Big Battleship Doctrine 2

[Defcon 6]

Alright. Rockets are great. But they can be mounted on mostly any ship.

Nevertheless, you may be arguing for the future. But the USN says they need guns. They have to have their guns. Thus reactivation is a much better answer to what they want. Really thats the end of the arguement. I mean, I keep waiting for someone to either agree that the Iowa reactivation is the best solution, or tell why it isn't. Instead you guys keep tossing out arsenal ships, and rocket data and exalibur data. Problem with Exalibur as the gunny has previously stated, is it's not in production. And when it does, it will be perfectly clear that 16" guided rounds could be developed as well.

Thus Smitty, i'm going to have to simply tell you, that my Iowa reactivation wins because it fits with the USN agenda. Even if they seem to think they don't need it. I mean, really thats the final word. They don't want all rockets and no guns. And the whole idea of mine in the first place, was to build 5 DD(X)'s instead of 7, use the money from the 2 DD(X)
s to reactivate 2 Iowa's. And it's the best plan currently since it's the most compatible.

 

[Defcon 6]

As an interesting side note. Yes I have seen that slide

But it wouldn't change the NEA scenario, since the NEA scenario's primary concern was HE lbs on target per minute.

I think this is the point in the thread, where we all realize that this isn't about whats better. It's about what the USN claims they need. USN claims they need sufficient firepower for the NEA scenario as well as the SEA scenario. But they don't have it. Not because they think it's necessary risk, but because...well, it's all politics. The beaurecrats aren't thinking logically. They go off and build 7 DD(X)'s when 2 Iowa's carry as much firepower as 6 of those DD(X)'s.

So as you can see, 2 Iowa's would add more to that group of DD(X)'s than an additional 2 DD(X)'s. It just makes more sense. Adding two Iowa's would be like adding 6 DD(X)'s to that 5 they would build if I had my way. So equivalent to 11 DD(X)'s using the same amount of money! Like I said, makes more sense than what they are currently doing.

 

[B.Smitty]

Give the USN and USMC some credit. Perhaps they know more about their needs than you do.

My read is that they want something to augment their 5" guns, but not at the expense of reactivating two manpower-sink relics and dumping billions into them.

They don't want guns that bad. And they don't want huge guns.

At least that's my take.

 

[B.Smitty]

I wonder if you could put a 155mm turret like MONARC on an LCS hull? They say it only takes up as much space as a 76mm.

Might fit on the Lockheed monohull. Might also be too much gun for that sized ship.

 

[Defcon 6]

Give the USN and USMC some credit. Perhaps they know more about their needs than you do.

My read is that they want something to augment their 5" guns, but not at the expense of reactivating two manpower-sink relics and dumping billions into them.

They don't want guns that bad. And they don't want huge guns.

At least that's my take.

No, your take is incorrect.

Your idea doesn't work because they want guns.

My idea doesn't work because of the politics of it all.

Mannin requirements aren't all that high, I have posted the figures.

They don't care if the gun is huge, so long as it gets the job done.

And I feel the same way.

 

[Defcon 6]

I wonder if you could put a 155mm turret like MONARC on an LCS hull? They say it only takes up as much space as a 76mm.

Might fit on the Lockheed monohull. Might also be too much gun for that sized ship.

Stupid idea. The current 155mm guns don't put enough HE on target. So now you'll just stick only one on an LCS with a much smaller ammo capacity.

Great idea. Create more wastes and inefficiency.

 

[B.Smitty]

They have guns (5") and are getting more, newer guns (AGS).

Do you have anything (recent) from the USN or USMC stating that they want BBs?

 

[Defcon 6]

I never said they wanted BB's. In fact I stated that they didn't want them. duh.

 

[Gun Grape]

Nevertheless, you may be arguing for the future. But the USN says they need guns. They have to have their guns. Thus reactivation is a much better answer to what they want. Really thats the end of the arguement. I mean, I keep waiting for someone to either agree that the Iowa reactivation is the best solution, or tell why it isn't. Instead you guys keep tossing out arsenal ships, and rocket data and exalibur data. Problem with Exalibur as the gunny has previously stated, is it's not in production. And when it does, it will be perfectly clear that 16" guided rounds could be developed as well.

