Article

2005-12-15 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by FOTSGreg 2005-12-15 17:44|| || Front Page|| [14 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Keeping the battleships in reserve costs only $250,000 a year, with reactivation estimated at $500 million (taking six months to a year) and full modernization more than $1.5 billion (less than two years).

If these beasts have value as fire support platforms, why then are they in mothballs where a refit would take some time to perform?

Any future conflict requiring an amphibious landing isn't going to wait for the Iowa or the Wisconsin to be reactivated and deployed.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-15 20:35|| 2005-12-15 20:35|| Front Page Top

#2 Because the NAVY Brass does not give a damn about Marine dead, just their new toys like the DD(X). Remember, the Marines are not subservient enough to the Navy, so the Navy is now pushing for a Naval Infantry regiment - an all-Navy infantry unit that would duplicate the Marines. The Navy REMFs do not mind if Marines die because of the lack of inherent naval gunfires, just that they make Rear Admiral with a flagship.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2005-12-15 20:42|| 2005-12-15 20:42|| Front Page Top

#3 These aren't just cannons on a self-propelled platform. $500 million reactivation and 1.5 billion modernization estimates don't take into account brining on and maintaining a crew of 800-1600 (depending on how much modernization is done). That doesn't include having to train a whole new generation of boiler techs. We haven't even touched on the cost of operating these beasties.

The BBs aren't much good for ASW. They're limited as ASUW platforms. If the Marines want to cough up $4 billion to bring 'em on line, plus whatever it takes to keep them at minimum readiness, they're more than welcome to make the offer.

Posted by Pappy 2005-12-15 21:16|| 2005-12-15 21:16|| Front Page Top

#4 No Pappy, that is the Navy's damned job : to come up with the money to provide the required support for the Marines. And if the Navy does not want to do that, then perhaps the Marines should be split off as a separate distinct service and perhaps the Navy should lose 10% of its funding to pay for what the now independent Marines need for fire support. And if people are concerned about the funding issue, how about bumping up the defense budget by 2 billion dollars for 5 years to pay for this? It is not like we are spending too large a percentage of our GNP on the military nowadays.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2005-12-15 21:59|| 2005-12-15 21:59|| Front Page Top

#5 In today's dollars, I wonder how much an old-style battleship, singularly a 16" platform, cost, if purchased by a civilian? The idea being that, if push came to shove, he coule *rent* the battleship to the Marines.

Nothing fancy, no guided missiles, no advanced much of anything. Just a heavily armored tub thumper.

If done with economy in mind, I bet one could be made for maybe $100M, and damn good quality at that. With a one mission rental of $100M, it would pay for itself quick. Otherwise it sits back in the rear in drydock, kept in pristine condition.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-12-15 22:16|| 2005-12-15 22:16|| Front Page Top

#6 Navy League article: Successful test flights of a long-range naval artillery projectile paved the way for BAE Systems to award Lockheed Martin a $120 million contract for further development and testing of the projectile.

The Long-Range Land-Attack Projectile (LRLAP) is being developed for the Advanced Gun System, a naval system being developed by BAE Systems for the Navyâs next-generation destroyer, the DD(X). The LRLAP is a precision munition designed to provide Marine expeditionary forces rapid-response, high-volume, all-weather fire support.

The 155mm LRLAP is equipped with a rocket motor, tail fins and a navigation system with Global Positioning System capability to guide it to its intended target.

During the most recent tests this summer, the projectile impacted the predicted target area at ranges of 59, 46.5 and 63 nautical miles, respectively, distance records for gun-launched naval munitions. (The holder of the world record for land-based gun artillery is the German 232mm Paris Gun, which bombarded Paris with 277-pound projectiles for 140 days in 1918 at a range of 74.6 miles.) The LRLAP is designed for precision support to a range of 83 nautical miles.

