The unfortunate part of the BB experience I noted in the late 80's and early 90's was the crews were generally like I heard an AF friend say about BUFF pilots..."they did well in the lower half of their class."
I operated with IOWA for a few days during a THAWK OTL. We spent time with the crew planning that op. Later, I inspected WISCONSIN, and the OPS Boss was the guy I had relieved a few jobs before. The Missile Officer was one who had been the THAWK Program Office guy in the 80's. Point being, I got more info and better tours of the ship, merely because I knew some of the crew. There were some good hard working "kids" in the gunnery spaces, but mostly all were non-rates, with a very few CPOs and usually an ensign as turret officer. They all tried hard, but really lacked experieince on the deck plates. That caused most of the problems.
Lots of pluses technically, just it's hard to atract "high end" people to them, at all levels of the rank structure, when AEGIS is the "ticket."
They're expensive to maintain and crew (with the latter consideration being THE consideration in today's Navy), and there's little that they do which is so unique and necessary that the expense that comes with them is merited. Being able to lob shells 115 miles is great, but what scenario exists that would require such a capability? If we're supporting the Marines they'd sooner have their own gunslingers with aviation support than a BB slogging rounds at anything past 20 miles.
As far as being a TMK platform is concerned, the bubbleheads have already stolen that role and it'd be hard to justify having another overly expensive platform (like an Ohio class submarine) around to just sling cruise missiles.
As for Iraqi soldiers surrendering to a UAV, it's not very likely they knew where it came from, and regardless of where it came from they knew it was there to target them with something and they weren't much concerned about where that something came from, they knew the likelihood of it being accurate was high.
James- you may be right. My recollection was that they had come to associate the UAV noise with a hellish bombardment...so they surrendered to the UAV...
Many pros and cons to bringing the BB's back. Nice pro that I like is that most Anti-ship stuff nowadays really can't hurt a BB too badly. Those frikking things were designed to duke it out with other BB's at point blank range. Most Anti ship stuff today is designed to take out thin skinned destroyers and frigates.
As an army puke, I'd feel really secure knowing there is an old battlewagon sitting out in the ocean with 16" guns waiting to give me fire support.
There are just some times you need to impress the natives. An Arleigh Burke just doesn't cut the mustard. Retool them and get them back in the water.
As much as I like the Iowa and such, they are too old and expensive to operate these days.
It would seem a re-engineered battleship (or perhaps a battle cruiser?), might make more sense to design. Cost would probably still be the driver. How many destroyers or crusiers, or something else could you build for one new designed battleship?
I'm thinking down Worker's lines.
Has anyone considered building a new battleship? I realize cost is a factor, and that it would have to have air support and sub support to protect it - but so does a carrier. (Especially now, as the carrier's air wings shrink, their heavier bombers have been deactivated, and their ASW capabilities are dwindling.) It would be interesting to see what could be built if they redesigned them from the hull up - keep the Missouri-class hull, but put in better propulsion (nuclear maybe?), Aegis radar, missile tubes, chopper pad, and command facilities so she could serve as a command ship.
I'm dreaming, of course. But unlike the speculative future carrier designs you hear about every once in a while, I've never heard about any battleship concepts.
It's time to forget about the BB61 class ships... they are antiques, suitable for museums and monuments.
But, just as the USS Intrepid is also now a museum, other ships, newer ships, have stepped in to fill her role.
It may very well finally be time for a new Naval Gunfire Support Ship, with new-build 16" guns, 5" guns, and navalized versions of the MRLS and ATACMS systems.
Today's cruisers and destroyers simply don't look evil enough with the VLS systems. Big guns look evil. Big guns look impressive.
STOP! STOP THE MADNESS!
Life cycle costs would be too high, replacement parts would have to be one-off manufactured, and there's no way you could justify the crew size. Even CVN 21 won't need 1800 Sailors to man her up. And, if she's 114 miles away, no one is going to see those big guns.
Repeat after me, "we need more, less expensive hulls, not another mu
STOP! STOP THE MADNESS!
Life cycle costs would be too high, replacement parts would have to be one-off manufactured, and there's no way you could justify the crew size. Even CVN 21 won't need 1800 Sailors to man her up. And, if she's 114 miles away, no one is going to see those big guns.
Repeat after me, "we need more, less expensive hulls, not another multi-billion dollar behemoth."
Let me see I can do this... "We need..."
As Billy Joel sang,
"We didn't start the fire
But when we are gone
Will it still burn on, and on, and on, and on."
More hulls, more hulls.
I'm easy. It doesn't have to be an Iowa.
I just want a big-gun ship.
I don't care.
I'm an artilleryman, and the BB's were, bar none, the coolest SP artillery on the planet.
Feh on practical considerations. I'm up to my nipples in that carp alla time doing FCS analysis. I want something big, and ARMORED, that just doesn't care what hits it.
Good thing I'm not the CNO, much less Rumsfeld.
And yo, there, Sailor - where in the helk is the Midway post I was looking for?
Geez, I covered D-Day - you shoulda handled Midway!
Gosh, John, you must have missed my earlier post on Midway.
No self-respecting Navy type could ever forget Midway...
More hull, big guns. Must survive all that the bad guys toss at it and be cheap to own and operate. Any other requests?
My Midway post idea got lost somewhere between pulling the Seabees out of Haiti, rescuing the Cubans who were blissfully ignorant of their impending death, and preparing charts for our 21st navigation detail in six weeks.
Haitians and Cubans and charts, oh my!
Some guys get to have all the fun.
"and then there is the threat from shore launched cruise missiles..."
Not so much of a threat to the IOWA's: cruise missiles evolved in an era when ships were NOT armored, and if I recall correctly, most cruise missile warheads are optimzed for blast and fragmentation. The IOWA's are NOT what cruise missile designers were expecting to have to deal with. I seem to remember that at some point in WW2 a Japanese bomber scored a direct hit on the #2 turret of SOUTH DAKOTA with a 100kg GP bomb and the damage was essentially superficial: shattered glass in the superstructure and some scorched paint, but no significant effect on the ship's ability to operate or to fight.
No, the issue with the IOWA's is crew size and the cost of operation and maintenance. If we need fire support ashore bigger than the new 155mm/6" mount going on the LCS, why not look at reviving the MCLWG project? We already know that we can get considerable range increases from the 8" tube by firing saboted subcaliber rounds. How much useful suppport could we get by firing a saboted 155mm GPS guided projectile from the 8"tube on the MCLWG?
If you want a real interesting 1st person report on the effects of 14 and 16" rounds impacting your position, go and grab a copy of "Tennozan" by George Feifer.
He was able to interview an Japanese major who was a regimental commander on Okinawa. With all those BBs lobbing rounds ashore, he said the only people killed before the troops landed were the one caught in the open, doing things like filling canteens, etc...
Well written book and it discusses some visceral parts of ther reality of warfare, as well as having 1st person reports from and Ensign on one of the cruisers sailing with the YAMATO, and some other Japanese soldiers. I actually considered sending a copy to Bill Clinton when he first was elected, so he may have a sense of the cost of war.
Commenting by HaloScan
