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

  • #91
    Here ya go:

    "On 8 February 1984, New Jersey fired almost 300 shells at Druze and Syrian positions in the Bekka Valley east of Beirut. Some 30 of these massive projectiles rained down on a Syrian command post, killing the general commanding Syrian forces in Lebanon and several other senior officers. This was the heaviest shore bombardment since the Korean War."

    That would be 30 hits on the command post, not 1 as the author of the book you quoted states.

    http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...y/bb62-nj.html
    (That site also contains a brief overview of the Jerseys entire battle history, which is quite an awesome read. Note also that it is the official USN site, so the 30 hits is the official USN version of events).

    Here's an interesting article written by one of my local papers during the Beirut ops:

    http://www.courierpostonline.com/bat...p/u121583a.htm

    And another one. Note how much differently the navy spoke about the Jerseys capabilities back then:

    http://www.courierpostonline.com/battleship/u122982.htm

    On the Jerseys abilities as a flag:

    "The last cruise of New Jersey included highlights as New Jersey flexed her muscle in several applications. First was her participation in PacEx '89, the largest peacetime naval operation since the World War II era. Throughout the rest of the cruise, New Jersey was the centerpiece of battle groups or surface action groups, exercising the battleship's versatility and flexibility. New Jersey cruised through the India Ocean and was the first to enter and operate in the Persian Gulf. On her return, she hosted the Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet, change of command onboard. She returned February 25, 1990."

    http://www.qsl.net/bb62/njhistory_recent.html
    (The Iowas were the flag ships for the new BBBG's that were formed at the time.)

    "Modernization During 1981-82
    Eight armored box launchers for 32 Tomahawk cruise missles
    Four quadruple canister launchers for 16 Harpoon anti-ship missles
    Four Vulcan/Phalanx weapon systems for aircraft/missle defense
    Advanced commnications(C3I) systems, air-search radar"

    http://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/index.cfm?fa=facts

    As far as fleet replenishment duties:

    "Fuel Capacity: 2,500,000 gallons"

    I'd say that makes it useful in such a role.

    On the BB's abilities to be the centerpiece of SAGs:

    "NEW JERSEY's next deployment was to be significant for another reason. It would be the first deployment of a battleship group since the Korean War. As centerpiece of the battle group, NEW JERSEY and her escorts operated from Hawaii to Thailand as the only United States Naval presence in that area from May to October, 1986, relieving a portion of the much-strained carrier commitment. The battleship battle group included anti-air and anti-submarine warfare capable cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and support ships. It was not intended to replace an aircraft carrier group. However, in areas of lesser enemy air and submarine threat it complemented the carriers with the great and unique fire power of its missiles and 16-inch guns. As a result of NEW JERSEY's deployment, the battleship battle group concept and the battleship modernization program were validated."

    http://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/index.cfm?fa=history

    Janes website used to have a very detailed battle history of all four Iowas(including beirut), but it's apparently a subscriber feature now, or has been taken off the site.
    Shame.

    I have a lot of data on a harddrive, but it's not going to be very useful to me sitting on my desk as it currently is, lol.
    Last edited by Bill; 22 Mar 05,, 14:23.

    Comment


    • #92
      http://www.usnfsa.org/DOD%20Document...attleships.pdf

      If you want to know what the DoD itself had to say about the accuracy of the Mk7 16"/50 guns, read the link above. It is an official DoD document.

      It notes the problems with the powder bags in the 80s, and the various steps that were taken to correct it(which goes far beyond just securing good powder supplies).

      Overall, the .pdf document is a very comprehensive look at the capabilities of the Iowas at the time they were removed from active service.

      This is a second source stating the same accuracy figures as the DoD document:

      http://home.sprynet.com/~frfrog2/miscellg.htm

      "Q. Just how effective were the 16" guns on the Iowa class battleships?

      A. Using a full powder charge the mighty 16"/50 caliber guns of the Iowa class battleships could throw the Mark 8 2700 pound AP projectile about 42,000 yards with a muzzle velocity of 2,450 f/s and the 1,900 pound Mark 13 "HC" explosive round about 41,000 yards with a muzzle velocity of 2,690 f/s. Velocity deviation of the ammunition was under 10 f/s for new or rebagged powder.

