Did you see the marvelous thirty minute show entitled "USS Wisconsin?" Great summation of the role that these ships played in military events. We still have in various states or readiness the Iowa class ships (Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey, and Wisconsin). Should we spent the money to modernize and return one or several of these vessels to the Fleet?
DJ
Ps--Help me out here guys, I want to show Jim that I can get back to historical topics
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Should we bring back the battleships?
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Sunday, June 02, 2002 - 08:25 PM UTC
sourkraut
Member Since: May 11, 2002
entire network: 602 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, June 02, 2002 - 09:32 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Did you see the marvelous thirty minute show entitled "USS Wisconsin?" Great summation of the role that these ships played in military events. We still have in various states or readiness the Iowa class ships (Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey, and Wisconsin). Should we spent the money to modernize and return one or several of these vessels to the Fleet?
DJ
Ps--Help me out here guys, I want to show Jim that I can get back to historical topics
well dj i love the classic battleship,i would love nothing more than to see these vessels back in action,however can their firepwer compete with the aircraft carrier.if you want to compare firepower maybe what we need is another carrier.
Ranger74
Member Since: April 04, 2002
entire network: 1,290 Posts
KitMaker Network: 480 Posts
Posted: Sunday, June 02, 2002 - 10:01 PM UTC
I am sure the USMC would love all those 16" and 5" guns for bombardment. If they could be upgraded for better air defense, particularly against missles, they might be useful. The major problem with the battleships is that they are manpower intensive and that the main gun ammo is not being manufactored. What is/was on hand is very old. Right now, I don't think the Navy can afford to man them.
Greg
Member Since: April 12, 2002
entire network: 455 Posts
KitMaker Network: 149 Posts
Posted: Sunday, June 02, 2002 - 10:14 PM UTC
As much as I love the old battlewagons, their time has gone. Yes, they are impervious to all modern anti-ship weapons--nothing in anybody's inventory can penetrate twelve inches of armor. But as noted above they require massive crews of at least 1500 men. And there is no economically feasible way to re-power them. Reactors were briefly considered durign the activations two decades ago and rejected for reasons of massive cost. Those big gun tubes wear out fast when doing lots of shore bombardment, and as noted we don't make shells any more. We CAN'T MAKE gun barrels any more. The technology is lost; foundries closed and people long since dead. Among the reasons for retiring the ships in the last fleet reduction was the fact that replacement barrels stored since WW2 were all used up. Rather like going to the moon---done a long time ago, but we can't do it any more because we can't make moon rockets any more.
Shore bombardment might be better done by a cruser or destroyer variant suited for the job with several twin 5"/54cal. turrets, Harpoons, CWIS, and some anti-air missiles for close self defense. No ASW helo or sonar other than the basics; this ship is not a sub hunter and where such is a threat will work in concert with other vessels to protect her.
Greg
Shore bombardment might be better done by a cruser or destroyer variant suited for the job with several twin 5"/54cal. turrets, Harpoons, CWIS, and some anti-air missiles for close self defense. No ASW helo or sonar other than the basics; this ship is not a sub hunter and where such is a threat will work in concert with other vessels to protect her.
