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

  • #76
    Originally posted by rickusn
    No doubt.

    Expand a little on Polmar please. Because you seem to know more about the guy than I.
    Oh no, I really doubt that. Only what I've seen of him on The History Channel (and that remark in Muir's book). Something about him and his commentary just really chaps my hide
    Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

    Comment


    • #77
      Rick, i was referring to the post by Beaugeste93.

      Comment


      • #78
        "Single-mission"

        That's another bit of commonly espoused misinformation Rick.

        The BBs are fully capable of performing flag duties, NGFS, ASUW, strike, and sea control, even as presently configured.

        Comment


        • #79
          "BUT THE REAL REASON IS THAT THE USN & DoD(In General) DOESNT WANT THEM AND CONGRESS DOESNT WANT TO SHELL OUT THE MONEY TO MAKE THE USN REACTIVATE THEM."

          Agreed.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by M21Sniper
            "Single-mission"

            That's another bit of commonly espoused misinformation Rick.

            The BBs are fully capable of performing flag duties, NGFS, ASUW, strike, and sea control, even as presently configured.
            No they arent.

            Its misinformation that they can do more than provide NGFS w/o major upgrades and even that would be rudimentary and limited as now configured. They cant see, they cant hear and they have no Command and Control systems.

            There helo capability is strictly limited to liason and utility use.

            The armored box launchers for Tomahawk will never let me repeat never be reactivated.

            Command and Control much less Flag facilities would require all new electronics.

            They could certainly reconstitute Harpoon and Phalanx fairly easily so???????

            Actually when you make me think about it they are even more Single- Mission (or No-Mission)than I realized and even that isnt much w/o major communication upgrades.

            But then Im probably wrong. Yet always the Battleships even on a good day are only considered a NGFS asset by their most credible supporters and even their abilities there are limited..

            They have 16" guns that should have been made more capable than they are. But they werent and that would constitute another major upgrade to make them so.

            Do me a favor stop trying to make them something they arent and wont be even if reactivated w/o major upgrades.

            As they are now configured they are only "fully capable" of being museums(Wisconsin already is a De Facto Museum) at best & the IOWA not even that.

            Damn I love Battleships. My Dad was in the Wisconsin during Korea. Hell I even want to see them reactivated if possible. But they are what they are and not something else.

            And they will need alot of work just to be adequate NGFS assets much less anything else. Just because the USN doesnt have adequate NSFS doesnt mean the battleships are silver bullets. LOL

            Just because their hulls, interior and machinery are kept in virtually pristine condition has nothing to do with sensors, weapons, communications/data links, Flag facilities or a myriad other considerations. Such as habitability, damage control, pollution control etc etc etc.

            They are single-mission and single-mission only as presently configured.

            Misinformation? Look in the mirror. LOL

            Comment


            • #81
              Well, if we consider "mission" to be strictly either:

              AAW
              ASuW
              ASW
              NGSF

              then yeah, I'd have to say that's true, they are only single mission platforms.
              However, there are many other roles that they can play. Are these roles enough to justify reactivation? Sadly, probably not.
              As far as habitability and the other considerations, I am curious to know how much more they would have to be modernized to be brought up to 2005 standards. A lot of major work was done in the 80s, especially converting them from fuel oil to modern fuel.
              Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

              Comment


              • #82
                Here you go:

                http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...port+%22&hl=en


                Check out page four.

                What other roles?

                Hospital ship? My dad was in the Wisconsin. Been dead now almost four years. He laughed when I said this was brought up. Said then that makes tanks mobile operating rooms.

                Replenishment ship? Maybe in some circumstances.

                Repair ship? Some say. If you needed new naugahide for your seats.

                Mine warfare? Dont think so.

                Patrol Ship? No.

                Amphibious ship? No.

                Command Ship/Flag ship: Maybe with enough upgrades. Im doubtful though.

