It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bye Bye Battleships ?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
January 3, 2006:

The U.S. Navy is asking Congress for permission to remove the battleships Iowa and Wisconsin from the Naval Register of Vessels, citing the grand total of $1.4 million annual maintenance costs for both vessels.

However,

There has been a push by a number of retired Marine officers and other former officials former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, former Marine Commandants Paul X. Kelley and James Jones, and General Tommy Franks, to reactivate the battleships.

Total cost for reactivation as is has been placed at $430 million, with 14 months needed to complete the work. A 10-month modernization program costing a total of $500 million for both ships is also proposed. This would permit the ships to be ready in two years.

strategy page link to story

www.strategypage.com...

So do we renovate and update the 60 y/o battleships in two years at about one third the cost of one of the new ships ?

Or wait another six or seven years (assuming no delays) for the new ships at three times the cost for just one and maybe still not get something dedicated to direct fire support.

Did'nt the USN pull the ships out of mothballs just before the first Gulf War? or was that under Reagan when they updated, I still remember when the Iowa blew off a turret in a live fire exercise and it killed several sailors, wow now I am showing my age.




posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
The real cost of bringing back the Iowas is not in the costs of modernizing and reactivating them, but the cost of fueling and manning them. These ships are extremely manpower-intensive, with a crew of over a thousand sailors, three or four times what a DDX will require. They would also require dedicated fleet oilers to support them.

They're beautiful ships with impressive capabilities still, but simply too expensive to operate. With Iraq soaking up DoD budgets like a sponge, there is no way to fund them without giving up something else.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   
they are beautiful ships, even thought they were used to kill with, but even with modernization...how effective do you think it will be against the long-range missles?

it certainly can't stand up to a newer vessel..why not just turn it into a museum with payed tours, and spend the 430 mil on a new aircraft carrier?

it seems that the day of the battleship is over, now that weapons have an effective range of over 100 miles.

seems kinda pointless hmm? no more pull up and bombard...just shoot an run.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 03:42 AM
link   
how about rocket assisted 16inch new fire control systems new powerplant maybe even fewer sailors due to modernization, new aa and stealth!

There are no ships that could stand a 16" shell hit!

Maybe the 16inch guns can fire emp shells?



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kingalbrect79
...how effective do you think it will be against the long-range missles?

it certainly can't stand up to a newer vessel..


It certainly can stand up to newer vessels. A standard anti-chipping missile is desigend to destroy frigates and destroyers. Not Battle Cruisers the size of the Iowas.

The most famous maritime-strike missile, Exocet, would do little more than cosmetic damage to an Iowa. There is too much armour, too many watertight compartments and just too much bulk for the hand grenade on the pointy end of most maritime-strike missiles.

Remember, these things were desigend to go toe-to-toe with ships of equal size and armament, do you know how much a 16" shell weighs?

How effective is goalkeeper or phalanx against long-range missiles, 'cause that's all your newer warships are packing and that's exactly what would be fitted during upgrade.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   
your right to say that a modern missile would barely dent the armour belt on an Iowa class. If it hit the superstucture however there is much more chance of a fire breaking out (fire is just about the only thing that will really kill a ship of that size). refitting or upgrading the engines would be a horrendous task as would rewwiring the entire vessel to modern standards. The reason that modern vessels dont have the armour is that they rely on a different defence strategy. They prefer not to get hit in the first place rather than surviving the hits.


The age of the battleship is over, and they should be allowed to rest as the queens of the sea that they are.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Well, the power of a 16" shell is certainly considerable, but the real death knell is in range.

an Iowa class Battleship is the most powerful warship around, at least within 50 miles of it's own position.

An Arliegh Burke class Destroyer is also one of the most heavily armed warships on the planet. (ton for ton) It's lethal out to a range of a thousand miles, with it's Tomahawk weapons.

Now for those desiring Battleships of some form or another in the US Navy, I suggest looking at the actual predicted capabilities of the DD(X). They're talking gun ranges of a hundred miles or more, at a minimum. Considering the impact velocities, one of those shells striking another warship would be extrodinarily lethal, to the point that one may make a strong argument that DD(X) will in fact be a modern Battleship.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 03:06 AM
link   
the Iowa had tomahawks
new ammo rocket assisted rounds or 16" railguns using the tubes as heat sinks?

give it the most advanced equipment make it the FLAG ship

I am sure the battleships could be retrofitted and modernized I dont mean with off the shelf I mean the top notch tech the best . Basically a mobile command center and UAV carrier with extended range main guns with UAV spoting and anti- missile/sub uavs.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   
hmmm... coulda sworn I'd already posted the following.

