Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 212

Thread: Are battleships obsolete?

  1. #76
    Banned Shipwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jan 06
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    EX-148 has a range of like...100 Nautical Miles.
    NO WAY

  2. #77
    Banned Shipwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jan 06
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape
    It was kicked to the curb in ODS because it had to worry about mines.
    Not to mention the lacklustre performance (to say the least)...


    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape
    The only reason it was brought back in the 80s was as a ABL t-hawk carrier.
    John Lehman's megalomania was definitely a much more important factor at the time...
    Last edited by Shipwreck; 03 Jul 06, at 01:00.

  3. #78
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by Shipwreck
    NO WAY
    hi,

    i'm sorry. It was a typo. The Ex-148 has a range of like, 41-49 NM. That 100 NM was either an 8" or a 13" shell, also one of the DARPA projects of that point in time.

  4. #79
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    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.
    It's a temproary solution, not a long term one.

    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.
    More advanced rounds could negate that statement. If you wanna lob the ww2 era shells then your obviously going to do it in only a suitable enviroment. But the Ex-148 carrying submunitions would have been able to fulfill plenty of missions. Or a solid round could be used. But yeah, theres a mission for the ww2 shells and there'd be a mission for any future gen. shell.

    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.
    You've stated i don't know how many times that such penetration isn't needed anyhow. And tactom is expensive. And incidentally your arguement is totally silly. It defies every current military doctrine with this idea that what...your going to use tactom for everything? NO, I don't think so. They think they can build it for 550k? Well...well see, and even then I'd take my 100k shell since I can get 5 for that price. Whats the cost of exalibre?

    Tactom is a terrific weapon, but it's not a wunderwaffen and can't be used everytime. Well it could...but not according to the current Navy analysis on the subject.

    And why bring back a ship, for a weapon that will require years of testing before its certified and in production?
    Because it'll be years before a new solution is even put into motion for the current NFS situation. Might I also add that now that the DD(X) is dead, the fires gap is still there and...the Iowa could temporarily fill that gap. You don't need many of them since...well lets consider it. 1 DDX= 24 current gn DDG's in firepower. One Iowa equaled 3 DD(X)'s. That means one Iowa equals 72 current gen DDG's.

    You don't need more than one.

    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.
    And for the moment POLAR is just as much of a myth as the EX-148.

    I like how you word it to your advantage. An EX-148 is unpractical because it'd take years of testing before it's certified...yet a GMRLS won't? pllzz. I'd rather have my battleship with GMRLS.

    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.
    VLS can't be reloaded at sea.

    POLAR doesn't exist in production or in material form at all.

    I can make just as many arguements against your side of the issue as you can mine, or so it would seem.




    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?
    Link me to either of them or preferably both. I'd like to read all cover to cover.

    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"
    Link me.

    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.
    Link me, because it doesn't mean anything unless it can be used as viable proof. Until then we'll just go with the logic that the NEA was perfectly sound thank you.

    We don't do assaults without air superiority. Prior to that you battleshape with standoff weapons. Thats not a reason for a BB.
    NFS isn't all about assaults. It's about a lot of things. Opposed landings don't factor into the picture.

    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.
    Sure gunny. But theres people here who'd probably disagree with you. And lbs of HE was a primary factor in the NEA scenario.




    Name 1 amphibous assault since WW2 that the Iowa's have participated in.
    I never said they participated in one.

    Name all the times they participated in other missions since ww2. And as we all know...there were a lot of them!



    Page # please.
    It's in one of the slides at the bottom of the report.

  5. #80
    Global Moderator
    Devil's Advocate
    ArmchairGeneral's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 06
    Location
    Boston, MA.
    Posts
    4,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon6
    Because it'll be years before a new solution is even put into motion for the current NFS situation. Might I also add that now that the DD(X) is dead, the fires gap is still there and...the Iowa could temporarily fill that gap. You don't need many of them since...well lets consider it. 1 DDX= 24 current gn DDG's in firepower. One Iowa equaled 3 DD(X)'s. That means one Iowa equals 72 current gen DDG's.