                Special Operations? No

                They have one purpose and one only NGFS. And that because of the lack of forsight limited but the best we got.

                If your gonna sell em thats what you have to sell them on.

                If you cant do that then scrap em or let them be museums.

                Oh ya thats what two are and basically thats what the Wisiconsin is and has been although limited because of CAT B procedures.

                If they were as impressive, awesome and do everything as some would have you believe they would still be in service. This simply is not the case.
                Last edited by rickusn; 22 Mar 05,, 02:00.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Replenishment as far as fuel, yes definitely, though obviously not as efficient or practical as a dedicated fleet oiler. They are obviously a good place for a thirsty destroyer when the usual oiler is nowhere in sight though.
                  Hospital ship? Not hardly, but they could (theoretically) be outfitted better, due to the space available, than a smaller ship.
                  Repair ship? Again, not a full-time concern, but the space again lends itself better than a smaller ship. I'd kinda have to dispute the (somewhat) facetious assertation that only upholestery work is available.

                  Rick, I have been in love with battleships since I was probably 8 years old.
                  When other kids were talking about Reggie Jackson and Carlton Fisk, my nose was buried in books about battleships.
                  But I have to state that, like you, I am neither vehemently pro-reactivation nor venomously anti-BB like some of those...gentlemen on the Warships1 board.
                  I would dearly love to see them back in service, but it just will not happen unless the world goes mad and a lot of money is available.
                  Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by M21Sniper

                    BTW, the Jersey in Lebannon destroyed a command bunker 5 stories underground that had resisted numerous US airstrikes previously.

                    Lots of disinformation floating around thanx to the many Iowa critics. It's a shame.
                    I respect your knowledge and opinions, M21 but...

                    Granted this is only one source "A Glimpse of Hell" by Charles C. Thompson pp. 139-140

                    "The Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed to let the battleship [New Jersey] fire on December 14, 1983. Eleven 1900-pound high-explosive shells were lobbed into the Shouf Mountains. THERE WERE NO SPOTTERS IN THE AIR OR ON THE GROUND TO ADJUST WHERE THE SHELLS FELL [my emphasis]. The results were pitiful. [the author does not define 'pitiful']...
                    She was cleared for another fire mission the afternoon of February 8, 1984. The targets-all located by satellite- were Druze and Syrian gun positions near a mountain village about fifteen miles east of Beirut. Again, no spotters were present. For eight hours, the New Jersey hurled nearly 300 sixteen-inch shells. She fired another thirteen shells on February 26 before heading back to her homeport...The results of these two missions were even worse than in December.
                    Marine Colonel Don Price, who had served in combat in Vietnam and was familiar with naval shore-fire bombardment practices investigated the New Jersey's gunnery in Lebanon and concluded that she missed her targets by as much as 10000 yards (about six miles). Price was convinced that some of the New Jersey's errant shells killed civilians living in the Shouf Mountains, although the Navy denied this. "You have a multimillion-dollar weapons system and nobody knows how to put the rounds anywhere near the target," Price said.
                    Although the Navy publically claimed that the New Jersey hit her targets, the CNO...thought otherwise...[he] met with RADM Bill Fogarty and asked him if there had been a powder problem when he commanded the New Jersey."

                    p. 138
                    " Fred Ralston, a fire controlman assigned to forward main plot, noticed that while the ship was firing on the San Clemente, California gunnery range, the velocity of the projectiles exiting the barrels was wildly erratic. Some projectiles left the muzzles travelling 120 feet per second faster and some 120 feet per second slower than the 1725 feet per second norm for a 2700-pound armor-piercing shell. Gunnery experts say that a deviation of only two or three feet per second is cause for alarm. The excessive deviation made it almost impossible for the New Jersey to aim her guns accurately. It also indicated that the powder could be unstable."

                    Poor powder (and no spotters ) was the root of the problems for the Iowas throughout the 80's and 90's. It was only after they found an uncontaminated supply that accuracy began to get where it should be.