Trying to retrofit a 60+ year old hull to do a completely new job is still not as easy or cost efficient as building a new ship from the keel up to do the job.

As for the Armored Box Launchers the Iowas had, that was a total of 16 missiles. As opposed to the 90 missiles on a modern destroyer, 122 on a cruiser, or 154 in a refit Ohio class submarine.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:54 AM
link   
then they should study every bit of them

use that as a basis for the first of the new BB class, rail guns and other advanced materials are soon to be here DD(x) could be a test bed for other future upgrades if it works.

whats the range of a rail gun? if a rail gun or other weaponary I could see a reason to rething the bb the USS OREGON


newest ship out to sea but it would carry uavs and missiles aa aam and the top of the line radar and stealth oh yeah!

or you equip a brown water navy with them



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Char2c35t
how about rocket assisted 16inch new fire control systems new powerplant maybe even fewer sailors due to modernization, new aa and stealth!

There are no ships that could stand a 16" shell hit!

Maybe the 16inch guns can fire emp shells?


I don't think they have EMP tech for shells yet. =P



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they already stop using the big battle cruisers quite a long time ago? Like in the 1980's?

Ether way, there just doing what all armies are doing. Sacrificing armor, size, and brute force for speed, stealth, and precision.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   
besides, we don't really need Battleships if noone else in the world has them. heck, few countries even have ships close to being equivilent to our Destroyers, so as long as we have Carriers around for the "big punch", Destroyers are the biggest thing we need.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kacen
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they already stop using the big battle cruisers quite a long time ago? Like in the 1980's?

Ether way, there just doing what all armies are doing. Sacrificing armor, size, and brute force for speed, stealth, and precision.


Actually it was around 1991. USS Missouri was in GW1. IIRC she stopped in Pearl Harbor for the 50th anniversary of the start of WWII in Dec 1991, and was part of the ceremonies for that, then sailed home and was retired.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by Kacen
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they already stop using the big battle cruisers quite a long time ago? Like in the 1980's?

Ether way, there just doing what all armies are doing. Sacrificing armor, size, and brute force for speed, stealth, and precision.


Actually it was around 1991. USS Missouri was in GW1. IIRC she stopped in Pearl Harbor for the 50th anniversary of the start of WWII in Dec 1991, and was part of the ceremonies for that, then sailed home and was retired.


Ah, I see. Thanks for the correction.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
IIRC she stopped in Pearl Harbor for the 50th anniversary of the start of WWII in Dec 1991, and was part of the ceremonies for that, then sailed home and was retired.


I assume you mean the American start of WW2. WW2 started a couple of years earlier for the rest of us. (small, narky points!
)

Ex-RAF mascot Fowler in Chicken Run: "Yanks, can't trust 'em, been late to every war!"



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Yeah Yeah Yeah, whatever.
Perhaps I should have said "the start of the AMERICAN WWII due to the attack on Pearl Harbor"



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I think that it should be stripped of armament and refitted with beam weapons or maybe a EM railgun of some type. Maybe a floating satellite killer or platform to launch missile barrage from. I understand the sentimental issues but c'mon, lets move on and get wicked nasty weapons onboard. What better way to remember the guys who died on these ships that make them bigger and badder (sp?). IMHO.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
If they ever considder reintroduction of the BB class, then I would advise them to start from scratch, the Iowa Class was a wonderful ship, but a newer ship would probably be less expensive over-all.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
[Quote]Originally posted by xmotex
The real cost of bringing back the Iowas is not in the costs of modernizing and reactivating them, but the cost of fueling and manning them. These ships are extremely manpower-intensive, with a crew of over a thousand sailors, three or four times what a DDX will require. They would also require dedicated fleet oilers to support them.

[Quote]

In my opinion the only thing that the old battleships could be without such a reconfiguration that only the hull remains the same is a temporary stopgap untill the DDX's arrive. The DDX's will be faster, have a lesser crew, have far more firepower in terms of both a longer range gun, more missiles and have a larger magazine, be more stealthy, will be more economic (in terms of fuel) will be easier to repair and upgrade and will perform better in every single way apart from if it gets hit by a missile. however if a missile hits a US warship then the defensive missiles have failed, so why not spend all the money on either upgrading the current anti missile missiles or develouping new anti missile missiles instead of bringing several antiques back into service.

justin



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join