    You don't need more than one.
    The question is not one of firepower, but availability. If you had a choice between 1 Iowa and 72 DDG-51s, would you really choose the Iowa? That's 72 5" guns, 6300 VLS tubes, 72 Aegis systems, 560 'Poons, vs 9 16" guns, 32 nonworking Tomahawk launchers, 16 Harpoons (or is it 32? I forget). It's a matter of coverage and flexibility. We need numbers of ships, because we have to cover the entire globe. And like it or not, the Iowas in their current configuration are single mission ships. Sure they can do limited surface warfare, but we have plenty of surface warfare capability already, with much longer range. We need ASW and AAW, plus littoral capabilities beyond NFS. I love the battleships, and if the money is there, I say modernize all the way, but if it's a choice, seems like new build ships with more flexibility are needed. And not new build battleships. Think DDX is expensive? BBX would be out of this world.
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

  6. #81
    Patron Sea Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Jan 06
    Posts
    225
    Bringing back two battleships is like saying we'll gonna bring back 2 1939 Ford pickups to replace two Humvees, from a spare parts point of view. Good luck. Yes, they are that obsolete.

    If the 16-inch guns had the proper powder, powder bags, and more gun barrel linings, I would suggest moving the 16-inch turrets to a new vessel. But they don't. Just because there are 15,000 16-inch shells remaining is not a good excuse to bring back the turrets, much less the battleships.

    Fort Sill has Atomic Annie at its Museum, the largest artillery piece ever in the American Army. Just because its there doesn't mean the Army wants to bring it back.

  7. #82
    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
    It's a temproary solution, not a long term one.
    The problem is that every time in the past that BBs are brought on active service, all work on NSFS stops.

    But its not like we can just jump in and have them ready to go in 6 months. Iíve gone over this part before but you have to reconstruct schools that no longer exist, and get them certified. Who teaches it? Where do they get their knowledge from? One of the big items in the explosion investigation was poor training of the turret crews.

    And all those former Gunners mates might remember the big stuff but itís the details that get you killed. They wonít remember them.

    There are parts from manufacturers that are no longer built, and companies that no longer exist. Who owns the patents and once that is squared away who wants to set up a assembly line for a limited run production. It would be right up there with the $500.00 coffee pots and Thousand dollar toilet seats.

    I could keep going but you get the idea


    More advanced rounds could negate that statement. If you wanna lob the ww2 era shells then your obviously going to do it in only a suitable enviroment. But the Ex-148 carrying submunitions would have been able to fulfill plenty of missions. Or a solid round could be used. But yeah, theres a mission for the ww2 shells and there'd be a mission for any future gen. shell.

    You've stated i don't know how many times that such penetration isn't needed anyhow. And tactom is expensive. And incidentally your arguement is totally silly. It defies every current military doctrine with this idea that what...your going to use tactom for everything? NO, I don't think so. They think they can build it for 550k? Well...well see, and even then I'd take my 100k shell since I can get 5 for that price. Whats the cost of exalibre?

    Tactom is a terrific weapon, but it's not a wunderwaffen and can't be used everytime. Well it could...but not according to the current Navy analysis on the subject.
    And thats one of the major flaws in your argument. Bring back BBs even though they wont do anything to negate this "NSFS gap" until we develop new rounds for the main guns. How many EX-148s have been fired?

    The current shells shoot like crap.

    Yes I still stand by the no need for 16" penetration, but that seems to be the standard argument when comparing them against other navy rounds. Call that a
    preemptive post. Same as your More HE throw weight argument.

    Price. Tac Tom for half a mil, And I never said it would be used for everything but lets say it is. I fire 1 tac Tom at 3 targets (It has that capability) from a Burke (since we have them) To get a real cost I have to add the operating cost of the ship and the cost of the personnel. Something tells me that it comes out a lot cheaper than a BB firing conventional rounds or your EX-148s . You will defiantly be firing more than 1 round per target.

