Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by roffelskates View Post
    Cost effectiveness has to land here somewhere too. Maybe I'm not advocating the re-establishment of sea cruising dreadnoughts, but I'm advocating traditional fire support in favor of the smaller, more expensive, and less firepower of our frigate and cruiser ships that their main fire support weapon is the Tomahawk.

    Traditional Fire support since when? Chromite did not involve any BBs. And very little NGF from Cruisers.

    Most Fire support, fires in support of troops in contact, or called in by troops, comes in the 5in flavor. That includes WW2.

    And their main Fire support weapon is the 5", not the T-hawk.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by roffelskates View Post
      I think it's also helpful to know that a Tomahawk cruise missle costs about 600 THOUSAND DOLLARS? How much does a lead shell cost?
      Whats the range of that lead shell? Whats the range of that Tomahawk?

      Which one could be used for a strike in Afghanistan?

      Which one is outranged within 1-4 days of combat?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by roffelskates View Post
        I'm late into this conversation but I want to add that can't missiles be defeated by electronic warfare? We can't be totally dependent on tech when our enemies have access to disable it. A 38 inch shell can't be stopped by any amount of computing power, and the only defense is a VERY heavily reinforced bunker.
        Unless you need to use something like a VT fuze. Those can be jammed. As can the shipborne fire control radar, the FOs radio.

        Do you think our enimies have the capability to disable our tech?

        There may be a time where Tomahawks can be stopped and Air superiority doesn't exist. The only way for fire support to get there would be through land forces (dangerous), or Naval fire support, which is an easy, reliable method of fire support.
        If we don't have air superiority those ships will have to pull out or get sunk.
        They will be gone.

        Where are you thinking we would be in a position where naval ships could provide fire support? That would only happen close to shore or in an amphibious assault.

        We don't hit the beach without Air Superiority.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
          Whats the range of that lead shell? Whats the range of that Tomahawk?

          Which one could be used for a strike in Afghanistan?

          Which one is outranged within 1-4 days of combat?
          I thought they were working on sabot rounds that would have given those guns impressive range?

          And I'm sure with modern technology they could increase the accuracy of those rounds a huge margin.
          "If a man does his best, what else is there?"
          -General George Patton Jr.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michigan_Guy View Post
            I thought they were working on sabot rounds that would have given those guns impressive range?

            And I'm sure with modern technology they could increase the accuracy of those rounds a huge margin.
            There has been significant development with assisted rounds, but at the end of the day, even with guidance, a shell is basically LOS. The missile is not dependant on LOS to target, can waypoint on the way and can jump any bumps on the way in.

            again, it gets down to target, mission set, availability etc.....

            they're complimentary assets in the toolbox anyway. "one or 'tutha" and "one and 'tutha"
            Linkeden:
            http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
            http://cofda.wordpress.com/

            Comment


            • Sabot rounds cannot be fired over the heads of friendly troops. Nor can RAP rounds be fired where they will fall on troops if they experience rocket failure.

              You are stuck with a standard projectile if you plan to fire it in support of troops that cross the line of fire.

              Thats why NGF is only 1 part of the fires triad. The same as the other 2 legs. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. They complement each other.

              Comment


              • I'd like to see them back to. but the New Jersey cost a million bucks a day to keep operational in Nam. they were made for a war time economy. we had to send her home

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Michigan_Guy View Post
                  I thought they were working on sabot rounds that would have given those guns impressive range?

                  And I'm sure with modern technology they could increase the accuracy of those rounds a huge margin.
                  SABOT Rounds are Kinetic Energy (KE) Rounds and the Trajectory is vertually straight, due to its 'High Velocity' and therefor the Traget would have to be 'Line-of-Sight' (LOS), also SABOT would be useless against an area target.

                  If you used a 'Chemical Energey Round' (CE), which are a lot heavier and would be better against area targets and would not have to be LOS targets.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by namvet46 View Post
                    I'd like to see them back to. but the New Jersey cost a million bucks a day to keep operational in Nam. they were made for a war time economy. we had to send her home
                    *Politics sent her home to stay not the economy. She was more then ready for her second tour but politics intervened as usual. Therefore denied a second tour of duty.
                    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chaobam Armour View Post
                      SABOT Rounds are Kinetic Energy (KE) Rounds and the Trajectory is vertually straight, due to its 'High Velocity' and therefor the Traget would have to be 'Line-of-Sight' (LOS), also SABOT would be useless against an area target.
                      Not necessarily.

                      A 'Sabot' is the accepted term for the breakaway adapter that mates a small caliber round with a large caliber barrel.

                      99% of designs have been used for armor piercing ammunition which, as you point out is high velocity and flat trajectory.

                      However you can (and people have) apply the same concept to sub-caliber HE projectiles, several of which were under development for the Iowas and then cancelled with the decomissioning of the class. The HE-ER Mark 148 was 13" in diameter and weighed ~1,100lbs vs ~1,900 for the full caliber round.

                      There's also no reason you couldn't design an subcalibre ICM round to give you area target ability.


                      Sabot rounds cannot be fired over the heads of friendly troops.
                      You couldn't fire them over the heads of friendly troops if they were on the dock next to the battleship or over a nearby ship - but at the 60-70,000 range that you would be using them the light weight Sabot would have fallen away *long* before it got anywhere near the front line.



                      The real point against 16" gunfire support, and by extension the Iowas is as Gun Grape mentions even with ER ammunition it's only really useful if you happen to be fighting near the coast line. Even with a 70,000 or 100,000 yard range a 16" gun couldn't have covered all of Kuwait, much less hit bagdhad, Afganistan, Tehran, 70-80% of the Korean peninsula, etc.

