Battleships

[PropStop]

This is my latest attempt at starting a fight. I don't think this subject with be quite so....entertaining.... Anyhow, Battleships, specifically the Iowa class bad boys; do you think they have a place in today's Navy?

I think they do. There is no more economical and devastating way to deliver a message to a littoral target than a BB. 16" guns, for when you care to send the very best! During the first Gulf War the Iraqi's lived in fear of the Missouri's big guns.

Besides, they just LOOK cool, and really, when it comes to intimidating the bad guys, looking cool is 90% of the job.

I would never want to be a SWO unless i could be on an Iowa class.

learn more about them here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/bb-61.htm

Thoughts?

 

[Dunedan]

I was actually kinda disappointed to find out that the USS Wisconsin (Iowa Class), now part of a museum in Norfolk, is still on inactive reserve. Reason being, we were not allowed to go belowdecks or into the superstructure as part of the tour. The USS Alabama (not Iowa class, but very similar - just a bit smaller), in Mobile, being fully decomissioned, is totally open for curious explorers like me.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

I think the reasoning is that Aircraft Carriers sort of took over the "force projection" role.

I mean, in the past we would park a Battleship in someone's dock and say "Hey, are you listening to us?" now we can do the same thing with a CAG, and have the added benefit of cool jets to fly around and impress people with.

I think we should have kept the Missouri around, and maybe a few others. I took a tour of her when she came up to Bremerton many years ago. Beautiful ship. From the highway when you drive by the harbor, the Missouri looks so commanding. Then you go aboard and it is truly awe inspiring.

 

[HAL Pilot]

I would never want to be a SWO unless i could be on an Iowa class.

Still not a good enough reason.

 

[lowflier03]

I dont think we could afford to outfit one with modern weaponry. The cost of laser guided, rocket propelled artillery shells is a bit prohibitive. I remember reading a study somewhere about launching Tomahawks from a BB, and how we didnt have enough in our inventory to fill it up. Just think of the modern firepower one could carry.

 

[A4sForever]

Battleships ... USS Missouri (today) in Pearl --- took the tour originating from CinPacFlt landing @ Aiea out to the Arizona Memorial. If you have the "means" :captain_1 ... I highly recommend the CinPac Aiea version rather than the tour that originates at the main visitor center. The "Mighty Mo" is still very impressive ..... at the start of Desert Storm, I saw the Missouri coming out of the mouth of Pearl -- heading for the Gulf -- from overhead as we banked right over her on our way to Tokyo. Great timing --- she was BEAUTIFUL with a "bone in her teeth" and looked every part the warship --- very purposeful, "lean & mean". But Battleships??? They ain't coming back .... sadly.

A classmate of mine put in for "Battleships" on graduation --- somewhat tongue-in-cheek as a joke; only one BB then being reactivated for Vietnam service. A few months later, he found himself on USS New Jersey on the gunline off North/South Vietnam. Be careful what you "wish" for ......

CinPacFlt Aiea Landing

 

[DanMa1156]

Even without guided munitions

Battleships cost alot of money to man; their crews are huge. I'm pretty sure that's why they have cut BBs from today's active Navy. I do agree they are really cool, but when was the last time/ how often do we see Marines storming beaches and needing protection from a Battleship on the shore blasting its guns away, or at least doing something that a more economical and accurate Hornet/Superhornet/Harrier/Warthog can't provide for cover on the ground? Yes, they are intimidating to other countries, but with so much politics these days (which, in terms of lives lost, has changed for the better, arguably), every country in the world knows we're not just going to start blowing them up with a battleship and its unguided munitions just for any reason. A carrier has the same desired effect with the knowledge that it has deadly accuracy, and mind you, it is still surrounded by Destroyers, Cruisers, and other supporting ships. Finally, we no longer have true naval enemies. We have won the seas. The Battleship would just end up floating around, having no one to battle while money-concious senators and representatives complain about their cost to the U.S. taxpayer. If you want to read more information about the whole topic, there is always a fight on www.military.com under the Navy forums, most often in Surface Warfare about bringing back the battleships.

On a final note, as much negativity as I just stated, I would love to see them come back, but for now, it looks like they are doomed until we have a naval enemy or until they can run more economically.

 

[SteveG75]

Battleship will never come back. Can you say "railgun" boys and girls.

