Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
Not to mention the manpower suck- roughly the manpower of 8 Arleigh Burkes to man her, plus the resurrection of the BT rating and other obsolete job skills that the Navy no longer trains.
All the below are steam ships, requiring MM (the BT's were absorbed into the MM rate in 1997)
USS Wasp LHD-1
USS Essex LHD-2
USS Kearsarge LHD-3
USS Boxer LHD-4
USS Bataan LHD-5
USS BonHomme Richard LHD-6
USS Iwo Jima LHD-7
USS Emory S Land AS-39
USS Frank Cable AS-40
USS Blue Ridge LCC-19
USS Mount Whitney LCC-20
USS Ponce AFSB-15
Not sure how much margin in displacement is available on an Iowa, but I would think that Mk 56 and Mk 57 peripheral VLS could be used, mounted into faired sponson bumpouts outside of the current hull, increasing beam beyond the old Panamax limits above the waterline. And depending on where the Mk 57 is located, perhaps that might be lightened by removing the armor included in the Mk 57 VLS.
ok, if you look at the forward ABL's on the Iowas.. the platform they are on is approx. 87 x 28 ft a single 64 cell Mk 56 VLS is approx. 30 x 24 ft.. you could reasonably easy remove the 4 ABL's and in their place install two Mk 56 VLS launchers, giving an Iowa an upgrade from 32 Tomahawks to 128 Tomahawks, remove the rear ABL's and install two Harpoon launchers in each location giving her 48 Harpoons.. that's one HELL of a load out, especially since you'd have the 9 16" guns and 12 5" guns.. (also, the Iowa's can shoot 11" sabots to a range of approx. 100 miles..
I suspect the shipbuilding budget would have to be very much larger before Navy seriously considers reactivating the Iowas.
US Navy ship building budget is 21 billion dollars a year.. To convert the SSBN's into SSGN's it cost 1 billion dollars each.. for that SAME amount, they could have recomissioned the 4 Iowa's and given them almost the same amount of TLAM's 128 vs 154.. plus everything I posted in the post above..
US Navy ship building budget is 21 billion dollars a year.. To convert the SSBN's into SSGN's it cost 1 billion dollars each.. for that SAME amount, they could have recomissioned the 4 Iowa's and given them almost the same amount of TLAM's 128 vs 154.. plus everything I posted in the post above..
1200 (300 Blue/Gold) crew members vs 7200 crew members (4 x 1800 per ship). 4 SSGNs crewed for less than the price of one Iowa
Then add in training, spares, operating cost (fuel/POL), support (other ships they have to drag with them on deployment). The Navy made a great decision
I would disagree on the 16 inch guns serving no purpose in modern times.
If we are going to fantasize about reactivitating the Iowas, why not include development of a new sub-caliber precision guided base bleed long range projectile. That is well within reach technologically, and if there is money to reactivate Iowas, there should be money to make it more relevant.
11 inch sub-caliber munition is an old idea that showed some promise.
Base bleed is not new tech.
Raytheon is currently working on the N5 5 inch naval variant of their 6 inch Excalibur guidance package (see video below). Scale the technology up to 11 inch (subcaliber).
If you pour enough money into it you can make make anything work. What unique effect does the 16in gun (even once improved) bring to the battlefield that is currently lacking? Its no longer about making big holes its about effects based fire support
If you pour enough money into it you can make make anything work. What unique effect does the 16in gun (even once improved) bring to the battlefield that is currently lacking? Its no longer about making big holes its about effects based fire support
again.... "Such rhetoric stirs the blood of those whose fever for gunboat diplomacy echoes in the hollows of the night...."
If you pour enough money into it you can make make anything work. What unique effect does the 16in gun (even once improved) bring to the battlefield that is currently lacking? Its no longer about making big holes its about effects based fire support
naval gun fire support.. something that the Marines have been clamoring for since the demise of the battleships.. If you say that it's not required then WHY is artillery called "the king of battle".. and the current US Military artillery (Army and Marines is what 8".. kinda lacking right there.
...the Iowa's can shoot 11" sabots to a range of approx. 100 miles..
