Iowa class BB, they don't build them like that today

the ship may survive, but I would not want to be on the ship

 

The whole world disagree with your point of view in regard to the BB. Deal with it.
You are a lonely little man living in the past inventing fantasy scenarios to feed your nostalgia of past glory. No one care.

 

You must not be part of the maritime community.

Been a member of the "Naval Institute" for over forty years, even had an article on the same subject published in "Proceedings." and more than a few comments when scores of other naval and Marine officers have had their articles published in "Proceedings" advocating bringing back the battleship.

Even today's Marine Corps Headquarters are saying the same things I have been saying.

The U.S. Navy is required to provide adequate NSFS for the Marine Corps and the Navy hasn't been able to do it for over twenty years now.

It's kinda like the Navy is like the Air Force. The Navy doesn't want to be in the NSFS business and the Air Force doesn't want to be in the CAS business and wants to send the A-10 Warthog's to the bone yard.

 

Again, no one is building or is planning to build any BB now or ever. You sound like Alpha when he goes into scifi fantasy rant mode. The world has evolved and so has the military. You are stuck in tar like a dinosaur.

 

I already know that a 21st Century battleship will never be built, we no longer have the people who know how to build them or the infrastructure to build them.

And Clinton made sure that none of the Iowa's would ever be reactivated again by cutting up all of the 16" guns spare barrels and selling them for scrap.

You can only fire so many rounds through a gun barrel before you have to replace it be it a M-16 rifle or a 16" gun.

The 16"/50 gun, it has to have the barrel replaced after 290 to 350 rounds have been fired through it.

Important Note:

The U.S. Army's M-107-SP 175 MM gun could only fire 400 rounds before its barrel had to be replaced, as opposed to the 105 MM and 155 MM howitzers, which could fire 5000-7000 rounds between barrel refitting. The howitzer is a low pressure low velocity artillery piece. It just kinda lobs the projectile towards it's target. Kinda useless against bunkers and harden targets just like bombs being dropped by aircraft. You need a high velocity gun to accomplish the mission.

Today's navy's 5"/54 pop guns just can't do the job.

 

Again, all this is irrelevent in todays world.

 

Obama said the same thing about geopolitics in the 21st Century.

 

If you can post his exact quote I would like to read it.

 

You don't need a quote, all you have to do is look at the Middle East, the Ukraine, the South China Sea and Paris, France.

 

So he didn't really said it...

 

Both Obama and John Kerry said it.

Obama said that ammunition clips were being sold on the streets of Chicago. Do you need a link to a source to know that ?

We all know there's nobody on the streets of Chicago selling M-1 Garand ammunition clips.

 

Korozif, et al,

Yes, this brings-up a important issue. I've noticed in the last few years, that there are two simultaneous and dependent conversations and assumptions taking place:

• One conversation interprets the Rules of Engagement (as attempting to achieve critical outcomes) to meet of Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in terms of

Rule 11. Indiscriminate Attacks
Rule 12. Definition of Indiscriminate Attacks
Rule 13. Area Bombardment
Rule 14. Proportionality in Attack
Rule 15. Precautions in Attack
Rule 16. Target Verification
Rule 17. Choice of Means and Methods of Warfare

Each party to the conflict must take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of warfare with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.​

Rule 18. Assessment of the Effects of Attacks
Rule 19. Control during the Execution of Attacks
Rule 20. Advance Warning
Rule 21. Target Selection
Rule 22. Principle of Precautions against the Effects of Attacks
​

• And the assumption that there is a never ending supply of precision-guided munition (PGM, smart weapon, smart munition, smart bomb). That there will never be a time when the military mission and objectives will be retarded or obstructed by a shortage of PGM. And that the opponents in all future engagement will use such PGM.
​

(COMMENT)

The premise is that any adversary (or group of opponents) will use PGM to provide a long-range, highly survivable, attack weapon system capable of pinpoint accuracy; and will still be able to attrit the adversary to the point that the cost and losses will be such that --- the will to continue the struggle is broken and a decisive victory is established. When we say, "live in the now" we must also assume that there will be cases that the opponent will have such a low regard for life, that they will never reach a point that the "will is broken." One can observe this in Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen.

The ROE and the Customary IHL have nothing to do with the concept of a Battleship. The only critical factors in the determination of a Heavy Weapons platform at sea is in the cost 'vs' benefit analysis, the survivability of the platform to countermeasures (defensive potential), and the ability to deliver a shocking devastating impact on a hostile target and defeat it.