Here is a link: http://nrac.onr.navy.mil/webspace/reports/04_em_gun.pdf
Or do your own google search.

Basically 200nm range, 2kg projectile hitting at >1.5km/sec releases a lot of kinetic energy.

 

[metro]

I think this issue has a lot to do with war/battle in general becoming "modernized." You can see the leanings towards smaller/more efficient crafts and tactics in almost every phase of warfare. That something so large and so taxing in the "manpower vs. effectiveness" has fallen by the wayside is not surprising...everything goes this way eventually, I suppose. Another example is the adoption of the M-4 in lieu of the M-16 by many law enforcement and military units. The original M-16 is still a great symbol, and very nostalgic, but the M-4 is (by most accounts) a better, more efficient, and more "modern" weapon. Not to say that the trend towards more advanced weapons is necessarily better...for example, when the world eventually becomes controlled by "push-button" warfare, i.e. long-range ballistic missiles and (eventually) satellite-mounted and controlled laser or missile systems, I will feel a lot less safe than I do now. But your mileage may vary.

 

[Fly Navy]

Another example is the adoption of the M-4 in lieu of the M-16 by many law enforcement and military units. The original M-16 is still a great symbol, and very nostalgic, but the M-4 is (by most accounts) a better, more efficient, and more "modern" weapon. Not to say that the trend towards more advanced weapons is necessarily better...for example, when the world eventually becomes controlled by "push-button" warfare, i.e. long-range ballistic missiles and (eventually) satellite-mounted and controlled laser or missile systems, I will feel a lot less safe than I do now. But your mileage may vary.

Bad examples bro. In its basic form, the M-4 is just an M-16 with a short barrel and collapsable buttstock. The goodies you can put on an M-4 can be put on an M-16. Your camparison would work better with one of the new SIG 550 models or the H&K G36 models. And the M-4 is not the better of the two all the time. In longer range engagements, or fighting foes with body armor, the M-16 is a better choice. The 14.5" barrel on the M-4 means that the M855 ammunition used today will lose its critical fragmentation velocity at a shorter range. This can be a problem, depending what you're shooting at and at what range. There is a reason the Marine Corps stuck with the M-16A4 instead of an M-4 variant for general issue.

We've had laser and missile systems for a while. Nothing still beats boots on the ground. You can't occupy territory without them. Note: Nuking the place doesn't mean you occupied it

 

[metro]

Good point, and thanks for the corrections, Fly. I'm pretty new to the world of firearms, and M-4 vs. M-16 was all I could think of. I agree with your point about nothing beats boots on the ground, and I hope everyone, particularly those "in charge" always remember that, too. That's why the proliferation of newer/better/deadlier weapons, particularly of the ilk that require less and less human interaction, frighten me in some ways. I dread the days when human decisions are able to be removed from strategic planning and operations, and hope that even when it's possible to do so, that the powers that be still understand and respect the necessity of human control over such power.

 

[Fly Navy]

Good point, and thanks for the corrections, Fly. I'm pretty new to the world of firearms, and M-4 vs. M-16 was all I could think of.

It is of no consequence young Padawan. You will be a Jedi in time.

I agree with your point about nothing beats boots on the ground, and I hope everyone, particularly those "in charge" always remember that, too. That's why the proliferation of newer/better/deadlier weapons, particularly of the ilk that require less and less human interaction, frighten me in some ways. I dread the days when human decisions are able to be removed from strategic planning and operations, and hope that even when it's possible to do so, that the powers that be still understand and respect the necessity of human control over such power.

KNow something scarier? More often than not, when war games leading to nuclear exchange have been conducted, the civilian leaders, those responsible for these decisions for the most part, launch the nukes much earlier than the military commanders. It's not their a$$ in the field that's going to get counter-nuked, so long as it stays limited (yeah, right!).

 

[A4sForever]

Why don't we resurrect one of the firearms-oriented threads with this stuff? Or start one ??? I have a lot of "opinion" on the subject and would like to see a discussion. But Battleships ???

M-16A2 Rifle ........................................... M-4 Carbine

 

[Fly Navy]

Sounds good A4s, here you go: http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10425

 

[Jolly Roger]

A4s, you might wann try the search function, I know web-san reinstalled it....