Greg
modelguy2
Member Since: March 09, 2002
entire network: 818 Posts
KitMaker Network: 53 Posts
Posted: Sunday, June 02, 2002 - 10:25 PM UTC
I built a replica of an upgraded Iowa class BB for the USNFSA
http://www.usnfsa.com/main/11th.htm
They're using it to lobby congress and the DoD to upgrade the Iowa and Wisconsin with 96 VLS launchers and upgraded close in defence and electronics. I wrote an article on the build that will be in the fall issue of model ship journal. Currently the Navy wants to change a few Missile subs (Boomers) to carry tomohawk missiles-reducing our nuclear deterrent and costing far more to change one sub tha it would to upgrade the BB's to BBG configuration......Mike T/MG2
http://www.usnfsa.com/main/11th.htm
They're using it to lobby congress and the DoD to upgrade the Iowa and Wisconsin with 96 VLS launchers and upgraded close in defence and electronics. I wrote an article on the build that will be in the fall issue of model ship journal. Currently the Navy wants to change a few Missile subs (Boomers) to carry tomohawk missiles-reducing our nuclear deterrent and costing far more to change one sub tha it would to upgrade the BB's to BBG configuration......Mike T/MG2
Chief
Member Since: February 07, 2002
entire network: 498 Posts
KitMaker Network: 203 Posts
Posted: Sunday, June 02, 2002 - 11:14 PM UTC
Ahem.....As I stand with pipe in mouth and coffee cup in hand (classic Chief pose right Tin_Can?) and put my "I'm in deep thought" look on my face, I remember back to my cruises and the sight of the Iowa loosing a broadside of 16 inch shells knowing that they were falling on somebody whom really derserved them. I must say I miss the Battlewagons but they are too cost prohibitive in manpower and op-costs. But if they offered me the job as Chief Master-at-Arms HELL YES!!!! BRING THEM BACK!!!!! :-) :-) :-)
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Sunday, June 02, 2002 - 11:37 PM UTC
Chief--beautiful reponse! The value of the vessel may be found in their fire power. However, as more knowledgeable people than I tell us, there a few problems. I had not considered the wear and tear on the gun tubes (operational cost). I know the internal facilities from crew quarters to feeding are 1940 technology. It is a a potential ecological disaster area due to the sewage system and other associated problems. I have been on the Missouri and the New Jersey and left saying forty times over "Wow." Those ships are something else. If their day passed, it is a sad one.
DJ
DJ
RufusLeeking
Member Since: January 18, 2002
entire network: 330 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, June 03, 2002 - 04:50 AM UTC
Bring back the Battle Ship? One word "NO", there are better ways to spend my tax dollars. Carriers are nice, or maybe a nice fast attack sub or a whole bunch of tanks. #:-)
Bravo-Comm
Member Since: March 20, 2002
entire network: 525 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, June 03, 2002 - 05:33 AM UTC
SORRY DJ;But I have to agree with the rest of the folks here, Even though I have always thought of the Battle Wagon as American's ultimate show of Force Superiority, BUT unfortunantley it's time has past, As the reasons have already been described by several of the members who posted here, It is an unfortunante turn of events for one of Americas best weapons of war. But as others have already stated. The money should be better used force Tanks, Aircraft, and personal equipment and proper trainaing as well as the paying of our troops. So that is my 2 cents on the issue.
DAGGER-1 "When Science Fails, Brute Force Wins"
matt
Campaigns AdministratorMember Since: February 28, 2002
entire network: 5,957 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,626 Posts
Posted: Monday, June 03, 2002 - 05:47 AM UTC
I agree with Chief whole heartedly.....her time has past 
Matt
Matt
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, June 03, 2002 - 07:29 AM UTC
Guys--appreciate your responses. I am somewhat dismayed. The next thing you'll be telling me that theday of the tank is over....
DJ
DJ
Greg
Member Since: April 12, 2002
entire network: 455 Posts
KitMaker Network: 149 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 12:35 AM UTC
Well, DJ, there are some who say the day of the tank is waning just as the battleship did. New smart round are out there, I'm told, that home in on thinner roof armor or on the vulnerable turret ring joint. Of course, it was said that the advent of Sagger and TOW spelled the end of tanks, too...perhaps they will again change in size, protection, and pwer to meet new threats and mission requirements. Easier for a tank design to morph than a battleship.