                    These guns are capable of incredible accuracy, but along with the ship upgrades, we need new powder, and likely some new projectiles. They also need to shock-harden all the electronics. (it sounds ridiculous, but they didn't do it when they first refurbed NJ. The first salvo she fired out of the shipyard blew out most of the twidgets gear.)

                    You have to admit that one bunker hit out of 324 rounds fired is pitiful.
                    Rule 303

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      "I'd kinda have to dispute the (somewhat) facetious assertation that only upholestery work is available. "

                      I was sorta being a smart ass. LOL Good catch!!!! BTW good word "facetious". Its been a favorite of mine for over 30 years. LOL

                      But in all seriousness:

                      However in these days of reduced manning and lean budgets its unlikely that any of its shops would be properly manned or oufitted .

                      And in any event they were meant to (at one point in the history of battleships even necessary) support the ship itself not others.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Volume and weight of fire has always been the battleships primary NGFS role.

                        Accuracy and range secondary but certainly not unimportant.

                        Proper powder is certainly an important ingredient as is proper spotting.

                        16" guns arent as I stated before inherently inaccurate or were the Iowas shortcomings unsolvable. But neither should they be considered precision weapons.

                        They arent particularly well suited for close support work either. OTOH they are available 24 hours a day in all weather.

                        Provided they are within range. And that is a serious issue. After approx. twenty miles from the beach they are out of range.

                        Is that enough? Not according to USMC stated requirements.

                        Could they be outfitted with longer ranged shells certainly.

                        Gunnery has always been as much about art as science.

                        The best gunners have always been those who get to practice the most.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          "Its misinformation that they can do more than provide NGFS w/o major upgrades and even that would be rudimentary and limited as now configured. They cant see, they cant hear and they have no Command and Control systems."

                          The Iowa's command facilities were upgraded when they were modernized and reactivated in the 80s. (More details in following posts).

                          "There helo capability is strictly limited to liason and utility use."

                          They can do everything but house helos(or coordinate ASW ops), just like a Burke(except for the ASW ops, which a Burke can coordinate). They can refuel and re-arm them, and i suppose in a pinch, they could also repair them as well. An Iowa also obviously provides a large emergency landing platform as well(even for Harriers).

                          "The armored box launchers for Tomahawk will never let me repeat never be reactivated."

                          You're forgetting about the 16 Harpoon cruise missiles the Iowa's carry. Harpoon II is capable of attacking both land and sea targets(and most importantly requires no modification to existing launchers). That means an Iowa DOES have a strong ASUW and STRIKE capability, even without the TLAM box launchers.

                          And the 16" guns are just fine for STRIKE and ASUW out to a range of approx 23 miles.

                          "Command and Control much less Flag facilities would require all new electronics."

                          The Iowas were designed from the onset to provide extensive flag facilities. The Iowas C3I capabilities were largely upgraded when they were last reactivated.

                          "Actually when you make me think about it they are even more Single- Mission (or No-Mission)than I realized and even that isnt much w/o major communication upgrades."

                          I already outlined how they can perform the ASUW and STRIKE roles, so that's three right there...as presently configured. And perhaps you'll explain to me why an SAG based on an Iowa with a couple Aegis escorts can't perform in a sea control role...cause i can think of absolutely no reason why it can't.

                          "But then Im probably wrong. Yet always the Battleships even on a good day are only considered a NGFS asset by their most credible supporters and even their abilities there are limited.."

                          LOL, no they're not, by any means. I consider them to be a triple threat as currently configured, fully capable of performing NGFS, STRIKE, and ASUW. Because they are.

                          "They have 16" guns that should have been made more capable than they are. But they werent and that would constitute another major upgrade to make them so."

                          That's just an ammunition upgrade. Ammunition which was designed, tested, and validated in the 80s.(The DARPA 11" sabot rounds demonstrated a range of 90NM)

                          "Do me a favor stop trying to make them something they arent and wont be even if reactivated w/o major upgrades."