Thus Smitty, i'm going to have to simply tell you, that my Iowa reactivation wins because it fits with the USN agenda. Even if they seem to think they don't need it. I mean, really thats the final word. They don't want all rockets and no guns. And the whole idea of mine in the first place, was to build 5 DD(X)'s instead of 7, use the money from the 2 DD(X)
s to reactivate 2 Iowa's. And it's the best plan currently since it's the most compatible.

The Navy needs guns. I agree. But not for NSFS. They need a good DP gun, like the 5"/54 for stopping foreign shipping. You can fire a couple of 5" across the bow to get their attention, You cannot fire a few TacToms across their bow.

In the beginnign, they never wanted AGS. They planned to do land attack with rockets. Versions of SM-2, SLAM,TLAM. and Polarand NTACMS. Well someone decided that "If Polar is a joint program then you guys develop a new gun system that fires common ammo." VGAS and Excaliber were born. Army develop the projectile, Navy do the gun mount. Then range and other "problems" came up, and we now have AGS that doesn't fire common 155mm ammo but the fuzing on LPLAR and Excaliber are related.

If the Navy wanted a gun for NSFS the best buy, most capable, and the one that the MC Fire Support community thought they would get,was VGAS, However you couldn't use VGAS for the things that the Navy really needs a gun for
so they chose AGS

In the late 70s early 80s Merlin was developed for the 81mm mortar, at the same time SADARM, and BAT were being developed for 155. It took 30 yrs to get them where they work. So to scale up to 16 " figure at least another 20 yrs.

Iowas only look better if you determine "success" by raw weight. Its a WW2 method of measuring fire support for a WW2 weapon.

We learned in Vietnam, that sheer tonnage doesn't win wars. Heres an air example of what I'm talking about. On 2 March 1945 the AAF used 257 B-24s to attack the Buckau tank factory at Magdeburg. Today a factory would be handled by maybe 1-2 planes with JDAM.

2 planes w/4 JDAM = 16 thou lbs to destroy the factory

257 planes w 12thous lb bomb load=3,084,000 lb of bombs

Which one wins? The strike that puts more HE on target or the one that uses less HE but precision to achieve the same effect?

Do you see the "Anti BB" argument now?

 

[Gun Grape]

No, your take is incorrect.

My idea doesn't work because of the politics of it all.

Mannin requirements aren't all that high, I have posted the figures.

They don't care if the gun is huge, so long as it gets the job done.

And I feel the same way.

The advocates have always blamed politics, but the fact is that although BBs have been reactivated many times they havn't proven they are worth the cost.

In Korea the Nks figured that if they emplaced on the back side of mountains then the guns couldn't hit them.

In Vietnam, Jersey shot alot of 5" but very little 16 in. So she was doing a job that a Sumner or Gearing class could do. It just cost more. So she got the "One pump, dump"

In the 80s, She shot like crap, they tried to fix the problem. By Desert Storm her fire capabilities had improved but she was overcome by events, the bomb in a window capability was her demise.

Now if the figures hold out on DDx they will have a 150 man crew. You think that
1 Iowa, that has a crew equal in size to 10 DDx isn't that high?

If I've got to use the people then give me the 10 ships. I'll get more use out of them

 

[Gun Grape]

(B.Smitty)I wonder if you could put a 155mm turret like MONARC on an LCS hull? They say it only takes up as much space as a 76mm.

Might fit on the Lockheed monohull. Might also be too much gun for that sized ship

(DefCon)
Stupid idea. The current 155mm guns don't put enough HE on target. So now you'll just stick only one on an LCS with a much smaller ammo capacity.

Great idea. Create more wastes and inefficiency.

OK DefCon, You might want to print this post.

We agree on this idea:biggrin:

But for different reasons. The cal is fine, the recoil might be a problem but she wouldn't be able to hit crap. Might as well Chock and Chain a M777 to the helo deck and fire it.

 

[B.Smitty]

I never said they wanted BB's. In fact I stated that they didn't want them. duh.

Ok, I must've misinterpreted what you said earlier. My fault.

 

[Gun Grape]

My buddy at NSWC PC is checking on TRAM. I'll know something tomorrow

 

[B.Smitty]

But for different reasons. The cal is fine, the recoil might be a problem but she wouldn't be able to hit crap. Might as well Chock and Chain a M777 to the helo deck and fire it.