â[LRLAPâs] range, accuracy and lethality will give the DD(X) the capability to support military operations in coastal areas with devastating force and minimum collateral damage,â said Capt. James Murdoch of the program executive office for Integrated Warfare Systems.

âLRLAP will have a key role in future coastal and urban combat scenarios,â said Pete Jasinis, Lockheed Martinâs LRLAP program manager.

The DD(X) is designed to be equipped with two fully automated 155mm Advanced Gun Systems and a magazine capacity of 920 LRLAP rounds.

Development of the LRLAP also has been supported by Science Applications International Corp., Custom Analytical Engineering, Alliant Techsystems, Goodrich and Honeywell.

Under the contract, Lockheed Martin is scheduled to deliver more than 100 LRLAP projectiles for development testing from 2006-2008 and qualification testing for the Advanced Gun System in 2009-2010. The company expects to begin full-rate production of the projectile in 2011.

I think the Marines are just worried about the feasibility of the Advanced Gun System and want to hedge their bets for $250K a year*. I bet they'll even pay that $250K. The Navy just wants to kill battleships dead. I think we should keep our options open. $250K is just a drop in the bucket.

* I think the battleship's supporters may be understating the costs. A battleship is a very specific type of ship with specific weapons systems. What about the costs of keeping a crew up to date on the operation of battleships? Gunnery practice with 16-inch guns, etc. That is most of the cost of operating a weapons platform - manpower.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-12-15 22:34|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-12-15 22:34|| Front Page Top

#7 The battleships are looked upon by the Navy as a symbol of defeat dating back to Pearl Harbor. The Navy wants to get rid of them, the Marines want to keep them. The difference in Naval/Marine air is that a bomb can be placed somewhere in a three-meter box. A 16-inch round can be placed on the SPECIFIED CORNER of a one-meter box.

If the Navy were to strip down the battleships to just their 16-inch guns, thoroughly modernize and air condition them, add MLRS launchers in place of the 5-inch guns and add a good anti-aircraft missile, the BBs would be worth their weight in gold to the Marines, and would give the Navy a surface combatant force it currently doesn't have. With the new GPS-guided MLRS round, accuracy would be astounding. The only two things that would have to be done would be to train gunners (there hasn't been an active duty 16-inch gun crew in 27 years) and replace the current powder and explosive charges in the 16-inch shells, which are ALL left over from WW-II.

I went aboard the New Jersey when she came through Panama in 1968, on her way to Vietnam. I'm convinced that there is still a role for the BB's in the US Navy. Unfortunately, the Navy doesn't want to agree with me - or the Marines.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2005-12-15 22:38|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2005-12-15 22:38|| Front Page Top

#8 Whether BB or CVN, etc. the future of these traditional platforms is to be as super-arsenal ships of various hybrid designs wid multipurpose firepower dominance, and this exclusive of potens SPACE-BASED FIRE SUPPORT. The US Army is already contracting for designs for quad tilt-rotor vertical-lift attack transports capable of landing heavy AFVS deep behind enemy lines ala "Air-Mech" concepts. Its a issue of whether the services will continue to believe/adhere to America's enemies having "sufficient/rough parity" warfighting tech as opposed to inferior or easily overwhelmed tech when it comes time to face the American Death Star in direct combat.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2005-12-15 23:37|| 2005-12-15 23:37|| Front Page Top

00:03 MarkB
00:03 JosephMendiola
23:53 trailing wife
23:40 The Happy Fliegerabwehrkanonen
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:32 Alaska Paul
23:29 Alaska Paul
23:19 Bomb-a-rama
23:17 CrazyFool
23:07 CrazyFool
23:05 Oldspook
23:03 Old Patriot
22:54 twobyfour
22:54 Oldspook
22:53 Alaska Paul
22:50 Barbara Skolaut
22:47 twobyfour
22:45 Oldspook
22:38 Old Patriot
22:34 Zhang Fei
22:28 Alaska Paul
22:22 Old Patriot
22:16 Anonymoose
22:11 anon1