    Your 100K rounds come with a 1500 man crew and operating cost for the Iowas. While my TacTom only need to pay the salaries of about 95 sailors and DD op cost.
    Because it'll be years before a new solution is even put into motion for the current NFS situation. Might I also add that now that the DD(X) is dead, the fires gap is still there and...the Iowa could temporarily fill that gap. You don't need many of them since...well lets consider it. 1 DDX= 24 current gn DDG's in firepower. One Iowa equaled 3 DD(X)'s. That means one Iowa equals 72 current gen DDG's.
    Now your just being silly.
    And for the moment POLAR is just as much of a myth as the EX-148.

    I like how you word it to your advantage. An EX-148 is unpractical because it'd take years of testing before it's certified...yet a GMRLS won't? pllzz. I'd rather have my battleship with GMRLS.
    GMLRS is in production so the testing phase, minus VLS compatibility is done. But NATACMS is ready to go. Much bigger bang, which seems to be something you want.
    Either way you cannot have either one without major mods to put VLS on your BB
    VLS can't be reloaded at sea.
    POLAR doesn't exist in production or in material form at all.
    I can make just as many arguements against your side of the issue as you can mine, or so it would seem.
    VLS cannot reload at Tom weights. That doesnít keep the 5/62 from being reloaded and there are enough DDs that we can afford to cycle them off the gunline for refills.
    And Polar does exist in the ground launched version. In production and in service!


    I cannot link you to any of the scenarios. I can read hard copies at the local base library.
    Granted the base is home to the EWG.



    NFS isn't all about assaults. It's about a lot of things. Opposed landings don't factor into the picture.
    Then what are you using it for?

    I'm assuming (being picky) that you mean NSFS.
    The purpose of NGF is to provide preland bombbardment , then to provide direct support until the landing force can establish on shore fire support, then it becomes GS and GSR. (thats the short answer, If you want to get picky I can provide the "Blockhouse" answer)


    Sure gunny. But theres people here who'd probably disagree with you. And lbs of HE was a primary factor in the NEA scenario.
    Iím sure there are. Do they have 20+ years of fire support experence?
    Are they versed in Effects Based Fireplanning? Do they know the true capabilities of weapons in the inventory?

    How would they explain that lbs of HE are important when I can show (for example) that a modern 105mm HE round with 5 lbs of Comp B filler and weighing around 35 lbs has the same killing radus as the M-107 155mm HE round with 15 lbs of Comp b filler that weighs 96lbs?

    Would you care to answer that question?

    Or on a base level how a ICM round is more effective than an equil size HE round even though there is less "HE throw weight".


    I never said they participated in one.
    ] But the main argument is that we donít have the NSFS to conduct an amphibious assault. Yet since the battle of Okinawa, Battleships have never been used in that role and none have failed. Air support seems to have covered those NSFS ďgapsĒ rather well. And munitions on the air side get better and better while your shells are still stuck in the 40s

    Name all the times they participated in other missions since ww2. And as we all know...there were a lot of them!
    And they shot like crap in the missions they were involved in during the 80s and 91.
    I saw it first hand. I also saw them shoot at Vieques and Subic. That was one of the big reasons they were gotten rid of after ODS


    It's in one of the slides at the bottom of the report.
    Thanks I had the one without the slideshow attached
    Last edited by Gun Grape; 04 Jul 06, at 05:39.
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  8. #83
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    [QUOTE=ArmchairGeneral]The question is not one of firepower, but availability. If you had a choice between 1 Iowa and 72 DDG-51s, would you really choose the Iowa?

    No, thats backwards thinking! An Iowa wouldn't cost anywhere near as much as 72 DDG's! Your getting 72 DDG's worth of firepower for 2.5 B per Iowa modernized. So yes, I would choose the Iowa.

