Thanks for the response, Seasick. First, the missions I laid out are the missions I would give a battleship to accomplish. They are not missions unique to a battleship. They were based on a modernized look at the original 11 missions provided to the battleships in the 1980s. You have already made your view clear that the missions unique to battleships are either not all that important or can most of the time be accomplished by carrier based aircraft, but that’s not the point at all. Please understand many of the missions stated are missions a battleship can accomplish in addition to its own unique abilities, of which there are many.
Chief of Naval Operations Roughead and former CNO Mike Mullen and I had conversations when I met both of them, one at a Surface Warfare Semiar and the other aboard Wisconsin, both complimented me on my ability to “think outside the box” in utilizing gunfire in third-world country situations. Roughead’s head of the Strategic Studies Group, his personal R&D group, offered me a billet with them because of my realistic and unconventional view on the subject of NSFS. So, I would only ask you consideration of the material listed.
I am sorry to hear, however, that you are not up to date on the posts here, nor are you up to date on the facts surrounding the battleships. You do a good job of making the case for battleship employment very well in your responses. When you say "carriers do that already" what you are really saying is, "a battleship can do that for a lot cheaper than a carrier can." For instance, fueling an F/A-18 once is $50,000. They consume at least 2 loads of fuel per mission ($100,000). They take a VERY long time to get on station (too long). They take a VERY long time (too long) to respond to calls for fire. They can get shot down ($750-100million per plane). I mean, with only 13 lost aircraft you can reactivate AND modernize two battleships. Also, once the F/A-18 is out of ordnance, it’s out, and the guys on the ground are left on their own. This has happened LOTS of times before, an irresponsible amount of times.
Everything about a battleship is cheaper than an aircraft carrier. It costs less to operate, to man, to repair, to maintain, to arm...everything about a battleship is cheaper, and a lot of the time better at accomplishing the mission. It delivers a higher volume of ordnance, can sustain more damage and perform its mission, etc, etc.
Like I have said, the argument is not decommissioning a carrier so you can have multiple battleships. The argument is reactivating battleships, because you are forced to get rid of a carrier/multiple carriers. Carriers are the gold-plated way of doing the job. Battleships are the economical way. If you don't realize that, I must say that you must do more research. All of the facts support battleship economy over carriers, either conventional or nuclear powered. It also looks like a lot of your information is based on the theory I am saying replace a carrier with a battleship, and as is stated above, that's not the case. You seem to be operating with surprisingly inaccurate data. For instance, Burkes require FAR more than 80 people to operate (340+). If a battleship were reactivated today, her propulsion plant would be automated, and her five-inch guns would be replaced with Mk45 Mod2 refurbished to 5"/62caliber guns. I have already talked to NAVSEA about this. You can ride the following facts to the bank. This is the real deal.
If USS Wisconsin were reactivated today, she would have an 860 man crew, so she would have 2.5 times the manning of a Burke DDG, not 10 times. 10 times would be 3,400 people! Not even in WWII did an Iowa have THAT many people! Gosh!
Like I said, I have spoken with BAE Systems, Lockheed, Newport News, and most importantly NAVSEA, during a 6 hour ship-check of Wisconsin, and the Iowa-class project and structural engineer from Longbeach Naval Shipyard who managed the battleship program from reactivation to lay up on the West coast about this. I am going to present you with the actual facts, not “IIRC” or “from what I read”. These are the actual facts of the matter.
Quote:
The Iowas are too old and too out of date. The Iowas have nice capabilities but they simply provide them at to great a cost. The crew requirements for an Iowa is equivelent 10 ten Arleigh Burke Flight IIA DDG.
-Already discussed. The ONLY things “out of date” about a modernized battleship is the Babcox-Wilcox 600-lbs boilers, main battery directors, and the main guns. Almost everything else is modern, and everything that is not is trainable. Training is no problem.
Quote:
1. Operate as the center piece of a Battleship Strike Group in order to ease deployment stress on CVN’s thus increase personnel retention.
--Even before the end of the Cold War the USN found that the Surface Action Groups [SAG] weren't as valueable as projected in 1981. The SAG put enormous stress on the avalibility of escorts. The number of SAG was reduced from 4 to 2 in 1987 to make more escorts avalible for Carrier and Amphibious groups. This was with the 600 ship fleet at 600 ships. There was a high transfer rate off of battleships. Sailors looking to make a long term career in the USN felt that developing skills on the Iowas's older equipment would leave them at a disadvantage in gaining promotions.
Not true. Regardless of if groups of ships were assigned a capital ship or not (which they were not, they were instead part of a cruiser-destroyer group which was then designated two capital ships, some included battleships), every battleship deployment after 1986 was as a BBBG. The “extra strain” is not exhibited on the modern maritime environment. With the suspension or decommissioning of CVN 65, 71, and 72, (NAVSEA and Naval Nuclear Support Structure) that is three carriers out of the rotation until AT LEAST 2012, there are still three carriers worth of escorts left. So, with 2 battleships reactivated, there is a whole extra set of escort ships left. But, that’s not how the escort ships work anyway. Like I said, cruiser/destroyer groups with capital ships assigned. A battleship would be in place of a suspended/decommissioned carrier.