I needed to put that into some perspective. You might also find this amusing. The straight line distance between Newport RI and Nashua NH is 88.6 statute miles, 77 nautical miles.
naval gun fire support.. something that the Marines have been clamoring for since the demise of the battleships.. If you say that it's not required then WHY is artillery called "the king of battle".. and the current US Military artillery (Army and Marines is what 8".. kinda lacking right there.
I am curious? Naval gunfire support what happens when the Marines or any armed force moves inland say 20 plus miles?
I am curious? Naval gunfire support what happens when the Marines or any armed force moves inland say 20 plus miles?
I believe air (CAS) would take over from there.
"There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
I believe it's artillery and CAS and a host of others. The fire support of the 16" gun seams like a specious argument. Lets bring back the tiger tank and put anti armor missiles on it. BB's are awesome museum ships, but that's it.
naval gun fire support.. something that the Marines have been clamoring for since the demise of the battleships..
Actually we were clamoring about Naval Surface Fire Support before, during, and after the last time the BBs were in commission.
And If you take time to read the USMC position, Battleships do not meet the requirements for fire support under OMFTS. They are neither accurate enough nor fast enough. They are not flexible, they lack range and have many other problems. And the "solutions" such as RAP rounds, 11"Sabots create other problems while minimally meeting the base range requirement.
If you say that it's not required then WHY is artillery called "the king of battle".. and the current US Military artillery (Army and Marines is what 8".. kinda lacking right there.
Didn't say that indirect fires are not required. They are However, the King of Battle handle was earned before things like CAS. The largest tube artillery in the US Military is 155mm (about 6in).
If you look at things to come, and how things are changing, the number of tubes is/has been cut drastically. Improved accuracy, smaller more lethal warheads coupled with improvements like GMLRS and all kinds of leaps ahead in air delivered weapons means that while Gun/tube fire support still has a seat at the table, its importance has diminished.
If you want to improve NSFS then spend more on the Rail Gun, bring back the Naval MLRS. Spend money getting that to work. Same with NATACMS. Then take a San Antonio class hull fill it with VLS and rail guns. It doesn't have to be chopped and stuff moved around for modern radar and sensors. It already has that. And you have a new hull, not one that is on the wrong side of 70. Parts and the training system are already in place. Sell the BBs for scrap and use the money to fund that. Thats the only was BBs can be used to improve NSFS
(Note) before anyone gets their panties in a wad, I do not really wanting to sell the Iowas for scrap. Leave them where they are as Museums representing a bygone era.
Actually we were clamoring about Naval Surface Fire Support before, during, and after the last time the BBs were in commission.
And If you take time to read the USMC position, Battleships do not meet the requirements for fire support under OMFTS. They are neither accurate enough nor fast enough. They are not flexible, they lack range and have many other problems. And the "solutions" such as RAP rounds, 11"Sabots create other problems while minimally meeting the base range requirement.
Didn't say that indirect fires are not required. They are However, the King of Battle handle was earned before things like CAS. The largest tube artillery in the US Military is 155mm (about 6in).
If you look at things to come, and how things are changing, the number of tubes is/has been cut drastically. Improved accuracy, smaller more lethal warheads coupled with improvements like GMLRS and all kinds of leaps ahead in air delivered weapons means that while Gun/tube fire support still has a seat at the table, its importance has diminished.
If you want to improve NSFS then spend more on the Rail Gun, bring back the Naval MLRS. Spend money getting that to work. Same with NATACMS. Then take a San Antonio class hull fill it with VLS and rail guns. It doesn't have to be chopped and stuff moved around for modern radar and sensors. It already has that. And you have a new hull, not one that is on the wrong side of 70. Parts and the training system are already in place. Sell the BBs for scrap and use the money to fund that. Thats the only was BBs can be used to improve NSFS
(Note) before anyone gets their panties in a wad, I do not really wanting to sell the Iowas for scrap. Leave them where they are as Museums representing a bygone era.
GG you are so practical .... where is your BB passion ;^)
Attached Files
Last edited by blidgepump; 28 Jan 16,, 14:43.
Reason: typo
Tweet
Comment