    That's 72 5" guns, 6300 VLS tubes, 72 Aegis systems, 560 'Poons, vs 9 16" guns, 32 nonworking Tomahawk launchers, 16 Harpoons (or is it 32? I forget).
    All for about 130 Billion dollars. No thxs, I'll take my 1 Iowa. We have enough DDG's as it is. And if the Navy needs more DDG's it can by more since they each cost almost as much as a modernized Iowa. By the way, reactivation would be in the field of 500-800 M USD.

    It's a matter of coverage and flexibility. We need numbers of ships,
    See, you should have thought about what you were saying before you typed out this backwards arguement. We already have lots of DDG's. This isn't an either/or situation. It's a "lets keep our current DDG's, and also reactivate and modernize an Iowa or two since it fits into the budget that the DD(X) didn't!



    because we have to cover the entire globe. And like it or not, the Iowas in their current configuration are single mission ships. Sure they can do limited surface warfare, but we have plenty of surface warfare capability already, with much longer range. We need ASW and AAW, plus littoral capabilities beyond NFS. I love the battleships, and if the money is there, I say modernize all the way, but if it's a choice, seems like new build ships with more flexibility are needed. And not new build battleships.
    In light of my previous statements the rest of this is rhetoric. No offense of course cuz ur a cool guy and all, but you missunderstood my original statement. ^_^

    Think DDX is expensive? BBX would be out of this world.
    I'd say. The BBX was a concept ship for my BB Doctrine 4 thread. Has no relevancy to the current topic though.

  9. #84
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape
    The problem is that every time in the past that BBs are brought on active service, all work on NSFS stops.
    All work on NSFS has already stopped with the failing of the DD(X) program. We need something to cover us since we no longer have any NSFS solutions on the table.

    But its not like we can just jump in and have them ready to go in 6 months. Iíve gone over this part before but you have to reconstruct schools that no longer exist, and get them certified. Who teaches it? Where do they get their knowledge from? One of the big items in the explosion investigation was poor training of the turret crews.
    Yes sir, but this is where we diagree again. I say it'd take 12-18 months to put them to sea. That includes infrastructure refurbishment. A lot of the experience that worked on the Iowa's is still around. They just need to be brought out to get things in order.

    And all those former Gunners mates might remember the big stuff but itís the details that get you killed. They wonít remember them.
    The literature still exists on it. it's like a new weapon, it needs to be studied. I think this is a small problem compared to the big picture. GRMLS will need instruction, all weapons that don't have instruction available are the same way.

    There are parts from manufacturers that are no longer built, and companies that no longer exist. Who owns the patents and once that is squared away who wants to set up a assembly line for a limited run production. It would be right up there with the $500.00 coffee pots and Thousand dollar toilet seats.
    All part of the original 2.5 B per ship estimation. That included limited runs on needed parts.

    I could keep going but you get the idea
    yes sir. although I think it's a small problem.


    And thats one of the major flaws in your argument. Bring back BBs even though they wont do anything to negate this "NSFS gap" until we develop new rounds for the main guns. How many EX-148s have been fired?
    I'm not sure. There were advanced DARPA shells that were fired, altho i'm not sure if any were an EX-148. I think the 148 was just a concept and nothing more. nevertheless similarly advanced shells had been fired. and now Exalibre has pioneered the technology needed to make a better EX-148. A better Mk-8. A better Mk-7. I mean, while we're busy activating and modernizing the Iowa we can also put new NSFS solutions on the board since the Iowa's will only serve 15-25 years after putting to sea.

    The current shells shoot like crap.
    Well, thats to be expected for uber` old shells. You could probably develop something similar to a JDAM tail kit though...maybe derived from Exalibre technology.

    Yes I still stand by the no need for 16" penetration, but that seems to be the standard argument when comparing them against other navy rounds. Call that a preemptive post. Same as your More HE throw weight argument.
    With guided 16" munitions you wouldn't need to fire the x5 5" rounds. You could use one or two 16" rounds. So even in a limited firing exercise it'd still be useful (in example, an SEA scenario).

    And even though the ww2 shells don't meet collateral damage specs, thats a limited viewpoint. I mean, the air force drops the daisy cutter bombs and they always seem to be developing some sort of massive ordinance gravity bomb, the point being that sometimes excessive force is what is wanted and needed.