(OFF TOPIC)

The ROE and the interpretations of Customary IHL is an entirely different discussion (albeit a very important discussion) all together. We can very readily see that this is both controversial and politically sensitive. The defenders of IHL and Human Rights are nearly always opposed to any arguments that result in armed conflict and their interpretations (of right and wrong) are more commonly opposed to the superior force involved. Again, one can see that the application of IHL and Human Rights in conflict resolution has done nothing to resolve the issues, and more often than not, work to extend the conflict from achieving a decisive victory that brings the conflict to its resolution. The Arab-Palestinians (as an example) have been using IHL and Human Rights as a shield to preserve their combat capabilities from being destroyed, and using (Rule 97) --- “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” designed to destroy them. They do this in concert with ignoring Rules 23 and 24 (Location of Military Objectives inside Densely Populated Areas -- and Not Removing Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives). And the IHL and Human Rights community support this strategy. While it is totally permissible for the Palestinians to use any and all means to attack Israeli civilian targets; the reverse is not true simply because the Israelis have access to PGMs.

I bring this up --- only to show how misguided it is to confuse the application of weapons technology and sophistication with IHL and Human Rights. The ability to successfully continue to use PGM is dependent on cost, Satellite and Global Positioning System (GPS) communications; the availability to optically and Digital interface Scene Matching Area Correlation (DSMAC) system using satellite imagery and the use of inertial and terrain contour matching (TERCOM) radar guidance systems to guide munitions. And while an F-16 can drop a PGM, we are still putting the human component (in some cases) in an unnecessary risky situation.

Just My Thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

If he said what you said previously then it won't be a problem for you to link it.

 

Sure it would be, have you wonder why Google's CEO's are visiting the White house almost weekly ? Over 200 visits to the White House.

 

Still no link to back you up I see...

 

I hope it doesn't keep you up at night.

 

No but it does shred what was left of your integrity...

 

Do you really think I give a (*)(*)(*)(*) ?

My expertise is naval gunfire with participating in numerous close air support missions. You ever hear of ANGLICO ? I was good at my job spotting naval gun fire in combat. Good enough I was awarded two Navy Commendation Medals one with a combat "V."

Was assigned a call sign and when the FSCC or the ship heard my call sign nobody interfered, I had the authority to decide what kind of gun would be used, what kind of projectile would be used, what kind of fuse would be used, how many guns per salvo and how many salvos would be fired. And I never had a fratricide incident.

 

APACHERAT, et al,

Yes, we do tend to thing in pre-set perspective. Yes, from the standpoint of a traditional box, the Iowa Class Battleship was fast. But that is not actually how you determine what combat surface vessels are fast or slow. To make a determination of "what is fast" --- you have to think outside the box and compare it to what can kill you.

(REFEERENCE)

(COMMENT)

Notice that a WIG is defined as a craft that operates at cruising speeds of 100 knots or better. The militarization of such craft can present an unusual challenge for a 20th Century thinking Navy (the US) when faced with a 21st Century thinking Navy [Russian Federation and China (even Iran has one)].

Russian Military WIG and A ground effect vehicle (GEV) (From Wikipedia):

Lun-class ekranoplan - Lun Class Ekranoplan

As of 2015, the A-050 Ekranoplan is being developed by the Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau, two concepts of which have been shown at the MAKS (air show). According to ValueWalk, the model "will feature modern avionics and navigation", having a take-off weight of 54 tons and carrying capacity of 9 tons; it will be powered by R-195 booster engines, and have a cruising speed of 250 to 300 miles per hour (400 to 480 km/h), with a range of 3,000 miles (4,800 km). At the same time, it is thought the ground effect vehicle will be armed with cruise missiles.

General characteristics

Crew: 15 (6 officers, 9 enlisted)
Capacity: 137 t (302,000 lb)
Length: 73.8 m (242 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 44 m (144 ft 4 in)
Height: 19.2 m (63 ft 0 in)
Wing area: 550 m2 (5,900 sq ft)
Empty weight: 286,000 kg (630,522 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 380,000 kg (837,757 lb)
Powerplant: 8 × Kuznetsov NK-87 turbofans, 127.4 kN (28,600 lbf) thrust each
​

Performance

Maximum speed: 550 km/h (342 mph; 297 kn)
Cruising speed: 450 km/h (280 mph; 243 kn) at 2.5 m (8 ft)
Range: 2,000 km (1,243 mi; 1,080 nmi)
Service ceiling: 7,500 m (24,606 ft) or 5 m (16 ft) in ground effect
​

Armament

Guns: two 23mm Pl-23 cannon in a twin tail turret and two 23mm Pl-23 cannon in a twin turret under forward missile tubes
Missiles: six launchers for SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missiles (Mach 3, 200km range).
​

The Aqualet - a relatively new (2011) Russian development of Ground Effect Vehicle (GEV) is also on the board. And the Chinese have a military version (allegedly) semi-stealth DXF100 (Tianyi-1). The importance of these craft is that the can be refitted with anti ship missiles and have a reach of 2,000 km. Even Iran has the about a dozen Bavar 2, (allegedly) semi-stealth military version GEV that entered service in 2010; although there is no indication they are outfitted with anti-ship missiles. A Joint Strike Fighter and the F-35 (both high dollar unit cost $200M) may be able to sustain a Zone 5 (maximum afterburner) push for about 15-to-20 minutes.