Greg
Greg
modelguy2
Member Since: March 09, 2002
entire network: 818 Posts
KitMaker Network: 53 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 01:04 AM UTC
As I was working on the USNFSA project I asked the naval architect that was orking with them about the gun liners and was told wear was no problem. Either they have suffucient numbers laying about somewhere- of the 36 Barrel liners aboard the ships they've worn 42%.There are about 33 spare barrel liners in the US (I'm assuming the 9 that were at Subic bay have been returned to CONUS), and Watervliet Arsenal could manufacture more if need be. 30mm "Goalkeeper" gatling guns, turreted 40mm rapid fire, and 20mm close in protection from small boats and missiles would make it just about impervious to damage. While no ship is invulnerable the Iowa class would have simply rocked if hit by the explosion that devestated the USS Cole. Let's look at it from a Marines point of view. Yes there is air support, cruise missiles and everything else that the Army has. Suppose we limit the armys guns to nothing over 127mm? Take away their tanks and buy more Apache's and Comanches? What good are tanks anyway? Just buy more Hellfire missiles right? Quicker lighter Bradleys are what we need. (Don't worry-just playing the devils advocate here) We don't need it anymore........how shortsighted. Do you suppose the Army would have liked to land on Guadalcanal with only 5" guns preping the beaches? Is everyone prepared to say we'll never have a need for the BB's ever again? Sure there's a lot of people needed t run a BB. Do you think the Navy's stopped recruitment when the BB's were retired? So we'll spend billions of dollars to convert 4 SSBN's to tomohawk launch platforms and hope the conflict is in a deep water area. Nope, never gonna need or want for a BB, nothing will ever happen that would make them useful.never happen here........(Dec. 7 1941, Sept 11 2001 )
Greg
Member Since: April 12, 2002
entire network: 455 Posts
KitMaker Network: 149 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 01:34 AM UTC
OK, Modelguy, point taken--the guns themselves can be maintained, at least for a while longer. But we still need to accept that nobody is making 16" rounds any more, but I'll grant that a way could possibly be found to re-start the line. The real issue here is manpower: The Navy has trouble enough staffing a dozen carriers and air groups; indeed all have been reuced in complement in recent years. Adding ships to the fleet again which require 1500-person crews would pose enormous personnel problems for the Navy. Most of those people are employed in running the steam plants that power them, and a couple of things intrude here. One is, nobody runs steam plants like those any more. The old Master Chiefs are long since retired. Second is, changing to another power source is simply too expensive to contemplate.
As noted elsewhere, these are nearly sixty-year-old ships and have crew habitability to match. This is also not to be underestimated; by modern standards these huge ships are very cramped and uncomfortable.
I don't deny that the shore bombardment mission still has value, even in a world where Normandy or even Guadalcanal are never going to be repeated. I just would submit that a new cruiser design with 8" guns and missile batteries, gas turbine powered, with defensive suite as you mentioned above. Build her at about a 15,000 ton size, with modern layered armor, trick superstructure angles to deflect radar, and a low silhouette. Use cold seawater piped into the funnel linings to reduce the IR signature. And give her a main battery of two triple 8" turrets along with two sets of VLS cells like the Burke or Tico ships have. Sounds very cool to me...
Greg
As noted elsewhere, these are nearly sixty-year-old ships and have crew habitability to match. This is also not to be underestimated; by modern standards these huge ships are very cramped and uncomfortable.
I don't deny that the shore bombardment mission still has value, even in a world where Normandy or even Guadalcanal are never going to be repeated. I just would submit that a new cruiser design with 8" guns and missile batteries, gas turbine powered, with defensive suite as you mentioned above. Build her at about a 15,000 ton size, with modern layered armor, trick superstructure angles to deflect radar, and a low silhouette. Use cold seawater piped into the funnel linings to reduce the IR signature. And give her a main battery of two triple 8" turrets along with two sets of VLS cells like the Burke or Tico ships have. Sounds very cool to me...
Greg
Bravo-Comm
Member Since: March 20, 2002
entire network: 525 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 02:06 AM UTC
#:-) 
Or Short of all that How about Robo-Technology......."JUST KIDDING" We will never give up OUR TANKS.. (Only when they pry them from our cold dead fingers.LOL)I agree though that they may go thru another change in size and power. But I believe that Armor will always be one of the best way to project our power by land. Just my 2 cents worth.
DAGGER-1
modelguy2
Member Since: March 09, 2002
entire network: 818 Posts
KitMaker Network: 53 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 02:42 AM UTC
I agree we should build a modern gun cruiser. The Navy has been testing an 8" gun and I built 4 of them for the BBG concept replica, but there are issues with the in place 5" gun hoists. In order to get more guns now the navy still needs to build more ships. Each new ship now has 2 -5" guns. Just think about the ratio of crewmembers to 5" gun shipped? The Iowa class BB's as they are now have the firepower of 15 guided missile cruisers. Cramped quarters? Sure but how many crackerjacks would overlook that just to be able to say They've cruised the world in the last remaining BB? Subs are cramped aren't they? No daylight or fresh air for months. I don't think they have any problems manning them, maybe they do but I just don't know? I say get rid of the V-22 program, enough's been wasted already and go for Sikorski's S-92M or an overseas manufacturer of mediumn lift choppers if. Use all that wasted money for something tangible.