      The AP projectile carried a charge of only 41 pounds of ammonium picrate but it would penetrate 30 feet of high density reinforced concrete. The explosive round carried a charge of 153 pounds of ammonium picrate and fused for surface burst would clear an area 200 yards in diameter. With delayed fusing they would dig a crater 20 feet deep and 50 feet wide.

      An accuracy test fired on 23 November, 1987 by the USS Iowa (BB 61) using the AP projectile gave a pattern size (shot displacement on the ground) of 219 yards in diameter (15 rounds fired 5 rounds from from one barrel of each turret) at a range of 34,000 yards. Not bad from a floating gun platform using ammunition and powder manufactured in the late 1930s and 1940s and fired from different barrels.

      As an interesting footnote to history, besides the AP and standard explosive rounds, two "improved conventional munitions" (ICM) rounds were adopted in the late 1960s. They carried either 400 M43A1 wedge grenades (Mark 144/145) or 666 shaped charge bomblets (Mark 146). A nuclear projectile with a kiloton range warhead, designated Mark 23, was developed, tested and adopted in 1956 and available until 1961 . A subcaliber saboted round was also under development at one time. It utilized a spin stabilized 13" projectile weighing 1000 pounds at a design velocity of 3600 f/s and a range of 70,000 + yards.

      By the way, in naval parlance the "50 caliber" in the designation 16"/50 caliber means that the barrels are 50 "calibers" long, or 50 x 16" long--about 67 feet."

      The DoD document goes into much greater detail WRT accuracy and capabilities, but this is a decent synopsis if you don't feel like reading the whole 8 page DoD report.

      Regardless, now anyone concerned here at least has the actual relevant facts to make a judgement.

      The reasons the BBs were retired was because of man power and money. And manpower is all about money, so in the end...it was ALL about the almighty dollar.
      Last edited by Bill; 22 Mar 05,, 13:58.

      Comment


      • #93
        I was going to agree with you on this(even typed that at least we agree on something) but I cant:

        "The reasons the BBs were retired was because of man power and money. And manpower is all about money, so in the end...it was ALL about the almighty dollar."

        Heres why:

        Ive shown time and again that the manpower issue is disinformation at its best(worst?).

        The SSGN conversion is only the latest example that the money issue is the same kind of disinformation.

        Its basically what I said in a previous post:

        The USN never really did (hasnt, dont and wont) want(ed) the battleships in service and Congress never really did (hasnt, dont and(so far) wont) want(ed) to pay for it. But Congress certainly could(should?) they funded the SSGN's for cripes sake.

        Thats the reality. Anything else is lame excuses.

        Phase II of the battleship modernization was canceled in 1983 I thought it was later.

        Why? **See below**

        In 1995 the BBs were stricken and I quote " due to the expenditure necessary to ensure continued, reliable service; the costs of which would be disproportionate to the ships value."

        Stripping the ships of useful materials and equpiment started months before their actual decommissionings. The Missouri the last would have been retired by Sept. 30th 1991 but because the USN wanted her to participate in the 50th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack she was kept in commission with a caretaker crew.

        And like Ive said over and over and over: You have to convince the USN and/or Congress. Hasnt been done yet.

        Im well aware of what the BBs did in the 1980's. Posted all of it over the years. This isnt the 1980's.

        Your information on the abilities of the BB as anything other than NGFS is nearly 20 years old. They are no longer configured as such and even if they were all systems would be totally, hopelessly obsolete.

        **They didnt even have NTDS or Link-11/14. It was a quick way to get Tomahawk to sea in #s and as insurance of a sort until the USN got all the carriers it wanted . Which was soon eclipsed by the new VLS ships and VLS conversion of most of the Spruances.**

        The USN bluffed and nobody called them on it. LOL

        **Not only that but by 1990 the USN had their (16) 15 deployable carriers which is what they were after from the beginning. They had their Tomahawk VLS programs well in hand not only on the CG/DD/DDG classes but on 14 SSN also.**

        If the end if the Cold War hadnt happened which the USN used as an excuse they would have had to invent other justification . The USN had in fact already programmed their decommissionings. Talk about luck of the draw.