Quote:
2. Arm with 96-128 Mk41 VLS tubes in order to conduct TLAM strikes and a mass CVN equivalent “Alpha Strike” with TLAM 1,000+ miles inland (100 TLAM strike)
The USN already has enough VLS cells to accomplish this. Adding that number of VLS cells to an Iowa would be expensive and would require that the armored deck be cut through or the cells be placed high upsetting the ships weights and likely cutting remaining service life due to metal fatigue.
Full reactivation and modernization of an Iowa would be in the neighborhood of $700million with a full VLS suite, repair of Iowa’s Turret 2, and a complete electronic modernization. That’s not expensive AT ALL for what you get. That’s straight from NAVSEA.
The armor deck would not be touched. The VLS arrangement would be above it in the super structure. There would be NO metal fatigue issues. The cell casings and support structure would run to the exterior of the super structure and would be built of HY-80 and armored with thicker pieces or HY-110. Neither mild-ship building steel nor would high-yield elastic steel be used. Concerning weight, the top-side weight would NOT be upset at all. The battleships can see 8,000 tones at the O4 level before there are considerable stability issues. VLS, armor, and a fully stocked aft mast does not approach that.
Quote:
3. Perform surgical gun strikes with precision weapons and UAV support.
-- They didn't do that very well in Operation Desert Storm [OID]. Wisconsin was recalled south so her crew could be used to sort mail. A regular hornet with 4 500 pound JDAM bombs can perform any of the fire missions performed by the Wisconsin and Missouri in OID.
I don’t know where you got this information. Wisconsin and Missouri rotated gunfire duty on a set basis. They were taking out so many targets they had to budget their ammunition. You can find this in both from Shield to Storm and Shield and Sword. The Wisconsin fired the last shots of Desert Storm (precluding any main duties you have heard about) on the last day of the operation and had 3 more fire missions planned for the next 24 hours. She was told to cease fire with rounds in the barrels, ready to engage in her next fire mission. She had to drive out to sea and clear her barrels or warshot 16” rounds. She was not pulled from the gun line to do mail stuff. For the accuracy of the gunfire, I have seen lots and lots of the Wisconsin’s actual RPV footage. After her first 3 fire missions, she was hitting the targets after the second round. If Iowa had been there, she would have been hitting the target first time every time. Training is key. Oh, by the way, in the ranking of effective weapons during Operation Desert Storm, the top three were: F-117 Nighthawk, Tomahawk land attack cruise missile, and 16” gun mounted aboard WWII-era Iowa-class battleships. That’s from “From Shield to Storm”.
Quote:
4. Provide pre-landing bombardment and NSFS
-- Prelanding bombardments didn't prove very effective in WW2.
Again, not sure where you get this information. It is highly inaccurate. Pre-landing bombardment made the difference between taking a beach and being repelled. Like I posted earlier, both the Germans and Japanese both said where ever the US went with its cruisers and battleships, it would take the beach no matter what defenses were mounted. Don’t forget, the Paris Peace Talks in 1969 were visited by the North Vietnamese with ONE message. They did not worry about the super carriers off their coast, nor did they worry about the B-52 carpet bombing runs, nor the SEALs taking the Vietnames’ own deltas away from them. The Vietnamese came with one message: “get that New Jersey thing away from our coast or we will never come back [to the peace talks].” The Marine Corps credited the New Jersey’s SINGLE deployment with saving over 1,000 Marines lives. There’s not a lot of arguing with that.
Quote:
6. Sea Control/Anti-shipping
-- Already done by aircraft carriers.
Sure, at incredible expense. Like I said, tasking carriers with everything is not realistic and highly irresponsible. In the end, you can’t do everything with carriers anyway. When we have only 7-9 operational carriers, which IS what we are looking at in less than 2 years (NAVSEA) we cannot have them doing everything. The carriers need to be elsewhere where they are actually needed. Again, this is where battleships pick up the slack with minimal cost.
Quote:
9. Provide Command/Control Flag facilities
-- Already performed by a variety of ships.
Of course, but battleships can do it, too and do it better, because of sheer extra space for equipment, accommodations, electronics, protection, etc.
Quote:
10. Provide AAW for itself and act as integral piece in AAW of group
-- Not without modern AAW weapons, all of which are very suceptable to damage from the over-pressure from a 16 inch gun fire. All Ticonderoga CG and CVN can easily perform this function, and there is no shortage of ships with this capability.