    So yeah, you won't want to fire one of the ww2 shells into the middle of Baghdad, but then again thats a limitation. A lot of weapons have limitations but we still have them.

    And then if you don't know where the enemy is, or your looking at ww2 grade fortifications then yeah, the more HE lbs per min NEA scneario is also a plus.

    Price. Tac Tom for half a mil, And I never said it would be used for everything but lets say it is. I fire 1 tac Tom at 3 targets (It has that capability) from a Burke (since we have them) To get a real cost I have to add the operating cost of the ship and the cost of the personnel. Something tells me that it comes out a lot cheaper than a BB firing conventional rounds or your EX-148s . You will defiantly be firing more than 1 round per target.
    VLS can't be reloaded at sea. Yes, the hawks are amazing weapons that can't be lessened by another system. But the guns in my arguement are toted as being needed by the Navy. So I do have the backing of both the USN and USMC analysis, and under the idea that NFS is needed, I proposed this solution. If they want the guns, then i think they'll save money by reactivating until a new solution can be put to sea.

    Your 100K rounds come with a 1500 man crew and operating cost for the Iowas. While my TacTom only need to pay the salaries of about 95 sailors and DD op cost.
    yeah, but the 1500 sailors were factored into my original arguement. The Iowa's were still a better buy. I think it was big battleship doctrine 3 that I brought out that arguement. Of course that was in comparison to the DD(X), but the DD(X) has a low running cost. Comparatively maintaining and running an Iowa is about 256 M a year with a DDG-51 escort. So...not a bad deal. Considering they carry 72 DDG's worth of firepower. Which would be augmented with modernization. Who knows the final figure? 1 Iowa modernized to 2006 standards= 120 current gen DDG's?

    Now your just being silly.
    lol. But the GAO was the one that came up with that DD(X) = 24 current gen DDG's. And they also stated that an Iowa = 3 DDX.

    You know I'm just playing around gunny. But my point is that my facts are backed by the GAO.

    GMLRS is in production so the testing phase, minus VLS compatibility is done. But NATACMS is ready to go. Much bigger bang, which seems to be something you want.
    Either way you cannot have either one without major mods to put VLS on your BB
    I know. 2.5 B should be enough to put those on there though. Since that was considered in the modernization costs.

    VLS cannot reload at Tom weights. That doesnít keep the 5/62 from being reloaded and there are enough DDs that we can afford to cycle them off the gunline for refills.
    And Polar does exist in the ground launched version. In production and in service!
    Yeah but the 5/62 is a gun. So that validates my arguement rather than yours sorta.

    Sorry about the POLAR bit, I just can't find it in a google search. Is it not called POLAR or something? Whats the actual name?


    I cannot link you to any of the scenarios. I can read hard copies at the local base library.
    Granted the base is home to the EWG.
    :(

    Well...I can't take your word for it. I've really really been wanting to read them both too. I'm kinda sad now. lol.




    Then what are you using it for?
    I wasn't. I was using NSFS and NFS just in the arguement as far as the way they are currently used. Of course maybe I typo'd some where. if so, sorry but I wasn't promoting the idea of an opposed landing.

    I'm assuming (being picky) that you mean NSFS.
    The purpose of NGF is to provide preland bombbardment , then to provide direct support until the landing force can establish on shore fire support, then it becomes GS and GSR. (thats the short answer, If you want to get picky I can provide the "Blockhouse" answer)
    gunny, ur confusing me. Didn't I say NSFS and NFS? I don't remember using NGF. Maybe I did without meaning too, if so I'm sorry about that.



    Iím sure there are. Do they have 20+ years of fire support experence?
    Are they versed in Effects Based Fireplanning? Do they know the true capabilities of weapons in the inventory?

    How would they explain that lbs of HE are important when I can show (for example) that a modern 105mm HE round with 5 lbs of Comp B filler and weighing around 35 lbs has the same killing radus as the M-107 155mm HE round with 15 lbs of Comp b filler that weighs 96lbs?