        Even their stellar service during ODS didnt save them. Didnt even come close.

        Your words "as presently configured" they are capable of and only capable of limited NGFS.

        And Ive stated repeatedly that they are the best weve got but apparently its not enough either. Or they would already have bee reactivated. Note again the incredibly expensive SSGN conversions.

        I have yet to see anyone with power and influence clamoring for immediate or even near future 2-5 years reactivation.

        "And ASUW, and STRIKE. The Iowas 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."

        The only person distorting the truth and misrepresenting facts is you. Not to mention totally misunderstanding history. "As presently configured" they can do neither. Any electronic systems onboard are totally obsolete if in fact any are still aboard. They have racks for Harpoon and armored box launchers for Tomahawk all for show with no subtance.

        Touting their machine shops is ludicrous BTW.

        And I dont need to win points only hardcore BB supporters do and they havent. And not with me. I think Ive shown Im actually on their side. Although its quite obvious you missed that. LOL

        When they do let me know. Ill be the first to congratulate them.

        Until then they will stay in CAT B as "possible" NGFS assets at best and thats it.

        If you have hard info that says otherwise please share it. I shared the latest I found.

        Notice. Pay attention here. The whole article is about NSFS and in particular NGFS abilities of the battleships. Also notice the dates of those quoted. LOL Even one dead. And Lehman hes the one who canceled their Phase II mod in the first place and in fact limted thie reactivation mods. But hes the battleship supporters hero? LOL

        No wonder its pretty much a dead mainstream issue.

        Notice there has been no public support of this article.

        I was hoping there would be more interest there isnt.

        All this has been is an excerise in futility. Nothing but a rehash of the same old stuff.

        Got Sniper all antagonized once again. Me too to a point. But Im getting sorta used to it. LOL

        Why we tolerate each other is sometimes beyond me.

        For me Sniper makes my reasoning so much clearer.

        For him who knows. LOL

        Ive never seen two guys on the same side of an issue appear(or is it actually) so diametrically opposed. LOL

        Wish I wouldnt have posted the damn article in the first place.

        Ive wasted far tooooooo much time on this issue once again for no good reason.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by rickusn
          In 1995 the BBs were stricken and I quote " due to the expenditure necessary to ensure continued, reliable service; the costs of which would be disproportionate to the ships value."
          The battleship in my opinion was a great weapons platform but to the Navy brass it was a competitor with the aircraft carrier. The Navy wants every aircraft carrier it can whether it means killing the battleship program or an army division didn't matter.

          The Pentagon is filled with stories of new weapons systems that are great but unwanted because it threatens the way the old brass likes things and other stories about old weapons systems that are great but thrown away because its not the kind of hot item the brass likes.

          To me the battleship, the cruise missile, and the A-10 have a similar history. Each of these systems is great for what it was designed for but primarily helped other service branches. Each of these items threatened the funding of programs the brass in their respective services wanted (Navy aircraft carrier/Air Force B-1 Bombers/Air Force F-15 ground support version). Other services called for these systems to be saved. The marines liked the Battleship, the Navy kept the cruise missile alive thanks to civilian pressure, and the Army was fighting to keep the Air Forces A-10s before they proved themselves in Desert Storm.

          What's the Navy carrier count today? 12-14? I don't know off the top of my head. What's the most they ever used in battle at one time since World War II? 4, maybe 5. If in the current world they only need 6-8 carriers at most but want to keep 12-14 you aren't going to let any new (or old) system infringe on that money.

          I think carriers are great to take a battle to a third rate country where we have no bases. You can't find any of these tin pot dictators that warrant more than 4 of them however. If things go nuclear in a major power war however the carrier is a relic to an age long ago. A destroyer, submarine, or land based bomber with nuclear missiles or torpedos is just as effective. I wonder how hard the Navy brass is going to fight to stop the Air Force hypersonic bomber program (two hours to target anywhere on Earth) or the satellites that will drop rods from space so they can fight to keep their museums afloat.

