Should we bring back the battleships?
Ohio, United States
Member Since: March 09, 2002
entire network: 818 Posts
KitMaker Network: 53 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 03:56 AM UTC
Estimated to enter service in 2011:
Defense Link 29 April 2002
The Navy announced today that Ingalls Shipbuilding Inc., Northrop Grumman Ship Systems (NGSS) has been selected as the lead design agent for the DD(X) ship program. This includes the award of a cost-plus award-fee contract in the amount of $2,879,347,000 for design agent activities such as the systems design of the DD(X) destroyer, and the design, construction and test of its major subsystems. NGSS was the leader of a team of contractors called the "Gold Team" that included Raytheon Systems Co. as the combat systems integrator, and a number of other companies. Gold Team's proposal also incorporated "Blue Team" member Bath Iron Works (BIW) as a subcontractor to perform DDX design and test activities, which will ensure BIW will have the ability to produce a detailed DDX design and build these ships in the future.
Oregon, United States
Member Since: April 12, 2002
entire network: 455 Posts
KitMaker Network: 149 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 05:00 AM UTC
About the Comanche being Army Only...I have one theory, DJ. The current UH-60 series are rather heavy birds for their size, some of which is attributed to the beefier compnents needed for use aboard ship. That PaveHawk that just went down here in my neck of the woods was operating near the limits of its altitude trying to hover at 11,000 feet. I'm sure the Army wants helos with better altitude capability and a lighter airframe, and if my theory holds water I would submit the Army thought that they were saddled with a too-heavy airframe the last time around as a result of making a joint-service bird. Just a theory; I don't know anything that could remotely be considered a fact.
I can't see the picture of the DD(X)
, but it does illustrate the current level of "competition" We try to keep two contractors in business, because competition is good. But contracts are so few and service lifetimes so long that for a vendor to lose one it could go out of business. So, the two major shipyards act a subcontractors for each other to get a piece of the pie. Is there really any competition happening here? Or is it a bureaucratic maneuver to try to maintain jobs in somebody's Congressional district. Don't get me wrong: I am not saying shut down Bath in favor of Litton or vice-versa. I simply wonder if trying to maintain two prime-contractor yards for surface combatants is the most efficient use of tax dollars.
Greg
"You could probably use some armor. A Sherman can give you a very nice...edge."
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 06:25 AM UTC
Greg--target on the mover. The lack of competition is a cause for concern. The defense contractors swallowed up by the largest of the breed is amazing. Here is the crazy parts of it. Boeing ate McDonald Douglas. Afterwards, MacD could bid against Boeing for a contract....if you tell GDLS to back off the M-1, there is literally no other competitor to take their place save the dubious UDLP. GIAT from France doesn't worry about that little fact of American capitalism. Regardless, DD-21 is not going to blast targets for a Marine amphibious assault. Is the day of the seaborne invasion also passe?
DJ
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
matt
Campaigns AdministratorNew York, United States
Member Since: February 28, 2002
entire network: 5,957 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,626 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 07:52 AM UTC
Well, Working indirectly for a defence contractor (2 of our divisions are Gov't contractors ) Supplying Steam turbines & Air/Gas compressors) to the Navy. And having bought out GE's Naval Steam Turbine line, We PRAY for new ships to be designed.
Matt
Tools & Supplies Forum Moderator
Oregon, United States
Member Since: April 12, 2002
entire network: 455 Posts
KitMaker Network: 149 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 10:31 PM UTC
Seaborne invasion is PROBABLY passe, DJ, at least in the sense of assaulting a truly fortified beach. Obviously we want to retain the capability to put troops over the beach, but we'd be fools to get into a situation where another Normandy is necessary. Frankly, I don't see a threat that large. But assuming we will someday go ashore against some opposition, having a gunfire support platform makes sense and a new heavy cruiser would do that job very well. Only real wrinkle I see right now is tactical; the gunfire support ship would have to be in closer than the amphibs! LCACs can run in from over the horizon, but ships on the gunline will need to be closer even if we use UAVs as shot spotters. We're not likely to get 20 mile range from an 8" gun without rocket-assisted projectiles. But who gets the plum contract to build it, I wonder...
Greg
"You could probably use some armor. A Sherman can give you a very nice...edge."