    Would you care to answer that question?

    Or on a base level how a ICM round is more effective than an equil size HE round even though there is less "HE throw weight".
    Gunny, I'm just going by what the NEA report said. As I already pointed out, the military obviously has super heavy bombs. So 105mm's can't do everything evidently. Of course we're talking about artillery here. But you get the idea. According to the NEA report, which is backed by the GAO's statement that gun's are the best system to use in the early stages of a conflict, HE lbs/min is whats important. So as you said, when they dismissed some of those other systems, it would have been on accordance with scenario's where guns would be most effective.



    ] But the main argument is that we donít have the NSFS to conduct an amphibious assault.
    Not my arguement.

    Gunny, I don't remember saying that, and if i did, I'm sorry for the confusion. Either way I've been promoting NFS and NSFS.


    Yet since the battle of Okinawa, Battleships have never been used in that role and none have failed. Air support seems to have covered those NSFS ďgapsĒ rather well. And munitions on the air side get better and better while your shells are still stuck in the 40s
    I know gunny. But I haven't ever promoted opposed landings in recent arguements. I mean, you keep repeating that and thats why I keep saying I know. Because I do. The USMC is been saying that opposed landings are a thing of the past.

    Either way, my shells would be precision guided. I mean, the ww2 shells can be used, but not alone. They are too limited and couldn't be used very often. Thats where the PGM's come in.


    And they shot like crap in the missions they were involved in during the 80s and 91.
    Well, we are talking about an old system. We need more accurate shells. As Rusty Battleship and M-21 has said many times, those shells did eliminate the targets they were suppose to.

    new tech is going to be developed for NSFS anyways, so why not throw a 16" shell in so we can field a solution like the Iowa?

    I saw it first hand. I also saw them shoot at Vieques and Subic. That was one of the big reasons they were gotten rid of after ODS
    Yeah. It's an old system. It needs some updates to be useful. Thats why I've never argued for it unless it came with developing PGM 16" shells.

    Thanks I had the one without the slideshow attached
    Oh? You can get the one I have at gao.gov

    Sorry for not being more clear about it :(

    You should get it though, those slides are really quite helpful and informative.

  10. #85
    Banned Shipwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jan 06
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    i'm sorry. It was a typo.
    Not to worry. It happens to the best people at times.


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    The Ex-148 has a range of like, 41-49 NM.
    Says who ?


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    There were advanced DARPA shells that were fired
    Advanced DARPA shells ? From a 16-inch gun ? I think not...


    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    As Rusty Battleship and M-21 has said many times, those shells did eliminate the targets they were suppose to.
    Not really.

    USS New Jersey's shooting of Lebanon was a miserable failure.

    USS Missouri & USS Wisconsin gunnery performance in ODS was lacklustre, with lower mission success rates than USS New Jersey in Vietnam (the latter being yet another failure with lower mission success rates than USS Missouri in Korea during February & March 1951).


    Happy 4th BTW
    Last edited by Shipwreck; 04 Jul 06, at 19:57.

  11. #86
    Regular
    Join Date
    02 Jul 05
    Location
    Booneville, Mississippi
    Posts
    64

    Perhaps they are obsolete

    Quote Originally Posted by Shipwreck
    Not to worry. It happens to the best people at times.




    Says who ?




    Advanced DARPA shells ? From a 16-inch gun ? I think not...




    Not really.

    USS New Jersey's shooting of Lebanon was a miserable failure.

    USS Missouri & USS Wisconsin gunnery performance in ODS was lacklustre, with lower mission success rates than USS New Jersey in Vietnam (the latter being yet another failure with lower mission success rates than USS Missouri in Korea during February & March 1951).


    Happy 4th BTW
    I can't remember the date exactly seems like it was right before christmas 1983. Most of our dead were carried out already by then. THe snipers were terrible. The best thing about them is that they couldn't seem to hit anything. But the threat was real enough. Our rules of engagement changed little in regards to returning fire. We just waited for the Navy to do something. We were informed that a fire mission was in the works but no one knew when.