Ranger74
Member Since: April 04, 2002
entire network: 1,290 Posts
KitMaker Network: 480 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 03:02 AM UTC
I read recently in Armed Forces Journal that the Navy is now studying building "bombardment ships" to support the Marines. I believe they were looking at multple 8" and 5" guns and as much stealth as feasible. Automation would also greatly reduce manning requirements.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 03:04 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I agree we should build a modern gun cruiser. The Navy has been testing an 8" gun and I built 4 of them for the BBG concept replica, but there are issues with the in place 5" gun hoists. In order to get more guns now the navy still needs to build more ships. Each new ship now has 2 -5" guns. Just think about the ratio of crewmembers to 5" gun shipped? The Iowa class BB's as they are now have the firepower of 15 guided missile cruisers. Cramped quarters? Sure but how many crackerjacks would overlook that just to be able to say They've cruised the world in the last remaining BB? Subs are cramped aren't they? No daylight or fresh air for months. I don't think they have any problems manning them, maybe they do but I just don't know? I say get rid of the V-22 program, enough's been wasted already and go for Sikorski's S-92M or an overseas manufacturer of mediumn lift choppers if. Use all that wasted money for something tangible.
So, is the replacement for the fire power of the battleship to be seen in the delivery methods of the carrier and the DD21 project? As an aside, the value of the V-22 is certainly questionable. But, what replaces the ancient USMC CH-46?
DJ
modelguy2
Member Since: March 09, 2002
entire network: 818 Posts
KitMaker Network: 53 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 03:45 AM UTC
Sikorsky S-92M
I'm no expert on the subject, and I don't know exactly what the specifications are for the replacement of the CH-46 are, but Surely there's some medium lift chopper in existance that can fill the need??
As for replacing the delivery methods with aircraft or cruise missiles is concerned -nothing beats T.O.T of large caliber naval gunfire. Certainly there are instances where air delivery or cruise delivery is acceptable or even preferable, but having the availability should be justification in itelf. Should we do away with mortars, or towed artillary because airpower's available? Data as of 1981 states that 15,500 HC, 3200 AP and 2300 practice 16" rounds were available-to answer that question in an above post.
Greg
Member Since: April 12, 2002
entire network: 455 Posts
KitMaker Network: 149 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 05:08 AM UTC
I don't suggest doing away with naval gunfire, merely that the day of the 16" gun battlewagon is over. The data provided regarding ammunition available as of 1981 speaks for itself: Only 15,000 rounds of HC.... That's a really low stock for 36 tubes, and that figure is over twenty years old! Surely many rounds were expended in practice until the recent retirement, to say nothing of the rounds expended in anger during DS and elsewhere. Simply put the batttleship is not a logistically supportable weapon system these days. A new heavy gun cruiser is, and I'm gratified to see the Navy is thinking seriously about it.
As for the Osprey and the Sea Knight, I'll defer to others on specifics. I think the V-22 is still a decade or so under-developed. Foolish of the USMC to bet the farm on that program with no other option under consideration. Honestly, I think they tried to put Congress in a position where they had no choice but to fund it because the CH-46 was wearing out and the V-22 was the flavor of the month. Might have worked, if the machines hadn't crashed so often. They might be fixed now, but as a taxpayer I am not inclined to trust all Marine airlift to them. Find a new helicopter, and keep playing with the tilt-rotor concept. That new Sikorsky looks sweet, but I know nothing about it.
Greg
As for the Osprey and the Sea Knight, I'll defer to others on specifics. I think the V-22 is still a decade or so under-developed. Foolish of the USMC to bet the farm on that program with no other option under consideration. Honestly, I think they tried to put Congress in a position where they had no choice but to fund it because the CH-46 was wearing out and the V-22 was the flavor of the month. Might have worked, if the machines hadn't crashed so often. They might be fixed now, but as a taxpayer I am not inclined to trust all Marine airlift to them. Find a new helicopter, and keep playing with the tilt-rotor concept. That new Sikorsky looks sweet, but I know nothing about it.