As the technology improves, a very formidable threat could be developed as a countermeasure against the effective approach of a US Carrier Task Force.

Just My Thought,
Most Respectfully,
R

 

I've recently read a paper from the U.S. Naval War College on speed of warships.

Speed isn't that important.

The Iowa class BB's during WW ll were classified as "fast battleships." On the books it says 32 knots. But they have achieved 34 knots and rumor is they might have achieved 36 knots. The actual speed is still classified even after all of the Iowa's being struck from the navy's registry.

The battle cruiser (America has only built two of them and that was during WW ll, the USS Guam and the USS Alaska) are fast because they are designed to turn and run from any ship that outguns them.

Today's U.S. Navy's "Little Crappy Ship" aka littoral combat ship (LCS) are really, fast 40 knots and able to get up to over 46 knots. But they have to be fast because they aren't capable to survive in combat and have to have the speed to get out of Dodge if anything larger than a ski boat challenges them.

The Little Crappy Ships don't even have a pop gun, it's main gun armarment is one Bofor 57 mm gun.
The Obama administration has got tired of their little pet project the LCS always being referred to as the "crappy little ship" that they are going to reclassify them as frigates. A frigate without at least one pop gun !!!

During the first Gulf war you had an Iowa class BB leave port for the Persian Gulf exactly the same time a Nimitz class carrier battle group. The battleship arrived in the Persian Gulf three days before the carrier did. The reason was, there was a typhoon and the carrier had to go around the storm while the battleship plowed right through the typhoon.

Most tin-can sailors will concur that the best destroyer ever built was the Fletcher class. 38 knots and 6,500 nautical miles range without refueling. Faster and having more range by 2,200 miles that today's Arleigh Burke destroyers.

 

The Navy plans for railguns to be able to intercept endo-atmospheric ballistic missiles, stealthy air threats, supersonic missiles, and swarming surface threats; none of which a 16 inch smooth bore cannon can do. Nor is a rail gun limited to ships, is it? Explain your plans for moving an Iowa Class battleship across land some time. And $500 for 16 inch shell? Maybe in 1905.

So you claim the total cost of a career military personnel is only a total of 25 cents.

Your's really are becoming absurd messages. They reveal your age.

 

First the Navy has to get it right and find a ship to put the rail gun on.

It's as if the Navy no longer knows how to build warships any more. First the Little Crappy Ship (LCS) that can;t survive in combat and now the Zumwalt class destroyer DDG 1000.

A ship that while still in the ship yard under construction and they find out that it's already too top heavy and one of the radar systems has to be eliminated and the ships secondary armament, the Bofor 57 mm gun is too heavy so it's replaced with the Mk 46 30 mm chain gun.

Then someone ignores this -> http://www.phisicalpsience.com/public/Tumblehome_Hull_DDG-1000/Tumblehome_Hull_DDG-1000.html

US NAVY - Tumblehome Hull - USS Zumwalt, DDG 1000
Ship Handling and Stability in High Seas - Tumblehome Hull Model Test

FYI: The 16"/50 gun is technically a naval rifle, it's not a smooth bore gun.

No 16" guns back in 1905.

The reason the "16" 2,750 lb AP projectiles and 1,900 lb HC projectiles only cost $500 each is because they were all manufactured during WW ll.

At the time the four Iowa's were decommissioned there were enough 16" rounds (thousands) in storage at Naval Weapons Stations across the country, the vast majority at the former Navy Ammunition Depot, Hawthorne Nv. to refight WW ll.
http://www.hartshorn.us/Navy/navy-18.htm

And there were enough 16" spare gun barrels to rebarrel the four Iowa's three times. But as pointed out in a prior post, the Clinton administration broke the law and had all of the spare barrels cut up and sold as scrap, probably sold to the chi-coms.


http://news.usni.org/2015/07/15/del...mper-production-of-ddg-51s-at-bath-iron-works

 

I believe that quantity has its own quality. We rely too much on expensive systems that are vulnerable to countermeasures. Wasn't there an incident where a fighter jet disabled the Aegis system on one of our ships?

 

in Nam she was the most feared weapon by the North. at the Paris peace talks they insisted she be sent home first

 

The Iowa class Battle Ships were a great ship for their time.

But today a single Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer would sink an Iowa class with very little trouble.

AboveAlpha