    When they ( the USS New Jersey )started shooting it sure perked us up. WE felt like someone was getting some payback for us.

    So Shipwreck I reckon I just wanted to say that even though those salvos were a "dismal failure" as you put it. It sure perked up some Marines that definitely needed some perking up. Did'nt have alot of sniper activity after that either.

  12. #87
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnekgun
    I can't remember the date exactly seems like it was right before christmas 1983. Most of our dead were carried out already by then. THe snipers were terrible. The best thing about them is that they couldn't seem to hit anything. But the threat was real enough. Our rules of engagement changed little in regards to returning fire. We just waited for the Navy to do something. We were informed that a fire mission was in the works but no one knew when.

    When they ( the USS New Jersey )started shooting it sure perked us up. WE felt like someone was getting some payback for us.

    So Shipwreck I reckon I just wanted to say that even though those salvos were a "dismal failure" as you put it. It sure perked up some Marines that definitely needed some perking up. Did'nt have alot of sniper activity after that either.

    who were you with?
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  13. #88
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Says who ?

    Heavy Weight BB Projectiles with Extended Range Tested and/or under Development:
    1900 lb. Super Charge (24 NM)
    2240 lb. DX-149 (30.42 NM);
    1,300/16? (33.82 NM);
    1,350/13.65? EX-148 (44.97 NM)
    Testing in Nov 1968 / Feb 1969 to ranges over 45 nautical miles.
    A 750 lbs. 16?/11-inch sabot which was basis for proposed 1991 DARPA 100 mile (100NM) range sabot.



    Advanced DARPA shells ? From a 16-inch gun ? I think not...
    ?


    USS New Jersey's shooting of Lebanon was a miserable failure.
    Well, what'd you expect? It's a ww2 system. But if JDAM can be fitted to a dumb bomb like a Mk-84 then I don't see why not one of the ww2 16" shells. Might be a good idea...if you could produce some sort of tail kit for $18-25k, those could be used for short range, and something like the MK-148 at greater ranges. A saboted shell based on new tech might be capable of 100+ NM if assisted and guided.

    USS Missouri & USS Wisconsin gunnery performance in ODS was lacklustre, with lower mission success rates than USS New Jersey in Vietnam (the latter being yet another failure with lower mission success rates than USS Missouri in Korea during February & March 1951).
    Gonna need those PGM capabilities.


    Happy 4th BTW
    yes sir, and you too. ^_^

  14. #89
    Banned Shipwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jan 06
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnekgun
    When they (the USS New Jersey) started shooting it sure perked us up. WE felt like someone was getting some payback for us.

    So Shipwreck I reckon I just wanted to say that even though those salvos were a "dismal failure" as you put it. It sure perked up some Marines that definitely needed some perking up. Did'nt have alot of sniper activity after that either.
    John,

    1. I appreciate your response and am fully aware that quite a few Marines shared your feelings and perceptions at the time. I really don't mind anecdotes like that from a veteran : as a subjective truth they are perfectly fine.

    2. Nevertheless, other people closely involved in this whole mess at the time have (had) radically different perceptions of the situation : those Marines who were one way or another directly *in the loop* when USS New Jersey delivered her superb gunfire, some of the Navy officers from either USS New Jersey or USS Moosebrugger, part of the US Intelligence community in Lebanon or some diplomats to name a few.

    As a sidenote, when the first leaks on this splendid gunnery performance went public in a manner that what much too obvious (early 1985), some of the people from this second group (especially USN and USMC) were kindly invited to keep their subjective truth for themselves (aka STFU). Coincidentally, the 1984 GAO report covering the events has never been cleared for PD...

    3. Objectively, a mere glance at the chronology clearly reveals the complete failure of USS New Jersey as an *instrument of deterrence* :

    * 24 September 1983 : USS New Jersey arrives off Lebanon.