Ah, interesting point you make. The SPS-48, SPS-49, and SPG-51 are all fully capable of handling the over pressure of the 16”guns. That means the New Threat Upgraded Mk74 Tartar-D WDS (one of the best the US has ever produced) can give the battleship an AAW capability that is only inferior to Aegis in one single way, rotating versus static radar arrays (NAVSEA, US Destroyers). Keep in mind, NTU is the only electronics package in any Navy that is peer with Aegis. Like I said, this is only one of the extra missions a battleship can perform. NTU AAW is remarkable at its shockingly low cost of $52 million in 1999 dollars.
Quote:
12. Control aircraft
-- Done more efficiently by E-2C/D and E-3 aircraft.
Not when a carrier’s not around. I thought you would have said that it’s performed by an Aegis ship. Like I said, this is yet another mission a battleship can perform…especially when a carrier is NOT around.
Quote:
13. Refuel its escorts
The USN is rapidly comissioning Lewis and Clark T-AKE-1 class vessels which have capasity to refuel vessels. The USN really needs more AO and AOE both of which are comming.
Like I said, like in the 1980s, this is yet another mission a battleship can perform. Also, I think you missed the concept. The COOLEST thing about this is that now, you don’t need a replenishment ship. The battleship and its escorts can make way for over 5,000 miles without a refueler nearby. That is a shocking capability. The battleship ALONE can steam at 33 knots (faster than any escort) for 14 days at a time. Anyone who knows anything about real ships knows this is a very rare capability. For instance, the Wisconsin and Saratoga departed Norfolk at the same time for Desert Storm. Wisconsin arrived and was able to accomplish missions 2 weeks earlier than Saratoga.
Quote:
The Iowa class has no hangers for helecoptors and during their reactivation the embarked helecoptors returned with excessive corrosion due to exposier to sea water.
While this is partly true, the requirement is not to EMBARK helos, it’s to OPERATE all kinds of helos. You forget, the escorts carry helos. The helos would live on the escorts but operate with and off the back of the battleship. We’re talking SOF stuff now. I know actual special operations is foreign knowledge to most of you guys, but being able to operate everything up to an CH-53 or 46 off the stern of a battleship is incredible and priceless. You would do this by borrowing it from an LHD, etc. or it living on such a platform and simply being able to land it on the stern of the battleship so the SOF can get on or get off.
Without getting into classified mission data, please understand this, a battleship is in every single way the best available platform for special operations. The BEST is a heavy cruiser with its aircraft hanger capable of housing and maintaining an SH/HH-60. It was foolish to scrap the Des Moines instead of reactivating and modernizing her.
Code:
Fire support was provided very effectivly using 127mm/54 Mk42 and Mk45 guns. In Afganistan mortors have been found to be the most flexable for fast reactions in quickly changing combat situations. Land based 155mm guns have provided very good support in Afganistan and Iraq.
First, it has been known since 1940 that the 5” round is useless in shore bombardment missions (GAO report Future of Naval Gunfire Support 1986). So, unfortunately, you are wrong, sir, in the belief that 5” guns are reliable for NSFS. The 5” round sucks all around. It is good for killing boat but useless for range, accuracy, or payload under any circumstances. The ONLY way they can be is if the rounds are laser guided. If you have that tiny round making physical contact with the target, then you actually have an effective hit. Unfortunately, there are none such in service. We need to fix that, though.
Like I said, this only supports the argument for battleships. Any kind of operations within gun range of battleships is key. Don’t forget 86% of the Third World countries in our interest are within 21 miles of the coast.
Consider this:
Syria, Lebanon, Columbia, and Somalia amongst many others are not worth a carrier but needs heavy ordnance support. We have been SO desperate for support that DDGs have had to fire their 5” guns into Somalia with little affect. Trust me. This is the fact. If a battleship (or heavy cruiser) were off that coast, it could provide the gunfire support the SOF needed so badly. Keep in mind these are REAL situations, not theoretical. academic, sit behind a computer and postulate situations. These are real. People have died.
The Navy has an OBLIGATION, not an option, to provide NSFS. There is no denying or getting away from this fact. It is a mission of the Navy. Like I said last time, even with the F/A-18E Hornets and the UAVs and the super carriers, and the awesomeness some of you guys are talking about, the special forces and Marine Corps both currently state that the Iowa-class battleships are the best at providing them the support they need. Being that the cost of reactivation, modernization, manning, and annual operating, is so much lower than any other option, there is no reason to oppose battleships, other than prejudice.
So what the whole battleship debate boils down to is NOT battleships. It is gunships. Gunships are the key to a reliable, responsible support force for troops a shore. If not reactivating the battleships, converting and modernizing the Spruance-class DDs to DDGs and arming them with the Mk71 Mod1 8”/60caliber guns and 5”/62caliber guns would have been a remarkable boost in capability. There would be no NSFS gap at all. Understand also, there are 8” ERGM rounds on the shelf now, and the 155mm can easily be adapted to the 8” bore. But what happened? They were all sunk. Like I said before, it was a negligent mistake to scrap the Des Moines instead of reactivating and modernizing her. The reason why people bark battleships is because those are the only ships left!
They are also the best.