Battleships

[Paul W...]

Whuups, I meant to say is that aircraft and cruise missiles are the only ones that'll be supporting the ground troops on beach landings.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Really? What about the 5 inch guns found on most USN surface combatants?

Still waiting on your proof.....

 

[hugh19]

Apparently they don't exist.

 

[Paul W...]

Okay I forgot that there are 127mm guns on a lot of US ships,I guess you win this round.

 

[Rodahn]

Whuups, I meant to say is that aircraft and cruise missiles are the only ones that'll be supporting the ground troops on beach landings.

While our frigate's 57mm is not a large calibre weapon, the rate of fire would have a tendency of ruining somebody's day, should they be an opposing force during an amphibious landing.......

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

There is no "guess" as you had no idea what you were talking about. You're the second that was found to be way outside your arcs. :

While our frigate's 57mm is not a large calibre weapon, the rate of fire would have a tendency of ruining somebody's day, should they be an opposing force during an amphibious landing.......

Agreed....any amount of stuff that goes boom, can have detrimental effect on the enemy

 

[aesop081]

six to eight Battleships

:rofl:

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I hate to be "that guy", but I think Paul W has the right of it. Maybe it's just a coincidence.

The USN has come out with a doctrine that NGFS isn't supposed to be done any closer than 25 nm from the shore. That's why they brought out the new 5"/62 and 155mm AGS, with 40+ nm ranges firing advanced shells. Those weapons haven't exactly worked out as designed, so what the USN is going to use is way up in the air.

If you google for "hanlon letter" you can see what the USMC has asked for.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Perhaps the USN retired their 4 IOWA class early, but lets face reality. They were maintenance  and manpower pigs that had finding spare parts for were getting to be a nightmare. You would be better off with new builds and not battleships. It was mentioned before of a monitor class. Less man power instensive, cheaper in the long run to operate.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

You would be better off with new builds and not battleships. It was mentioned before of a monitor class. Less man power instensive, cheaper in the long run to operate.

I agree. If you really needed 16" NGFS, that would be the way to go.

 

[aesop081]

I hate to be "that guy", but I think Paul W has the right of it. Maybe it's just a coincidence.

I'm not arguing against the requirement for NGFS......i'm saying that building behemouth BBs is not the way to provide it.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

NGFS is needed...bringing back an obsolete warship type is not the answer. Maybe we should bring back a 1st rate to save on fuel...

 

[Stoker]

Since the retirement of the Battleships the US still do not have the long gun range capability and fires support the Battleship brought to the table. The advance gun system (AGS) although promising in early trials was never fitted aboard a warship. Yes the battleship was hard to maintain and had high manning problems, however the psychological impact of the battleship on hostile forces the ship brought to the table was significant. It was said when the IOWA was sent down the Straits of Hormuz during the Iran-Iraq War, all of southern Iran would go quiet. I guess the cabability of sending a shell the size of a VW bus with pinpoint accuracy was unnerving to some. The cost of reactivating 2 battleships would be less than the cost of building a DD(X). The battleships could be fitted out with advance munitions to extend their range to 100KM. Also in a missile environment it could be argued that a Battleship has a greater chance of survivability than other thinner skinned ships. I really think the Battleships could prove useful in future littoral operations.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Whats the difference between trying to develop advanced munitions for the battleships or working on the new gun system for present day surface combatants? you still have to develop them...

I don't think we need to build a DDX...a simple no frills monitor used for NGS would save the USN money.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search2

Lots of good discussion on NGS located in the above link as well.

 

[Stoker]

Whats the difference between trying to develop advanced munitions for the battleships or working on the new gun system for present day surface combatants? you still have to develop them...

I don't think we need to build a DDX...a simple no frills monitor used for NGS would save the USN money.

I believe the technology for the shells is already developed.

 

[Paul W...]

Since the retirement of the Battleships the US still do not have the long gun range capability and fires support the Battleship brought to the table. The advance gun system (AGS) although promising in early trials was never fitted aboard a warship. Yes the battleship was hard to maintain and had high manning problems, however the psychological impact of the battleship on hostile forces the ship brought to the table was significant. It was said when the IOWA was sent down the Straits of Hormuz during the Iran-Iraq War, all of southern Iran would go quiet. I guess the cabability of sending a shell the size of a VW bus with pinpoint accuracy was unnerving to some. The cost of reactivating 2 battleships would be less than the cost of building a DD(X). The battleships could be fitted out with advance munitions to extend their range to 100KM. Also in a missile environment it could be argued that a Battleship has a greater chance of survivability than other thinner skinned ships. I really think the Battleships could prove useful in future littoral operations.

The future attack doctrine of the Navy and Marines is to launch a landing farther from the shore than they are capable of doing now so a number of Battleships would do a much better job than a guided round from a 127mm that only has a range of only 40km.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I believe the technology for the shells is already developed.

I remember they were going to work on it but I figured the program stopped with funding going elsewhere.

The future attack doctrine of the Navy and Marines is to launch a landing farther from the shore than they are capable of doing now so a number of Battleships would do a much better job than a guided round from a 127mm that only has a range of only 40km.

Is there will in the USN to do so? Nope...as it would rob a lot of resources from other new ships, maintenance budgets etc. Not gonna happen...and when your troops are 40 miles inland chances are you have seized an air field.

 

[Rodahn]

The future attack doctrine of the Navy and Marines is to launch a landing farther from the shore than they are capable of doing now so a number of Battleships would do a much better job than a guided round from a 127mm that only has a range of only 40km.

Paul;

Could you please fill in your profile so that the members have an idea of your background, and expertise? It would provide a greater deal of credability on your statements.

On another note, as I stated earlier, even the 57mm will screw up someones day in an amphibious assault. The current rate of fire for the 57mm provides the equivalent of a 493 (approx) inch shell every minute... And you are not going to get that kind of fire power from a battleship... Sometimes less is more....

 

[Neill McKay]

Ok....a BB has a crew of almost 2000 on board. They cost millions of dollars to operate ( let alone build, maintain, upgrade, refit....whatever).

To expand a bit on this, I recall reading that part of what finally got the USN out of the battleship business was the fact that they could build three new, modern, destroyers for the cost of taking one battleship out of mothballs.