    * 23 October 1983 : suicide attack against USMC building at Beirut International Airport (and Drakkar building occupied by the French paras in Beirut South, Chatila neighborhood).

    * 4 December 1983 : Marines at Beirut airport under heavy gunfire (130mm cannons, 122mm rockets,...) from Syrian-held positions east of Beirut.

    * 4 December 1983 : two USN aircrafts downed (one A-7 from VA-15 and one A-6 from VA-85).

    * 15 December 1983 : USS New Jersey delivers first 16-inch gunfire strike against ennemy positions in the mountains Southeast of Beirut (11 rounds).

    * 8 January 1984 : first Marine killed since the BIA suicide attack as he exits a helicopter at a LZ on the edge of downtown Beirut.

    * 13 January 1984 : 30-minute gunfight between Marines in Beirut International Airport and assaillants firing from a position east of USMC perimeter.

    * 15 January 1984 : 3-hour battle between Marines in Beirut International Airport and Druze militias supported by 23mm autocannons, 12.7mm and 14.5mm HMGs, and possibly light mortars (airport closed).

    * 15 January 1984 : USS New Jersey delivers second 16-inch gunfire strike against ennemy positions (5 rounds IIRC, gunnery logs to be checked).

    * 6 February 1984 : Much of Beirut seized in streetfighting by Druze and Shiite militias. Lebanon Pdt Amine Gemayel nearly overthrown as a result.

    * 7 February 1984 : Decision to redeploy Marines from Beirut International Airport to ships offshore announced by Uncle Ron.

    * 8 February 1984 : USS New Jersey delivers third and final 16-inch gunfire strike in a magistral fireworks (288 rounds ), supposedly against ennemy positions somewhere in the Shuf mountains.

    * 21 February 1984 : offshore redeployment of Marines started.

    * 26 February 1984 : offshore redeployment of Marines completed.

    USS New Jersey's gunfire off Lebanon was not just a military fiasco, it was also a considerable political mistake as pretty well summarized by John H. Kelly (US Ambassador to Lebanon from 1986 to 1988) :

    I find the finger-pointing by the Americans in their memoirs self-demeaning. By my reckoning they should all shoulder a portion of the blame. I find it striking that no one has focused on the quality of the actual decision-making process. From the record it is clear that a lot of the decisions were based on wishful thinking (e.g., the presence of the battleship New Jersey will somehow intimidate the fighters into peace). There was a persistent habit of viewing ourselves as a neutral actor and a concomitant delusion that all of the hostile forces in Lebanon would so view us. There was also a continued tendency to confuse diplomatic goals with military tasks. Few of the senior decisionmakers were complete or truthful in their reports to Congress or the public the way that President Reagan was to his diary.
    (...) the Marines were there to bolster diplomacy, as an interposition force, a deterrent, a bargaining chip, to stabilize, to support the Government of Lebanon, even to keep the airport open. No one ever translated this into clear tasks or military missions. No one seems to have thought through what the implications were if the Marines were seen as the "handmaiden" of the Lebanese government.
    The particular tragedy of the Marine barracks, like the repeated bombing of our embassies, was the result of negligent and poor security measures. Even without the loss of 241 dead Marines in one day, support for the Marine presence would have evaporated over time as casualties continued, even if it took a few more months. The result, I believe, would have been the same. A token military force with a vague mission was probably a recipe for failure. The responsibility rests finally with the leaders who made the decisions.

    While the subjective truth of people who've been in this terrible mess deserves the greatest respect given the circumstances, the idee fixe among people only interested in servicing a mystique without any kind of intimate knowledge of what went on at the time is just breathless silliness.
    Last edited by Shipwreck; 05 Jul 06, at 15:55.

  15. #90
    Regular
    Join Date
    02 Jul 05
    Location
    Booneville, Mississippi
    Posts
    64

    I am not disputing the data

    I just wanted say how much we appreciated the New Jersey's efforts. From our perspective as grunts it made tolerable our unrealistic ( and unfair in my opinion ) rules of engagement at the time.

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
  •