                          Sure, you stop trying to sell them short.

                          The Iowas are completely lacking in ASW and AAW, but that's irrelevant since they've always been intended to be escorted, even the day their keels were first laid.

                          "And they will need alot of work just to be adequate NGFS assets much less anything else. Just because the USN doesnt have adequate NSFS doesnt mean the battleships are silver bullets. LOL"

                          They're fine for NGFS now, as configured. Ideal? No, clearly not...but useful for sure. FAR more useful than anything else in the fleet, i can tell you that much with 100% assuredness.

                          "Just because their hulls, interior and machinery are kept in virtually pristine condition has nothing to do with sensors, weapons, communications/data links, Flag facilities or a myriad other considerations. Such as habitability, damage control, pollution control etc etc etc."

                          The Iowas have better damage control than any ships in the fleet but carriers. Three reasons: Their armor package, their firefighting capability, and their large crew. I've had too many surface sailors tell me that to not believe it's true. Not to mention that their armor package and massive compartmentalization make them uniquely well suited to withstanding battle damage to begin with.

                          "They are single-mission and single-mission only as presently configured.

                          Misinformation? Look in the mirror. LOL"

                          Sorry rick, but you're quite wrong, as i just demonstrated above. You're the one sewing disinformation here sailor.
                          Last edited by Bill; 22 Mar 05,, 14:15.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            "Replenishment ship? Maybe in some circumstances."

                            I would say definitely in some circumstances. An Iowa carries 2.5 MILLION gallons of bunkerage.

                            "Repair ship? Some say. If you needed new naugahide for your seats."

                            Can you name any ship in the fleet besides a carrier with more machine shops and mates in it? I'm guessing no.

                            "Mine warfare? Dont think so."

                            Neither can a DDG, CG, CV, or whatever. That's hardly a fair criticism.

                            "Patrol Ship? No."

                            No one ever said that an Iowa could do that without escort, at least certainly not me.

                            "Amphibious ship? No."

                            Neither can a CG, DDG, CV, etc, as above.

                            "Command Ship/Flag ship: Maybe with enough upgrades. Im doubtful though."

                            During the 80s they were upgraded and were used in that role extensively. I do allow that to be effective in that role to today's standards they'd need further modernization though.

                            "Special Operations? No"

                            Ummm....why not? I'm all ears for your reasoning behind that determination.

                            "They have one purpose and one only NGFS. And that because of the lack of forsight limited but the best we got."

                            And ASUW, and STRIKE. The Iowas as presently configured clearly have an ASUW and STRIKE capability besides NGFS. Stating otherwise is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

                            "If they were as impressive, awesome and do everything as some would have you believe they would still be in service. This simply is not the case."

                            Distorting the truth to back your argument won't win you any points with me. They were withdrawn for one reason, and one reason only.... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

                            And you know it.
                            Last edited by Bill; 22 Mar 05,, 11:00.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              "They arent particularly well suited for close support work either."

                              They're fine for close support as long as the FO knows what he's doing. You just intentionally call the firemission in long to avoid frating your own guys.

                              "Provided they are within range. And that is a serious issue. After approx. twenty miles from the beach they are out of range."

                              They have longer range than anything else in the fleet at this time, by a wide margin.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                "I respect your knowledge and opinions, M21 but..."

                                Thanx.

                                "The Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed to let the battleship [New Jersey] fire on December 14, 1983. Eleven 1900-pound high-explosive shells were lobbed into the Shouf Mountains. THERE WERE NO SPOTTERS IN THE AIR OR ON THE GROUND TO ADJUST WHERE THE SHELLS FELL [my emphasis]. The results were pitiful. [the author does not define 'pitiful']..."