Wouldn't be able to hit crap why? IIRC, they are developing a stablization system for it. That, plus Excalibur and/or those nifty course correcting fuzes might produce reasonable accuracy.

To me, guns really come in to their own when firing dirt cheap, unguided ordinance. CCF is only a mild step up in cost, with a goal of a few thousand per fuze (IIRC).

It's the JDAM of precision arty rounds.

Rheinmetall is working on an 80km round for Pzh2000/MONARC.

When positioned close to shore, a ship with MONARC firing a CCF'd version of this round could meet the near term NSFS range reqs. Plus it could fire Excalibur, and the rest of the 155mm inventory.

Now whether an LCS is suitable is another question.

If MONARC could fit in place of the 57mm, and didn't adversely affect handling, and the small LCS hull could handle the recoil, and it could produce reasonable accuracy, it might be an interesting gun-based alternative.

Or it might not.

Just thinking about options.

 

[Defcon 6]

OK DefCon, You might want to print this post.

We agree on this idea:biggrin:

But for different reasons. The cal is fine, the recoil might be a problem but she wouldn't be able to hit crap. Might as well Chock and Chain a M777 to the helo deck and fire it.

Printing is in progress

 

[Defcon 6]

Now if the figures hold out on DDx they will have a 150 man crew. You think that
1 Iowa, that has a crew equal in size to 10 DDx isn't that high?

If I've got to use the people then give me the 10 ships. I'll get more use out of them

Yeah, but like I said they are equal to 1.9 DD(X)'s price wise. It's actually interesting how the DD(X) compares price wise.

I see what yer saying, but the 10 DD(X)'s would cost about 38 Billion dollars. So...the 10 ships are super expensive. Compared to two iowa's which is equal to more than half that DD(X) fleet (= to 6 DD(X)'s ) and cost a total of 5 B to reactivate and partially modernize. And the sad thing is, that the Iowa is pulling equal to 1.9 DD(X)'s in price, but only operating for 15 years!

Hey gunny. Can u link me up to the SEA scenario report? You mentioned seeing something about it on another forum. And like you, I can't figure out what the hell makes for such a huge difference between SEA and NEA.

 

[Gun Grape]

I almost let this thread die out since no one has posted in a few days. But I promised an answer.

TRAM is still being worked on. What a cluster, It worked great for SM-2 but the Navy shelved it, then it went to well lets see if we can get it to work with SM-3, and TLAM, and on and on and on. Now they are working with Tac Tom and quadpack ESSM and maybe all VLS tubes not just Mk 41s.

So VLS tubes , since the removal of the cranes, are not capable of being reloaded at sea.

 

[Gun Grape]

Yeah, but like I said they are equal to 1.9 DD(X)'s price wise. It's actually interesting how the DD(X) compares price wise.

I see what yer saying, but the 10 DD(X)'s would cost about 38 Billion dollars. So...the 10 ships are super expensive. Compared to two iowa's which is equal to more than half that DD(X) fleet (= to 6 DD(X)'s ) and cost a total of 5 B to reactivate and partially modernize. And the sad thing is, that the Iowa is pulling equal to 1.9 DD(X)'s in price, but only operating for 15 years!

Hey gunny. Can u link me up to the SEA scenario report? You mentioned seeing something about it on another forum. And like you, I can't figure out what the hell makes for such a huge difference between SEA and NEA.

Havn't found any concrete info on any of the scenarios. Anyone that has please provide a link.

Using your own previous post a few questions.

1.7 Billion Cost does not include

a.. some overhaul costs (see source #4);
b. non-recurring costs for restoring the supporting infrastructure;
c. R&D and manufacturing costs for developing and producing battleship-specific ammunitions that would meet the USMC requirements;

You think that it would only cost 300 Million for all of the above? Explain how.

I bet you couldn't have an updated effective ship, with support infrastructure for less than 5 Billion each. And that doesn't include designing rounds that would allow it to meet MC standards for NSFS.

Will all the obsolete infrastructure now become a government jobs program? We cannot demand that companies that are still in business restart a production line for a limited production run. At least not without paying for the whole thing , including training operators, and compensating them for lost production on the stuff that makes them money.