          Comment


          • #95
            Your post started out Ok. But quickly fell apart. LOL

            If youve been following my World Navies posts knowing how many carriers the USN has would be a no-brainer.

            How many carriers are needed is not a function of how many are engaged in battle at one time.

            And this:

            "If things go nuclear in a major power war however the carrier is a relic to an age long ago. "

            Well the less said the better I guess. LOL As EVERYTHING would be as you stated. LOL

            The end? Well whatever your on I sure could use some. Do you share? LOL

            Comment


            • #96
              "I was going to agree with you on this(even typed that at least we agree on something) but I cant:"

              Damn....well, almost. ;)

              "Ive shown time and again that the manpower issue is disinformation at its best(worst?).

              The SSGN conversion is only the latest example that the money issue is the same kind of disinformation."

              The USN simply doesn't want to commit scarce manpower and funds to the battleships. They have decided in their infinite wisdom(cough...cough) that the BB's do not offer enough cost effectiveness, and have therefore spent their funds on other programs. I can tell you this much, for what they've already pissed away on DD-21 and DD-X they could've probably already modernized and reactivated the two remaining BBs, or at least come close.

              "The USN never really did (hasnt, dont and wont) want(ed) the battleships in service and Congress never really did (hasnt, dont and(so far) wont) want(ed) to pay for it. But Congress certainly could(should?) they funded the SSGN's for cripes sake.

              Thats the reality. Anything else is lame excuses."

              The reality is that the USN feels they get more bang for the buck with other weapons systems. I don't agree...but that's the USNs finding.

              "In 1995 the BBs were stricken and I quote " due to the expenditure necessary to ensure continued, reliable service; the costs of which would be disproportionate to the ships value."

              That's just about exactly what i just said.

              "And like Ive said over and over and over: You have to convince the USN and/or Congress. Hasnt been done yet."

              I doubt it ever will, however, that does not change the fact that the Iowas still could play a useful role in today's navy.

              "Im well aware of what the BBs did in the 1980's. Posted all of it over the years. This isnt the 1980's."

              So? What does the date have to do with anything?

              "Your information on the abilities of the BB as anything other than NGFS is nearly 20 years old. They are no longer configured as such and even if they were all systems would be totally, hopelessly obsolete."

              Sure Rick, you're telling me this when we've got even more obsolete Perrys and Sprucans floating all over the oceans of the world. The Perrys are just about totally defenseless. The BB's still have Harpoon, the system still works just fine(in fact i'd call it battleproven)...therefore they have a triple role as presently configured.

              "**Not only that but by 1990 the USN had their (16) 15 deployable carriers which is what they were after from the beginning. They had their Tomahawk VLS programs well in hand not only on the CG/DD/DDG classes but on 14 SSN also.**"

              None of that changes the fact that the Iowa can perform ASUW, STRIKE, and NGFS as presently configured. It just means there are other platforms that can do STRIKE and NGFS better, as presently configured. That DOES NOT mean the BB has no capibility to perform those missions.

              "Your words "as presently configured" they are capable of and only capable of limited NGFS."

              I've demonstrated in black and white that this is not the case at all. You're continuing denial is befuddling to me.

              "And Ive stated repeatedly that they are the best weve got but apparently its not enough either. Or they would already have bee reactivated. Note again the incredibly expensive SSGN conversions."

              You do know what priorities are, right? The USN has aligned it's priorities away from BBs, and toward the SSGNs and carriers. It doesn't mean they're right....just that that is the course of action they've pursued.

              "I have yet to see anyone with power and influence clamoring for immediate or even near future 2-5 years reactivation."

              Irrelevant.

              "The only person distorting the truth and misrepresenting facts is you. Not to mention totally misunderstanding history. "As presently configured" they can do neither."

              Bullshiit Rick. That's flat bullshiit, as i have demonstrated in above links. What's with your pig-headedness on this issue? You're wrong, admit it.

              "Any electronic systems onboard are totally obsolete if in fact any are still aboard. They have racks for Harpoon and armored box launchers for Tomahawk all for show with no subtance."

              The electronics on the two Cat B ships are intact, and they're comparable to many other older USN ships in the fleet, like the Sprucans and the Perrys. The BB's have early 80s electronics, just like hundreds of other warships in service in the world today.