Ohio, United States
Member Since: March 09, 2002
entire network: 818 Posts
KitMaker Network: 53 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 10:59 PM UTC
Hi Captain Greg,
I can say that there are projectiles in the works that make the current 26 mile range look like a putt.....Mike T
Oregon, United States
Member Since: April 12, 2002
entire network: 455 Posts
KitMaker Network: 149 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 11:03 PM UTC
Well, young Modelguy2, that certainly solves the stand-off problem! Care to elaborate on the trick new ammo?
Greg
"You could probably use some armor. A Sherman can give you a very nice...edge."
Ohio, United States
Member Since: March 09, 2002
entire network: 818 Posts
KitMaker Network: 53 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 11:24 PM UTC
Can't
Look around on the web, you'll probably find something...MG2
Tennessee, United States
Member Since: April 04, 2002
entire network: 1,290 Posts
KitMaker Network: 480 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 11:54 PM UTC
Greg,
Modern naval guns have always had longer ranges that their ground based counterparts (mobile guns that is). A shipboard gun can have a longer barrel and a larger breach capable of a larger charge, generally resulting in greater range for a given bore. Now if they can make an 8" gun with the rate of fire of the new 5" and 76mm naval guns, you will be able to raise some real havoc ashore :-) There was also a project to mount a navalized MLRS on board ships, that would ruin some enemies day
Jeff
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 12:44 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Greg,
Modern naval guns have always had longer ranges that their ground based counterparts (mobile guns that is). A shipboard gun can have a longer barrel and a larger breach capable of a larger charge, generally resulting in greater range for a given bore. Now if they can make an 8" gun with the rate of fire of the new 5" and 76mm naval guns, you will be able to raise some real havoc ashore :-) There was also a project to mount a navalized MLRS on board ships, that would ruin some enemies day
Jeff
Jeff---so what capabilities does the DD-21 bring to the fight?
DJ
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Ohio, United States
Member Since: March 09, 2002
entire network: 818 Posts
KitMaker Network: 53 Posts
Posted: Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 01:44 AM UTC
Hi Col.
From Janes : (
http://www.janes.com )
Intended to enter service from 2011, the DD 21 Zumwalt class will be optimised for land attack, power projection and support of US Marine Corps and Army forces ashore. It will deploy the 155mm Advanced Gun System (AGS), a supersonic Advanced Land Attack Missile and the Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile. It will also offer capabilities to support maritime dominance in the air, surface and sub-surface domains. Each ship will have over 250 vertical launch cells for missile outload.
DD 21 will employ electric drive, using common prime movers to generate power for both propulsion and ship service needs. Expected benefits include fewer prime movers, greater flexibility of arrangement, more efficient operation and improved survivability. The USN also believes that electric drive aboard DD 21 will bring advantages in terms of signatures, manning and habitability
Did I read electric drive!!??
All this for just this side of 3 billion dollars is a mere minimum of 8 years in the future. Not sure about anti-missile capabilities or close in defence against small boats but I'd bet it can't take the hits a BB can. Hopefully we won't need superior naval gunfire support in a littoral conflict before we see a few of these DD's.
for more reading:
http://www.mediacen.navy.mil/pubs/allhands/jan98/janpg46.htmArizona, United States
Member Since: February 13, 2002
entire network: 382 Posts
KitMaker Network: 101 Posts
Posted: Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 04:52 AM UTC
Quoted Text
About the Comanche being Army Only...I have one theory, DJ. The current UH-60 series are rather heavy birds for their size, some of which is attributed to the beefier compnents needed for use aboard ship. That PaveHawk that just went down here in my neck of the woods was operating near the limits of its altitude trying to hover at 11,000 feet. I'm sure the Army wants helos with better altitude capability and a lighter airframe, and if my theory holds water I would submit the Army thought that they were saddled with a too-heavy airframe the last time around as a result of making a joint-service bird. Just a theory; I don't know anything that could remotely be considered a fact.
The Army has had it's fingers burned several times in joint projects. The MBT70 was a similar deal, among several countries instead of just different services. That program left a lot of senior folks deeply suspicious of anything that smells like a joint program. The Blackhawk program was modified to meet the needs of the Marines and the Navy, and then the Marines only bought a few (the V22 became the Grail, and the Blackhawk was out). The Navy use of the Blackhawk is far out of proportion to the demands that they placed on the design of the aircraft. So working with the other services has been a lot of trouble with little return.