Greg
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 08:18 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I don't suggest doing away with naval gunfire, merely that the day of the 16" gun battlewagon is over. The data provided regarding ammunition available as of 1981 speaks for itself: Only 15,000 rounds of HC.... That's a really low stock for 36 tubes, and that figure is over twenty years old! Surely many rounds were expended in practice until the recent retirement, to say nothing of the rounds expended in anger during DS and elsewhere. Simply put the batttleship is not a logistically supportable weapon system these days. A new heavy gun cruiser is, and I'm gratified to see the Navy is thinking seriously about it.
As for the Osprey and the Sea Knight, I'll defer to others on specifics. I think the V-22 is still a decade or so under-developed. Foolish of the USMC to bet the farm on that program with no other option under consideration. Honestly, I think they tried to put Congress in a position where they had no choice but to fund it because the CH-46 was wearing out and the V-22 was the flavor of the month. Might have worked, if the machines hadn't crashed so often. They might be fixed now, but as a taxpayer I am not inclined to trust all Marine airlift to them. Find a new helicopter, and keep playing with the tilt-rotor concept. That new Sikorsky looks sweet, but I know nothing about it.
Greg
Greg--the Army (of which I can speak with some degree of confidence) has a similar problem helicopter in the Comanche. This very capable looking platform sucks the air out of the Army's developmental budget. The price tag to date is in the stratosphere and we have two sorta flying birds to show for it. From what I read the V-22 is in the same boat. I remember in my youth (like a long time ago) having a bubble gum card showing the Bell version of what is currently the V-22. It did not work either. Nice idea, but short in terms of delivering on the promise. Where do we go from here?
DJ
modelguy2
Member Since: March 09, 2002
entire network: 818 Posts
KitMaker Network: 53 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 09:11 AM UTC
"Where do we go from here?"
The good ol' days of fly before buy. Let the Contractors pay for the R&D. Build a superior prodict then sell it for a profit-not profit from the R&D. AS for the day of the 16" gun being past then so goes the tank..........Mike T
The good ol' days of fly before buy. Let the Contractors pay for the R&D. Build a superior prodict then sell it for a profit-not profit from the R&D. AS for the day of the 16" gun being past then so goes the tank..........Mike T
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 11:53 PM UTC
Quoted Text
"Where do we go from here?"
The good ol' days of fly before buy. Let the Contractors pay for the R&D. Build a superior prodict then sell it for a profit-not profit from the R&D. AS for the day of the 16" gun being past then so goes the tank..........Mike T
Well,working for one of those dirty "Defense Contractors," my two cents is that industry covers a significant portion of the R&D effort. Why not? You reap a tax benefit. However, the cost escalate when the originator either alters the basic concept and design (wow, does that ever happen) or when we make alteration in response to an emerging threat (sometimes, but not often). If the government guys pursue a policy of I do not know what I want until I see it, the cost go through the ceiling. Comanche (in my humble opinion) should either produce a useable, reliable aircraft or be placed on a lower acquisition level. The Army spent and is spending billions on it....and they have exactly two flying prototypes. That ain't cost effective.
DJ
Greg
Member Since: April 12, 2002
entire network: 455 Posts
KitMaker Network: 149 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 01:26 AM UTC
Well, now, this topic has broadened hasn't it?
I like the old fly before buy deal, but it worked best back when competitions were really that and two or three different prototypes were ordered. In this current mega-merger defense industry that doesn't happen any more. Expensive...
Greg
I like the old fly before buy deal, but it worked best back when competitions were really that and two or three different prototypes were ordered. In this current mega-merger defense industry that doesn't happen any more. Expensive...
Greg
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 03:31 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Well, now, this topic has broadened hasn't it?
I like the old fly before buy deal, but it worked best back when competitions were really that and two or three different prototypes were ordered. In this current mega-merger defense industry that doesn't happen any more. Expensive...
Greg
Greg--the Comanche should have been a joint aircraft. Each of the services should have bought into the R&D effort. The Army (why?) did not want the aircraft to go the joint route. Now, they are stuck. I digress.... Is the DD-21 going to be the naval gunfire support vessel of the future?
DJ
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.