              "Touting their machine shops is ludicrous BTW."

              Well nice job laying out some facts to back that argument Rick.

              "Until then they will stay in CAT B as "possible" NGFS assets at best and thats it."

              When/if/why they're re-activated is totally irrelevant to a discussion of their capabilities, now...or in the future.

              You can't seem to get past the fact that they're not gonna be re-activated, which prevents you from actually looking at what they're capable of. It doesn't matter if they're reactivated or not, the capabilities of the Iowas are what they are. They can perform STRIKE and ASUW and NGFS with their Harpoons and Mk7 guns as presently configured.

              That's that.

              Comment


              • #97
                Youve totally lost it.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Rick, i have no idea whatsoever what would lead you to that conclusion.

                  I have laid out my argument with facts backed up by numerous links.

                  Frankly, i don't even know what you can possibly take issue with WRT the arguments i've laid forth.

                  Like i said earlier, your position on this issue befuddles me.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Forgive me if I've stepped out of line, but my dear friends, please don't let this degenerate into an unseemly brawl, like those found on Warships1
                    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


                    • These ships seem to get a lot of people emotional.

                      I don't get it either.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        These ships seem to get a lot of people emotional.

                        I don't get it either.
                        Hasn't that been the history of capital ships for a long time. They are expensive and beautiful and naval people base their lives around them. Their love for their ships destroys logic and reason.

                        I see all the convoluted logic to justify no battleships or massive carrier forces. Take those people and put them in 1914 or 1935 and they would have not seen the future either.

                        Carriers are a great system to give air cover in the initial stages of a campaign until local airbases are secured so the far more efficient Air Force takes over. The first sign of a credible defense they back the carrier away. The true deep strike weapons are missiles launched off non-carrier surface ships, submarines, and Air Force aircraft. Once the place is "safe" for the carrier they join the battle.

                        Look at the China/Taiwan thread and who is going to take out the Chinese navy? Submarines.

                        I understand the Navy logic that for every carrier you think you need in war you need 3 real carriers. Can you see that logic given to Army Divisions? Of course not. The Navy needs about 4 carriers to fight any potential country in the world except Russia. Give them a few more to make the Admirals happy that are laid up in dry dock at any given time.

                        If you need more than 4 aircraft carriers to fight a war they will be calling the war World War III. I'll take a submarine with nuclear tipped missiles anyday in that conflict.

                        Saying that the battleship is an exellent missile platform and a great way to provide local fire support means that one more carrier may not be needed. The Navy will never say that.

                        Comment


                        • I agree with most of that, but i do think that we're really at the lower end of carriers in the fleet.

                          Remember, our carriers now carry about 30 less A/C than they did during the 90TACAIR days of the Cold War, so in effect, we really only have about 9 carriers worth of(some would say less effective) planes when compared to the Cold war force structure.

                          The interesting thing is that i'm not calling for a BB instead of a carrier, or BBs at all....i'm just stating that they're far more useful than just providing NGFS even as presently configured.

                          I don't think they'll ever be re-activated.

                          Comment


                          • You know I've been wondering what would it cost the USN to creat a newer 35 to 40 K ton ship with 6- 16inch (3 turret 2 gun config) and all the new age fanciness, hell you can even give them that new predator system if someone designed a recovery system. You could proabbly cannibalize the last 2 Iowas and make 3 of the new class of BB/BCs.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FlyingCaddy
                              You know I've been wondering what would it cost the USN to creat a newer 35 to 40 K ton ship with 6- 16inch (3 turret 2 gun config) and all the new age fanciness, hell you can even give them that new predator system if someone designed a recovery system. You could proabbly cannibalize the last 2 Iowas and make 3 of the new class of BB/BCs.

                              I'd like to see it, but it'll never happen. I don't know why they couldn't put a single 8" or so turret on the new CG-X. Expensive, but it would add some NGFS capability back to the fleet.
                              Rule 303

                              Comment


                              • I just wanted to fix my last post I meant 25-35K ton BB/BC, all my other points remaining the same

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X