What the Battleships Really Meant
I asked CNO Roughead at the Surface Navy Symposium in 2009 why the Navy didn't reactivate the battleships to fill the voids in NGFS and to ease CVN deployments. Without mentioning the USFSA, he and I spent more than 10 minutes discussing the WIP modernization, potential for long range precision guided munitions, the numbers of concerning areas within 50nm of the coast, and the ability to do all of this with mostly off the shelf GFCS, VLS, Mk45 5" guns in mothballs. After he said a bunch about TACAIR and tomahawks, I convinced him that shooting a scarce resource like tomahawks at everything you can't hit with a carrier is a bad idea. With that in mind, we discussed the tactical and economic utility of having battleships, he wound up saying:
"Well, the battleships don't reflect the image the modern Navy wants to have." He began to talk about how gunboat diplomacy is inappropriate in the modern world and how LCS was going to do great things for the Navy.
So, no, it's not a question about the tactical, technical, or economic pros or cons that the battleships have. It would be a challenge, sure! But so was reactivating them in the ‘80s. Just ask Rusty! However, today with the ease of converting unguided projectiles to guided projectiles (especially the 11" DSR) with either the plug and play course-corrective fuse, or the Excalibur Increment 1b GPS/SAL upgrade, they can easily have long range guided munitions. While more needs to be said in another battleship thread, suffice it to say that when it all boils down, the tactical, technical, and economic elements all favor the battleships.
What would the battleships mean to a modern USN sailor?
It would mean that we would have a super combatant that could arrive on scene and control the area.
It would mean you were in a ship that could protect you, even if its point defenses were compromised, and still allow you to fight back.
A battleship would mean that we have a ship that looked like it meant business.
A battleship would be a ship we could be proud of.
So, to a sailor, hearing from his CNO that the battleships look too mean for the "Global Force for Good" is not good. How do you think that makes a modern day sailor feel about his leadership? We don't have battleships because they look too aggressive.
I asked CNO Roughead at the Surface Navy Symposium in 2009 why the Navy didn't reactivate the battleships to fill the voids in NGFS and to ease CVN deployments. Without mentioning the USFSA, he and I spent more than 10 minutes discussing the WIP modernization, potential for long range precision guided munitions, the numbers of concerning areas within 50nm of the coast, and the ability to do all of this with mostly off the shelf GFCS, VLS, Mk45 5" guns in mothballs. After he said a bunch about TACAIR and tomahawks, I convinced him that shooting a scarce resource like tomahawks at everything you can't hit with a carrier is a bad idea. With that in mind, we discussed the tactical and economic utility of having battleships, he wound up saying:
"Well, the battleships don't reflect the image the modern Navy wants to have." He began to talk about how gunboat diplomacy is inappropriate in the modern world and how LCS was going to do great things for the Navy.
So, no, it's not a question about the tactical, technical, or economic pros or cons that the battleships have. It would be a challenge, sure! But so was reactivating them in the ‘80s. Just ask Rusty! However, today with the ease of converting unguided projectiles to guided projectiles (especially the 11" DSR) with either the plug and play course-corrective fuse, or the Excalibur Increment 1b GPS/SAL upgrade, they can easily have long range guided munitions. While more needs to be said in another battleship thread, suffice it to say that when it all boils down, the tactical, technical, and economic elements all favor the battleships.
What would the battleships mean to a modern USN sailor?
It would mean that we would have a super combatant that could arrive on scene and control the area.
It would mean you were in a ship that could protect you, even if its point defenses were compromised, and still allow you to fight back.
A battleship would mean that we have a ship that looked like it meant business.
A battleship would be a ship we could be proud of.
So, to a sailor, hearing from his CNO that the battleships look too mean for the "Global Force for Good" is not good. How do you think that makes a modern day sailor feel about his leadership? We don't have battleships because they look too aggressive.
Comment