Where do we get the technical knowledge to run these ships? And don’t say from former crewmen. That’s what caused a turret explosion in the 80s. You don’t go on “If I remember, we use to do…”. I spent many years as a crewmember and section chief on a M101. I taught it at Ft Sill 15 yrs ago. I wouldn’t dare think that I would be able to write a TM or operating procedures strictly from memory if they wanted to bring them back into service. Because somewhere I would forget something that after XX# of repetitions will catch up and hurt/kill someone or damage the equipment.

Who will want to work on them? It’s a dead end ship. What I learn there will not transfer to any other ship in the fleet. And I’ll be 2 yrs behind everyone else for promotion and hands on experience.



For your R&D cost why will it cost less that what is currently being developed?

ERGM and Excalibur are from the same company, so they get to brainstorm together and not reinvent the wheel. The size, weight and M/V of the projectiles are also similar so they are not working on a totally different projectile. A 16” will be very different. Just as Merlin didn’t just “Scale up” to 155mm/5” . 5”/155 will not be easily adaptable to 16 in.

Excalibur 155 R&D cost as of Aug 04 were 828 Million.

ERGMs R&D cost as of Aug 04 was 393.6 Million

http://www.gao.gov/atext/d05301.txt

Battleship Costs :
* service life : 15 years
* reactivation cost : $2,000 millions per ship
* operating costs : $75 millions per year

=> cost per year : (2,000 / 15) + 75 = $208 millions
DD(X) Costs :
* service life : 35 years
* building costs : $2,750 millions (CBO says $3,700 millions!!!!!!)
* operating costs : $20 millions per year

=> cost per year : (2,750 / 35) + 20 = $99 millions per year ($105.7 millions)

Figure excludes DDG-51 since the requirement for an escort is missleading when considering the escort could provide NSFS as well.
So really compared to the DD(X)-
1 x BB= 3 DD(X)'s in fire power
1x BB = 1.9 DD(X)'s in cost!

Thats what I call bargain basics

That’s what I call a waste of money and resources. Once again , for a single mission NSFS ship I pay 208 million a year , and only get to use her for 15 yrs.

Or I can buy 2 DDx, that each have an operating cost of 99 mil per year for less money (198 mil) that I get to use for more than twice as long (35 yrs) I don’t rape personnel from the rest of the fleet and I have more Time on Station than 1 ship.

So why do you think it will be a bargain?

 

[Dreadnought]

*Not injecting here just wanted to make 1 point.

1) The battleships served for more then forty years individually (Not all but most outlived their life expectancy two fold and some even more). Thats a long lifespan out of any ship afloat even today (especially military) and tested through conflict time and time again.

I now return you to your normally scheduled debate :biggrin:

 

[Bill]

Once again , for a single mission NSFS ship I pay 208 million a year , and only get to use her for 15 yrs.

Again, i do not know where this 'fifteen year' shelf life figure has come from. It is my understanding that the ships have much more life left in them than that.

Mr. Landgraff should know that.

 

[Bill]

In the late 70s early 80s Merlin was developed for the 81mm mortar, at the same time SADARM, and BAT were being developed for 155. It took 30 yrs to get them where they work. So to scale up to 16 " figure at least another 20 yrs.

I STRONGLY disagree with that contention. Scaling up is much, much less technically demanding than scaling down.

The requirements for miniturizated electronics are much less severe, and there is a hell of a lot more room inside the munition/shell(whatever) for shock absorbing medium, a rocket motor(if a RAP or powered flight type shell), and stowable control surfaces.

Making a 16" GPS guided unitary shell would be far easier than making the same exact shell in 155mm, and making one in 5" would be even harder still. Getting that same design to work in an 81mm mortar is one hell of a feat.

We could have scramshells in 20 years. A 'standard' unitary 16" GPS-RAP shell should be capable of entering service in less than 10(a hell of a lot less if there was a true overriding desire by the USN for the technology).

 

[B.Smitty]

O We agree on this idea:biggrin:

But for different reasons. The cal is fine, the recoil might be a problem but she wouldn't be able to hit crap. Might as well Chock and Chain a M777 to the helo deck and fire it.

So GG, why would it not be able to 'hit crap' assuming they add stablization and motion compensation to the FCS?

 

[Gun Grape]

So GG, why would it not be able to 'hit crap' assuming they add stablization and motion compensation to the FCS?

Well once they do that then they will be as accurate as a Mk 45 5"/54.

So where is the advantage?