(The F111 was a joint Air Force/Navy project that wound up with everyone pissed off. It was supposed to be the ground-attack solution for the Army, and it never showed up.)
The Marines have demonstrated a tendency to demand certain things, and no compromises are possible. They have also made it clear that they were going their own way on several aquisition projects for equipment in the last few years (the modernized ruck, and their new (copyrighted) pattern camoflage uniforms spring to mind). Of course, the Marines see the street from the other end, and they aren't impressed with the Army tendency to sacrifice capabilities based on budget, weight, or other non-mission-related reasons.
Here endeth today's rant...
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 08:01 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
About the Comanche being Army Only...I have one theory, DJ. The current UH-60 series are rather heavy birds for their size, some of which is attributed to the beefier compnents needed for use aboard ship. That PaveHawk that just went down here in my neck of the woods was operating near the limits of its altitude trying to hover at 11,000 feet. I'm sure the Army wants helos with better altitude capability and a lighter airframe, and if my theory holds water I would submit the Army thought that they were saddled with a too-heavy airframe the last time around as a result of making a joint-service bird. Just a theory; I don't know anything that could remotely be considered a fact.
Well, I certainly got a great deal from your remarks.
thank you
DJ
The Army has had it's fingers burned several times in joint projects. The MBT70 was a similar deal, among several countries instead of just different services. That program left a lot of senior folks deeply suspicious of anything that smells like a joint program. The Blackhawk program was modified to meet the needs of the Marines and the Navy, and then the Marines only bought a few (the V22 became the Grail, and the Blackhawk was out). The Navy use of the Blackhawk is far out of proportion to the demands that they placed on the design of the aircraft. So working with the other services has been a lot of trouble with little return.
(The F111 was a joint Air Force/Navy project that wound up with everyone pissed off. It was supposed to be the ground-attack solution for the Army, and it never showed up.)
The Marines have demonstrated a tendency to demand certain things, and no compromises are possible. They have also made it clear that they were going their own way on several aquisition projects for equipment in the last few years (the modernized ruck, and their new (copyrighted) pattern camoflage uniforms spring to mind). Of course, the Marines see the street from the other end, and they aren't impressed with the Army tendency to sacrifice capabilities based on budget, weight, or other non-mission-related reasons.
Here endeth today's rant...
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Posted: Monday, June 10, 2002 - 09:03 AM UTC
just out of curiousity would an Iowa or a New Jersey be able to stand up against stand-off or fire and forget missiles. could they redo the sides of the ships similar to a Aegis class cruiser, you know make it a large stealth ship. hide the side turrets under slab sides, paint it black and give it a radar absorbing coating. 16" shells come crashing in and the enemy can't find where it is coming from........what a concept, eh?
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 12:19 AM UTC
Quoted Text
just out of curiousity would an Iowa or a New Jersey be able to stand up against stand-off or fire and forget missiles. could they redo the sides of the ships similar to a Aegis class cruiser, you know make it a large stealth ship. hide the side turrets under slab sides, paint it black and give it a radar absorbing coating. 16" shells come crashing in and the enemy can't find where it is coming from........what a concept, eh?
PAK---obviously not my field of expertise. However, if you look back at submissions into this tread, I believe you can see where we intermingle the past, present, and future of these vessels inot a web that somewhat mystifies. Would you really need the WW II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War manning level on a modernized vessel? If you completely gutted out the interior replacing all the crew compartments, latrines, wash rooms, gallies, and power plants you might just have the most unsinkable craft in history. But, at what cost? In my Wife's hometown of Falls River, Massachusettes, for example, they have the USS Massachusettes on display. She has been at that berth for almost fifty years. Impressive vessel. She has a crew of dedicated volunteers restoring everything from the turrets to the engine rooms. If you sent her to a shipyard for refurbishing, she would again sail the seas. The over riding factor in my mind is not the utility of these fine weapons, but the cost. It would astronomical. But, at the end, you would assured have a modern warship, manned by far fewer people (engine room modernization, fire control, navigation, etc) than the current projections. All in all a balancing of resource against desired capabilities. What would you do? What would you give up to get one of these ships modernized? Those are the tough questions of defense management.