                      Comment


                      • I figured I would remention this as it has been before by Rusty that the majority of good targets (outside capitals etc) but as far as transportation, railway, roadway, ship docking and in some cases airfields,airports tend to lye close to coastlines and do offer very good targets. The Iowas mission during the opening of the Gulf War was not to pound cities, they were there to feint amphibious landings as well as render sea control and director platforms in addition to gunfire support. Although their Toms did an awful amount of damage to infastructure and could have easily struck much deeper inland. They carried more Toms aboard then any other surface ship and that was an added plus to those 16" guns as well as their presence alone.

                        If they didnt need them, they would not have called upon them and that is undeniable and indisputable fact. Once again they proved their detractors "wrong".
                        Last edited by Dreadnought; 05 Aug 09,, 13:12.
                        Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                          I figured I would remention this as it has been before by Rusty that the majority of good targets (outside capitals etc) but as far as transportation, railway, roadway, ship docking and in some cases airfields,airports tend to lye close to coastlines and do offer very good targets.
                          That's entirely dependant on which country you're talking about. Against a country like Vietnam I would agree whole heartedly that Naval Gunfire is extremely useful. Against a country that actually has depth like Iraq, or worse though has no coastline like Afganistan, Kosovo, Serbia however would not investing the equivalent sum into more MRLS batteries or helicopters be a more practical way to spend limited funds? If you're going to provide gunfire support to troops why no put it in a system that can actually be deployed to any location they'll need to fight in?

                          If they didnt need them, they would not have called upon them and that is undeniable and indisputable fact. Once again they proved their detractors "wrong".
                          ...indisputable fact? Do you really think they "needed" to use B-2s against Afganistan. That somehow taliban hiding in caves posed such a severe AA threat that only the most expensive, stealthiest bomber flying impossibly long range missions could stand against them??? Of course not. They used them because they were *available.*

                          The Iowas were used in the Gulf war for exactly the same reason - not that any of the capabilities they brought were indespensible or any of the work they accomplished could not have been done by something else more cheaply, but rather since they had already been paid for and you're already paying the crews to man them you might as well get whatever use you can out of them to justify the expense.

                          The two battleships carried a total of 64 tomahawks at the cost of ~2800 crew. The San Jacinto or another VLS Tico could have carried 100+ for 1/8th the man power and a fraction of the fuel costs.

                          The empty LPDs could have trailed their coat for a far cheaper and cost effective feint.

                          The dozens of underused ASW ships and helicopters had no trouble dealing with the Iraqi navy. Indeed the biggest threat was from silkworm missles and mines, both of which they were largely impotant against and so were largely dealt with by other assets.

                          Certainly they did assist the advancing Saudi ground troops and encouraged the iraqi garisson on the island to surrender but neither was an indespensible contribution to the war.

                          Again it's a case of they were deployed because they were available, not because they were indespensible in any of the above roles.




                          Don't get me wrong I love the ships and am happy they survived to be preserved and in the 80s their reactivation was a powerful symbol of the rebirth of America conventional forces... but as far as practical *cost effective* weapon systems go they were too expensive to run for the 1 dimensional, albeit unique capability they brought. (16" gunfire) Once their value as symbols diminished it was innevitable that they would be bannished to the reserves in favour of (theorectically) systems and capabilities that had broader application in the post cold war world.


                          If 16" fire is so valuable you would be far better off building the modern equivalent of a monitor to accomodate it far less expensively and more effectively than the Iowas (which were never intended for shore bombardment) could.

                          Comment


                          • The Iowas were used in the Gulf war for exactly the same reason - not that any of the capabilities they brought were indespensible or any of the work they accomplished could not have been done by something else more cheaply, but rather since they had already been paid for and you're already paying the crews to man them you might as well get whatever use you can out of them to justify the expense.

                            *Disagree, You are attempting to compare apples and oranges. Many differences between them.

                            I dont know of any ERGM's in service at that time. A 5" inch wont even come close to equaling a 16". And the 16" is far cheaper then any missle or bomb you can launch or drop by far. As mentioned before far too many differences to state that one Tico could equal any one of those ships.
                            Last edited by Dreadnought; 05 Aug 09,, 17:36.
                            Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                            Comment


                            • They used them because they were *available.*

                              *If that were so they could have used all 4 of them since they were all "available" the Gulf War started in August of 1990 and Iowa which was the first out of service didnt Decom until Oct 1990, Followed by New Jersey in Feb 1991 and so fourth.

                              *Manpower was approx. 1517 per ship after the reacivation.

                              The Iowas bring a very unique tool to the toolbox. Enough said. If you would like to argue further points I suggest reading the entire thread as most arguments about them have already been discussed by experienced individuals. No reason for those of us who took part in them to rehash the past. Enjoy.
                              Last edited by Dreadnought; 05 Aug 09,, 18:01.
                              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                              Comment


                              • OK, so I looked through the pages and saw some mention of this, mostly in relation to Gulf War 1 -

                                Lets say tomorrow morning Israel bombs Iran's new reactor facility and sends a few bunker busters into the Nantanz underground labs. Iran fires whatever it can at Israel and the game is on.

                                Flash forward a few months and there's a serious conflict underway. A major amphib assault by allied forces is being planned. Even with air support from carrier and land based planes, it looks like itll still be a meat grinder, but it has to be done.

                                Does congress/USN think about reactivating the Iowa and Wisonsin for supporting this assault, both with their T-hawks, gunfire and mere presence?
                                You know JJ, Him could do it....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X