When first shown, it was suppose to be a LOW COST PZ 2000 option for a naval weapon. And thats how its still being sold. But, that would be no different then if we dropped a Palidan turret on a OHP.

But the reality is that they have had to work on shock absorbing from tube recoil. And they are going to add stabilization and work on motion compensation and slave it to a computer so that it only fires at the proper elevation. And once they do all that, it will be an overpriced AGS. With less capabilities and slower rate of fire.

The idea that it will share common ammo and propellant with a land based 155mm , may be true but they will end up repackaging those components for shipboard use. Arty produces lots of dunnage/trash. It isn't packaged to fit in a ship magazine space, Its packaged to fit standard AF pallets,forklifts and the back of trucks. That will have to be fixed.

 

[Bill]

The idea that it will share common ammo and propellant with a land based 155mm , may be true...

I really doubt it, or i should say, i don't know that it's even worth it. The USN insensitive munition requirements are MUCH more stringent than the US army's aren't they? If so, manufacturing the Army shells to a requirement they dont have would be quite wasteful wrt price...or so it would seem.

...but they will end up repackaging those components for shipboard use. Arty produces lots of dunnage/trash. It isn't packaged to fit in a ship magazine space, Its packaged to fit standard AF pallets,forklifts and the back of trucks. That will have to be fixed.

They could just take the shells out of their crates and tubes when they put them in the mag couldn't they? I mean, the mag would have to be loaded one shell at a time as they're unwrapped, but is that a big deal?
(i really dont know since i have no idea what's normal for a 5" mag reload procedure).

 

[B.Smitty]

Well once they do that then they will be as accurate as a Mk 45 5"/54.

So where is the advantage?

Well, my primary train of thought was, if NGFS is such an issue (which I still question, BTW), how do you get the most tubes on the largest number of hulls?

AGS is a rather large system, right? So you won't be sticking it on a ship as small as an LCS (one you can afford to buy in large numbers). OTOH, Mk 45s can go on ships as small as 6000t frigates, maybe smaller.

My secondary train of thought was, part of the long range requirement comes from having to park so far off shore to limit exposure to mines, subs, AShMs, etc.

However LCS is meant to operate in this environment. And, bad as it sounds, it's inexpensive enough, and manned lightly enough, to make losing a few less painful.

So if you fire from close to shore, you might not need what amounts to a tube-fired missile like LRLAP or ERGM. A simpler, cheaper VLAP-like round with CCF might be good enough for most situations.

Mix in a smaller number of high-end AGSs on DD(X) and/or POLAR or naval MLRS and you're done.

 

[Bill]

Well, my primary train of thought was, if NGFS is such an issue (which I still question, BTW), how do you get the most tubes on the largest number of hulls?

NGFS is important, that would be my professional opinion. However, IF we have TOTAL air and naval supremacy, it does become a luxury item. Very nice to have.......not critical.

But then, CAS isn't critical either, and neither are gunships. But of course, we all know that they're very useful.......just like robust NGFS is.

Good NGFS is just one more very useful tool in the toolbox. A tool that, presently at least, we really should be upgrading.

It is overwhelming force at point of contact, the ability to interdict the enemy response, and speed of operations that makes amphib ops succesful or even tenable.

Highly effective and prolific NGFS fires will only make all those goals much easier to meet.

 

[B.Smitty]

Good NGFS is just one more very useful tool in the toolbox. A tool that, presently at least, we really should be upgrading.

And we are upgrading NGFS. New Burkes are getting Mk45 Mod4 and eventually ERGM/BTERM. DD(X)s will have a pair of AGSs.

Improvements are being made.

 

[Dreadnought]

Recieved a phone call this morning.. You are looking at a future volunteer tour guide for Battleship New Jersey (week-ends and holidays) :biggrin:
Have to sign papers and then show up for formal training in a few weeks.

 

[B.Smitty]

Recieved a phone call this morning.. You are looking at a future volunteer tour guide for Battleship New Jersey (week end and holidays) :biggrin:

Congrats!

 

[Bill]

Recieved a phone call this morning.. You are looking at a future volunteer tour guide for Battleship New Jersey (week end and holidays)

Heh.......now i know who to call to get comped!

I had no idea they still needed vols. Do they need anymore? I'd probably be able to find some time to commit to such a cause.