DJ
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Posted: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 12:57 AM UTC
the 16" guns would be thrilling to see.............i had mentioned angling slabs on the port and starboard sides, putting missile lauchers of different kinds behind the sides. sure it might take a pretty coin to do, but my word, what a ship. almost takes my breath away. guns and missiles pointed at you, and no where to hide. the enemy would surrender before the first salvo.
by the way, i'm originally from Wakefield, RI
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 02:46 AM UTC
Pak--Wakefield! We enjoyed the area while I wa sattending the Naval War College some years ago. Nice place. It's almost tragic to watch those ships sit and sit. Better minds then mine control the purse strings.
DJ
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Kuching, Malaysia
Member Since: June 19, 2002
entire network: 216 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 12:59 PM UTC
has all battleships in the US navy been retired? Is there a place where I could get a close up view of those battleships? I have never seen a real one before.
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 09:59 PM UTC
Quoted Text
has all battleships in the US navy been retired? Is there a place where I could get a close up view of those battleships? I have never seen a real one before.
The USN has no active battleships. You can range from Massachusettes to South Carolina and find various pre-Iowa Class BBs. The Iowa Class have the Missouri at Pearl Harbor, the New Jersey in south NJ. I think the Wisconsin and the Iowa are also floating museums either in the South or on the West Coast. If you hit the USN homepage and do some searching you can find specific ship locations. Hope this helps.
DJ
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Kuching, Malaysia
Member Since: June 19, 2002
entire network: 216 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 10:31 PM UTC
I have seen the list from the navy's offical site. Nice ships, I hope i have the chance to visit US in the future and the first place i would wanna go is to hawai and see The Missouri. Thanks of the info. wonder if they let us go in and have look-see around?...
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 12:51 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I have seen the list from the navy's offical site. Nice ships, I hope i have the chance to visit US in the future and the first place i would wanna go is to hawai and see The Missouri. Thanks of the info. wonder if they let us go in and have look-see around?...
The restored museum vessels I have gone on let you roam a superb series of exhibits. You see everything from the crew quarters to the inside of the gun turrets. I was truly impressed by the 16 inch ammunition storage rooms which are monuments to the stoutness of the ship. You owe it to yourself to see one.
DJ
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Kuching, Malaysia
Member Since: June 19, 2002
entire network: 216 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 08:14 AM UTC
gee....that sounds exicting. I'm sure gonna go and have a look myself. thanks!
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, June 24, 2002 - 12:03 AM UTC
Quoted Text
gee....that sounds exicting. I'm sure gonna go and have a look myself. thanks!
Depending on where you live, I know there are BBs in North Carolina, Texas, Massachusettes, New Jersey, and Hawaii. There is a place called Patriot Point in South Carolina which has the WWII carrier Enterprise, but I don't think they have a BB. Some other people can chime in and add to this brief list.
DJ
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Ohio, United States
Member Since: March 09, 2002
entire network: 818 Posts
KitMaker Network: 53 Posts
Posted: Monday, June 24, 2002 - 12:36 AM UTC
The USS Enterprise-the most decorated ship in World war II, serving from the beginning of hostilities 'till the end, with 20 battle stars was put to the cutting torch in 1959. Patriots Point is home to the USS Yorktown (II-CV-10) an Essex class carrier......Mike T
Washington, United States
Member Since: May 23, 2002
entire network: 275 Posts
KitMaker Network: 95 Posts
Posted: Monday, June 24, 2002 - 02:07 AM UTC
I stumbled onto this thread late in the game, but as a Master Chief submariner (who loves armor models!) I've gotta respond. While battleshps can definitely deliver needed support to the Marines, their time has come and gone. The Navy could easily man the battleships- if our authorized end strength is increased by Congress (not gonna happen). Additionally, the cost of upgrading 4 BB's for the 21st century would not make as much sense vice refueling/converting 4 SSBNs to SSGNs(COST= ABOUT $2 Billion. The SSGNs will be able to carry as many tomahawks as an entire Battlegroup AND will carry Special Forces (SEALS) without being detected. I'm probably biased (I will be COB on one of the SSGNs next year) but for my money, the Subs are the way to go.