                                Actually, the way that (reportedly) happened is that SecNav J.Lehman told President Reagan that the Iowa could kill that bunker where airstrikes had failed after the CNO told Reagan 'we have nothing in theater to kill that command bunker'.

                                Furious, Reagan immediately ordered the Jersey to destroy the target. Which it did without loss of US life. This was prior to the installation of the Iowa class BB's suite of unmanned aerial vehicles(UAVs). Since there was no FO to observe the fall of shot, the firemission was obviously going to suffer from poor accuracy, as any fire mission would.

                                "She was cleared for another fire mission the afternoon of February 8, 1984. The targets-all located by satellite- were Druze and Syrian gun positions near a mountain village about fifteen miles east of Beirut. Again, no spotters were present. For eight hours, the New Jersey hurled nearly 300 sixteen-inch shells. She fired another thirteen shells on February 26 before heading back to her homeport...The results of these two missions were even worse than in December.
                                Marine Colonel Don Price, who had served in combat in Vietnam and was familiar with naval shore-fire bombardment practices investigated the New Jersey's gunnery in Lebanon and concluded that she missed her targets by as much as 10000 yards (about six miles). Price was convinced that some of the New Jersey's errant shells killed civilians living in the Shouf Mountains, although the Navy denied this. "You have a multimillion-dollar weapons system and nobody knows how to put the rounds anywhere near the target," Price said."

                                Yes, well i welcome the author- or anyone- to try and adjust any arty firemission without a spotter or FO. The results would be the same. Exactly the same.

                                "Although the Navy publically claimed that the New Jersey hit her targets, the CNO...thought otherwise...[he] met with RADM Bill Fogarty and asked him if there had been a powder problem when he commanded the New Jersey."

                                The CNO at that time was strongly opposed to the BBs reactivation to begin with. I view anything he has to say about the BBs with skepticism.

                                p. 138
                                " Fred Ralston, a fire controlman assigned to forward main plot, noticed that while the ship was firing on the San Clemente, California gunnery range, the velocity of the projectiles exiting the barrels was wildly erratic. Some projectiles left the muzzles travelling 120 feet per second faster and some 120 feet per second slower than the 1725 feet per second norm for a 2700-pound armor-piercing shell. Gunnery experts say that a deviation of only two or three feet per second is cause for alarm. The excessive deviation made it almost impossible for the New Jersey to aim her guns accurately. It also indicated that the powder could be unstable."

                                That's flat BS. A S/D of 10fps is excellent. Nothing i am aware of has a S/D of 2-3 fps, not even match grade rifle ammunition. That claim is ridiculous. The S/D of the Mk7 16"/50s is just under 10fps...about equal to the best match grade rifle ammuntion.

                                "Poor powder (and no spotters ) was the root of the problems for the Iowas throughout the 80's and 90's. It was only after they found an uncontaminated supply that accuracy began to get where it should be."

                                The powder problems were later corrected, and radar sensors were mounted on the turrets to track the shells in flight, plus the UAVs were installed to give the Iowas an organic spotting capability. Their accuracy during ODS was greatly improved as a result, even with old pitted barrels and WWII era shells.

                                Rebarreled, with modern munitions, and in conjunction with the radar directors and UAVS of the BBs, the Iowas would have an artillery range and accuracy unparralled in the history of indirect fire. By a very wide margin IMO.

                                "You have to admit that one bunker hit out of 324 rounds fired is pitiful."

                                Considering that there was no capacity for adjusting fires used, it's to be expected. BTW, that bunker was hit 30 times, not once(See below post). Frankly, with no spotters or FOs adjusting the fire, it's amazing they hit it at all.

                                Just for the record, i have called probably as many as 500 fire missions(Real and simulated) and served in a 4.2" mortar plt.(both on the gun line and in the FDC) during my time in the military. I have a lot of real world experience with indirect fires. A lot more than the author of that book i'd wager.
                                Last edited by Bill; 22 Mar 05,, 14:21.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X