.

    Using the Burkes as the "argument ship". From a manning standpoint, 5 Burkes to every Iowa. I'll have 1 Burke on station, 2 able to surge deploy 1 doing refit so deployable in 30-60 days and 1 in the yard.

    As far as 16" rounds go. They dont meet the stated OMFTS fire support requirements. They also wouldn't be used in an area that we are trying to minimize collateral damage. There are also inherent restrictions since it is a gun that the advanced 5" rounds don't have.

    Your Saboted round has a CBU payload. So the "Better penetration from a 16"" is out the window. Has less submunitions and less flexable than current systems, such as TacTom.

    And why bring back a ship, for a weapon that will require years of testing before its certified and in production?

    If we want a long range ICM ejector, without using 1/2 mil dolar TacToms then we can bring NATACMs or a navy version of GMLRS (commonly called Polar) into production. They fit the ships we have now.

    NATACMS was sucessfully fired off the Mount Vernon in 1995. Engaged a target at 75 miles. Also fired from a Mk-41 VLS tube in 96. A weapon that has been test fired and capable of being fired from Every Mk-41 equipped ship in the fleet or
    bring back a ship that has no support web and work on a 20 yr old design for a round that might work. Wow sounds like a no brainer to me.

    We've used them in every war since ww2 except for the current one. korea, nam', gulf war 1...and some minor conflicts.
    And what did we do with them?


    Gotta love the 5" shells. But the 5" shells were more accurate correct?

    But I need only respond with...NEA scenario?
    You need to look at the parameters of the NEA scenario. Why does the NEA scenario done by the surface warfare guys use over twice the rounds that the SEA scenario does that was conducted by the Marine Corps?

    They discounted alot of fire support systems that would be used to instead make the NSFS requirement look larger. In the MC we use to call that "Operation Justify Existence"

    The Navy pulled the plug after 1 deployment off Nam because after studying the fire missions involved, weapons used and results, the same job could have been accomplished with a Gearing Class DD.


    mines mines everywhere.
    Yes and from Momsen on, Burkes have a self sweeping capability.


    Yes it has, the GAO report even pointed it. Air superiority needs to be established first. And yes, it would be established somewhat quickly even against more advanced oponents, but not instantly. Thats why the GAO and USN and USMC have stated that at the very begining of a conflict, NFS is vital.

    And furthermore on a shell by shell basis I'd wager that if your considering it from an NEA perspective where it becomes a lbs of HE situation, yeah large calibre weapons are needed.
    We don't do assaults without air superiority. Prior to that you battleshape with standoff weapons. Thats not a reason for a BB.

    Anyone that uses "Throw weight" or "Lbs of HE" as an argumet #1 has read too much from the USNSFSA and #2 doesn't understand the advances in munition effectivness since the 1960s.


    But the Iowa's were there participating with 16" support in every war since ww2 except for the current one.
    Name 1 amphibous assault since WW2 that the Iowa's have participated in.


    The same little gem that was used in the post even directly before or after it.

    GAO-05-39R
    Page # please.
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  13. #73
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,125
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter
    OK, I'll give you that one.....IF you give me some details on Saipan being worn out.

    The Cappuccino and Soft ice cream machines were broke in the 1st class mess POS ship!!!!!!!

    I had forgot about that question. Maybe after dinner I'll "Relive the Horror" andthen reply
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  14. #74
    -{SpoonmaN}-
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter
    If I am not mistaken, there was a rather terrible reliability problem with the Tigerfish torpedoes that HMS Conqueror was carrying.

    CMR Wreford-Brown used his tried and true Mark 8's and came home flying the Jolly Roger.
    A Second World War torpedo for a Second World War ship, makes perfect sense to me.

  15. #75
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,125
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter
    OK, I'll give you that one.....IF you give me some details on Saipan being worn out.

    Ventilation problems. Nothing like trying to sleep in a 100 Degree 96% humidity compartment.

    Plumbing problems. Various leaks. Low water pressure in the heads. Drains that never worked.

    Mechanical/electrical problems. Flight deck elevators that got stuck/jammed.
    WTDs that wouldn't dog down. Hydraulic lines that burst on hoist. Frequent loss of primary steerage.

    A brass fitting gave out and caused a berthing compartment to take on about 500 gal of JP-5 during a RAS. According to the BMs, it wasn't a one time event.

    Power surges, power drops, power outages. Electrical fires. One that I know was caused from a cable working itself loose in a transfer box, arcing between the bus bar and lug. You know what happens from there

    A whole bunch of stuff that, while no one thing is bad enough to say its really bad, when put together they add up to needing a long time in the yard. And probibly not worth the cost.

    Now granted she wasn't about to deploy. We got her for a TCAT because she was out doing the Osprey sea trials. The Navy extended her at sea time for 5 days for us.
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Big Battleship Doctrine
    By Defcon 6 in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 307
    Last Post: 17 Apr 08,, 10:58
  2. Battleship History Article
    By rickusn in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 17 Jan 07,, 16:16
  3. USN Admiral Responds.....
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 20 Jun 05,, 08:36

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •