Political Crossfire Forums

[DSwain]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061028/ap_on_re_us/uss_intrepid

I hope this great ship continues to provide education and entertainment to its visitors.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv11-intrepid/cv11-intrepid.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Intrepid_(CV-11)

There's a similar piece of floating historyin London - the cruiser HMS Belfast

http://hmsbelfast.iwm.org.uk/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Belfast

[Wizard From Oz]

Apparently if you have a cool $150,000 you can get a seat on board for the trip. And I suspect as a result of the choice to refit her. The US Navy shares your enthusiasm for her continuing mission

[DSwain]

MG1962 wrote: Apparently if you have a cool $150,000 you can get a seat on board for the trip. And I suspect as a result of the choice to refit her. The US Navy shares your enthusiasm for her continuing mission

Just mention my name when booking - you'll get a free soda

[Spider]

I shudder to think of all the historic warships that have been stripped and sunk to create "artificial reefs" as opposed to living on as museums. I can think of no greater retirement for these ships than to be toured and admired by future generations...and not just ships such as HMS Victory or USS Consitution, appreciated as much for their old fashioned charm as much as their historical significance, but the ships of the last century as well.

Like the USS Missouri: http://www.ussmissouri.com/






Not as battle-hardened as the Belfast or Intrepid perhaps, but very significant historically nontheless.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_%28BB-63%29

[Wizard From Oz]

OMG - that image of the Mighty Mo in Sydney.

The day after that photo was taken, back in 1988. I got the chance to go onboard for a tour.

Man oh Man, that was a highlight

[DSwain]

Spider wrote: I shudder to think of all the historic warships that have been stripped and sunk to create "artificial reefs" as opposed to living on as museums. I can think of no greater retirement for these ships than to be toured and admired by future generations...and not just ships such as HMS Victory or USS Consitution, appreciated as much for their old fashioned charm as much as their historical significance, but the ships of the last century as well.

Like the USS Missouri: http://www.ussmissouri.com/






Not as battle-hardened as the Belfast or Intrepid perhaps, but very significant historically nontheless.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_%28BB-63%29

Just beautiful - I could look at warships all day (yes, that's me in the far cubicle feverishly clutching Janes Fighting Ships).

[Spider]

MG1962 wrote: OMG - that image of the Mighty Mo in Sydney.

The day after that photo was taken, back in 1988. I got the chance to go onboard for a tour.

Man oh Man, that was a highlight

Not fair! I been to Hawaii twice and have never set foot aboard her...been to the USS Arizona Memorial, but the atmoshere is quite different when the ship is under the water...feels more like a cemetary.

So what parts of the ship did they let you see? She would have been coming down off convoy duty in 88...prolly had a full compliment aboard.

[bigstick61]

Technically, the Missouri, while stricken from the Navy List, is still subject to recall. She still has most of her dehumidification equipment installed and is still mostly sealed off, and is hooked up to Navy shore power. I got to go aboard her a couple of years ago. She's a marvelous ship, unfortunately one of the last of her kind. Fortunately for the Navy's as well as history's sake, even though the Navy airdales succeeded in getting the last two battleships stricken this year, her sisters are protected by law from being scrapped, sold, sunk, etc., and requires the Navy to maintain the infrastructure necessary to maintain at least two of them in active service

BTW, I heard that the Belfast was still being used as the HQ ship for the Royal Navy's reserve fleet. I know she served as such from her decommissioning in 1963 and for some time afterwards, still being listed as such in a Janes publication from the '80s.

[DSwain]

bigstick61 wrote: Technically, the Missouri, while stricken from the Navy List, is still subject to recall. She still has most of her dehumidification equipment installed and is still mostly sealed off, and is hooked up to Navy shore power. I got to go aboard her a couple of years ago. She's a marvelous ship, unfortunately one of the last of her kind. Fortunately for the Navy's as well as history's sake, even though the Navy airdales succeeded in getting the last two battleships stricken this year, her sisters are protected by law from being scrapped, sold, sunk, etc., and requires the Navy to maintain the infrastructure necessary to maintain at least two of them in active service

BTW, I heard that the Belfast was still being used as the HQ ship for the Royal Navy's reserve fleet. I know she served as such from her decommissioning in 1963 and for some time afterwards, still being listed as such in a Janes publication from the '80s.

The RN Reserve Fleet - for what it is - is now based around the oldest of the Invincible CVS class, which was decommissioned last year. Belfast is no longer on the reserve list, as far as I'm aware. I was on it last year, though, for a corporate event in one of the wardrooms.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: So what parts of the ship did they let you see? She would have been coming down off convoy duty in 88...prolly had a full compliment aboard.

Actually I think I have the date wrong, she was also in port for the Australian Navys 75th anniversary in 86. She was in company with the Blue Ridge (that didn't dock) and a brace of destroyers

Strickly the main deck :( There some serious lookings marines on the upper decks making sure we didn't stray lol.

Though I did get a real quick peek through the service hatch of X turret. The gunnery officer was a real character, spoke like speedy gonzallas lol. We were discussing how much damage X turret would do to the ship if fired directly astern. He said the turrets nickname was the Gaddafi gun lol

It was a real dream come true. To walk the decks of a bona fide battleship. The vessel just oozes power, talk about projecting a presence.

Got some great shots of the plaque marking the spot where the official surrender documents where signed to end WW2

[Wizard From Oz]

I was just reading an article about the mighty Mo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_%28BB-63%29

The section brought a lump to my throat.

Originally, the decision to move Missouri to Pearl Harbor was met with much resistance. Many people feared that the battleship, whose name has become synonymous with the end of World War II, would overshadow the battleship USS Arizona, whose dramatic explosion and subsequent sinking during December 7 air raid at Pearl Harbor has since become synonymous with the attack on Pearl Harbor. To help guard against this perception Missouri was placed well back of the Arizona Memorial, and positioned in Pearl Harbor in such a way as to prevent those participating in Military Ceremonies on Missouri's aft decks from seeing the Arizona Memorial. The decision to have Missouri's bow face the Arizona Memorial was intended to convey that Missouri now watches over the remains of the battleship Arizona so that those interred within Arizona's hull may rest in peace. These measures have helped preserve the individual identities of the Arizona Memorial and the Missouri Memorial, which has improved the public's perception of having both Arizona and Missouri in the same harbor.

[bigstick61]

Battleships are the ultimate when it comes to showing the flag. No other ship looks as imposing. They essentially epitomize surface warfare, which I think is why surface warfare officers, and those who wish to be one, such as myself, like them so much. When it comes down to it, they have proven time and time again that they are not obsolete.

[thundertaker]

bigstick61 wrote: Battleships are the ultimate when it comes to showing the flag. No other ship looks as imposing. They essentially epitomize surface warfare, which I think is why surface warfare officers, and those who wish to be one, such as myself, like them so much. When it comes down to it, they have proven time and time again that they are not obsolete.

How so? Even a ship as small as a type 23 frigate can out-range and destroy a battleship's heavy guns with SS missiles, and those heavy guns cannot destroy inland targets as accurately and from as far away as an aircraft carrier or any ship armed with crews missiles. Not to mention the fact it's hardly stealthy, and eat up a lot of money in terms of crew size.
In what role can a battleship perform better than a modern ship of any ocean-going class?

[bigstick61]

You forget that battleships in the US Navy are also equipped with missiles. The modernization plans which are to take effect should they be reactivated include replacing the eight Tomahawk ABLs with vertical launch systems, and NATO Sea Sparrow launchers, using the Mk 29 GMLS. The Harpoons and Stingers would remain in place. They would be fitted with a larger mainmast, which would allow the doubling of their capabilities to use RPVs, and allow the fitting of a TAB radar, which has a little more than half of the capabilities of AEGIS, while being lighter and also having applications in regards to naval gunfire. At least two of the Mk 25 GFC radars on the secondary battery directors would be replaced by the SPG-53,a more modern version. Also, additional digital fire control computers would be installed to supplement the analog systems, and replace them at ranges significantly beyong 50,000 yards. The extended-range projectile program, which had been successful prior to decommissioning, would be renewed. It was for the sub-caliber projectiles that the digital fire control computers were to be installed for. Fragmentation path barriers, additional Kevlar, a helicopter hangar for four SH-60s and NTDS would also be installed. The electronics were also to have been updated somewhat (this was done on Missouri and Wisconsin, but not on the earlier two). RAM would also be installed. It was also intended to replace the 5"/38 DP guns with an equal number of Mk16 5"/54 DP guns of the semi-automatic type used on the Midway class, and which would have been installed on the cancelled Montana class.

Missiles launched could be shot down by the ship or its escorts through the use of SAMs. They can also be diverted by the ship's chaff launchers (like during the Persian Gulf War). Also, in the renewal of a concept used against torpedo planes, a 16" shell was designed which could be fired into a group of SSMs, destroying them with a large airburst, if necessary. The ship can then fire missiles in reponse, and then close to gunnery range. 16" shells could easily destroy most modern surface combatants. During fleet exercises in the 80s, the battleships, shooting at surface targets using only optics for spotting, were able to considerably outscore aviators. This was also true of naval gunfire against shore targets, especially when fire control radars and RPVs were also used for spotting. They are superior for naval gunfire support and providing a pre-landing bombardment, and can conduct gun and missile strikes without risking valuable aircraft; this is especially important in limited war scenarios, where the downing of an aircraft over enemy territory can have serious ramifications. One role they can do is supress enemy air defenses in advance of air strikes. They also proved in Vietnam that their guns could attack targets which nothing else could touch, not even 15,000 lb. SAP bombs aka "daisycutters." Their armor and excellent underwater protection, as well as considerable systems redundancy gives them the ability to take considerable punishment and still keep on fighting, something which cannot be said of most modern ships. They can even keep on fighting if they lose all power, something which definitely cannot be said of most modern ships. They also serve ably as flagships. This is the epitomy of surface warfare. No modern warship comes close to achieving this.

While not exactly stealthy, neither are most large warships in service today, such as missile battlecruisers and fleet carriers. They also use 1/6 of the resources a carrier uses, and this can be reduced further. I also must note the 16" scramjet projectiles successfully tested at the China Lake weapons station over the last few years. They can exceed 500nm in range, are accurate, can maintain penetrative capabilities at that range, and can also reach the target in a matter of minutes. They were test-fired out of a Mk7 16"/50 naval gun and are still being tested further. This would make battleships a cheaper solution than Tomahawks for many situations requiring long-range strikes if the navy were to adopt them. They would not replace conventional projectiles, or more conventional ER projectiles, as their trajecotry makes them inappropriate for shorter ranges.

I must also note that an SSM, short of one of the heavy supersonic Russian ones, could not take out a 16" turret. Especially not the Harpoon. Also, sinc the missile is aimed at the ship in general, the turrets may not necessarily be hit. Also, nearly all vital systems are located within the ship's armored citadel. The internal armor belt also serves nicely to protect against missiles using shaped-charge warheads, especially in areas where decapping plates are located.

[thundertaker]

Quote: They also proved in Vietnam that their guns could attack targets which nothing else could touch, not even 15,000 lb. SAP bombs aka "daisycutters."

Are you suggesting that modern ordinance is no match for a 16 inch shell?

As for their 'underwater protection', that is no match for a modern torpedo, designed to detonate underneath the ship and break it's back.

As an anti-surface ship, it is threatened by mere frigates, as a shore bombardment platform, it's not cost-effective or as precise (except when using missiles that can be mounted on smaller ships). In air-defence, it has less capability than a smaller-cheaper Arleigh-Burke, and it has little hope against subs without escorts......

[bigstick61]

It's not threatened at all by mere frigates. It can shoot down or divert missiles, or this can be done by escorts. The former is especially true in the configuration which would be implemented prior to any reactivation. Also, it can take multiple missile hits and still keep on fighting. Show me a frigate that can do that. Armor and systems redundancy allow for this, as do contingencies for loss of power. A modern battleship can take a massive amount of punishment. It is also less vulnerable to torpedo attack than most other vessels, as unlike most warships, it has a triple-bottom system, and is also larger in size. Only carriers have a similar level of bottom protection. In the case of major warships, ASW has always been primarily the responsibility of the screen or escorts. In any case, the Iowas can carry 4 SH-60s, which give it some ASW capability. In terms of side torpedo hits, it would take a very large number hitting in rapid succession to place the ship in jeopardy, according to Navy Department tests. Except for some Russian frigates or those which are Russian-designed, no frigates carry anti-ship torpedoes. A frigate's guns also can not match those of the battleship. A frigate has much more to fear from a battleship than the opposite.

The primary missions of a battleship are land-attack and anti-ship in nature. As modernized, and also in terms of potential, the battleship is capable of putting up excellent air defense, especially when compared to that of other major warships. All major warships are somewhat lacking in ASW armament, but this is not and cannot be their mission, and seldom do major warships of any type operate independently. A carrier has little hope against a submarine without escorts.

And 16-inch shells were able to destroy tunnels and bunkers which 15,000 lb. SAP bombs could not destroy. Major-caliber artillery generally has much better penetrative capabilities and versatility, and usually is more accurate. It's major limitation is in terms of range, but modern technology can make up for much of this, especially the use of sub-caliber, rocket-assist, and scramjet technologies, which have been proven to be able to work in such artillery. As a shore bombardment platform, the battleship, especially using the more modern technology which was added on over the years, has proven to be accurate and destructive. It also is more cost effective than a carrier or missiles for such a purpose. Especially when you take into account air losses. For standard shore bombardments, a shell costs a few thousand dollars apiece. A missile costs well over a million dollars apiece. To destroy the same target, it would cost a few thousand dolars using guns, and would cost a couple million dollars for the missiles. Even factoring the ships O&M costs for the period of time while in combat the battleship is cheaper, and unlike missiles, shells are carried in greater capacity and can be resupplied at sea. With aircraft, you have to take in the fueling costs, the cost of ordnance, and factor in air losses and pilot losses. For a routine shore bombardment mission, this can become prohibitively expensive. This is even moreso when you take in the overall O&M coss of the carrier and the aircraft; they are over 6 times higher. Carriers also require at least twice as many escorts as a battleship.

[thundertaker]

If what you say is true, why aren't major navies the world over building modern battleships, and why has the US Navy decomissioned it's own?

[bigstick61]

The Navy decommissioned its own because of the massive downsizing following the end of the Cold War. They also decommissioned four carriers, over half of the cruiser force, and even larger portions of the destroyer force, and also a major part of the frigate force, and most of our patrol combatants, and a large amount of our submarines and most of our auxiliaires as well. The Navy is but a mere shadow of itself. The current Navy policy is self-destructive, and is promoted by the anti-navy SecDef, Rumsfeld, who has stated in the past that if he could eliminate the Navy and Marine Corps, he would.

In any case, battleships are protected by law, and the US Navy still maintains the facilities and infrastructure to reactivate them, and in the case of a major war, I can guarantee you they'll be reactivated and modernized. Battleships have always competed with the airdales since they took over the Navy after WWII. To them, especially the air power extremists and technology freaks, the surface navy has little reason to exist; it only exists because there are carriers. Some are also hostile to anything that is not a brand-new idea; they'd rather have some high-tech but unreliable gizmo than use equipment that serves well and reliably, but is somewhat old (I'm not just applying this to battleships; this covers many areas and is a problem our Navy currently faces). They like to fix things that aren't broken, in essence, and by doing so, usually end up breaking them. These are the people who are our current leaders; however, their sentiments do not reflect most of the fleet, fortunately. To be frank, our Navy really wouuldn't do to well in a major war against an opponent with a good navy; our ships aren't really designed with fighting in mind anymore.

The reason why new battleships aren't being built is the same reason few people try to build even light carriers and cruisers. The building costs are prohibitive, and much of the building infrastructure no longer exists, which makes such costs even more prohibitive. If the US were to build more, it would be at the expense of carrier construction, and the current leaders would be aghast at the idea. Also, the ones we have still have plenty of service life and are good ships, and we have enough eligible for reactivation (7 out of the 8 existing US battleships; the Texas can't, wouldn't, and shouldn't be reactivated, and was obsolete before the carrier came to be popular). Due to their size and design, they are also very adaptable to the use of modern systems. Why build what you already have? Most navies cannot even afford to build destroyers, much less anything bigger.

[mendosan]

Isn't the US Navy 2 big? how many carrier groups do you have 6?

[bigstick61]

12. And no, the US Navy is not too big. As a matter of fact it's too small. It's the smallest it's been since the 1880s. We lack significant ASuW capabilities, have diminished ASW capabilities, and lack enough escorts to escort amphibious warships, convoys, and major warships in the case of an actual war. Also, our ships are not as capable of fighting as they used to be, and the minuscule amount of new construction warships reflects this in terms of their characteristics. Also, with the early retirement of the F-14 and A-6 with no suitable replacements, and the reduction in size and versatility of carrier air groups has had a negative impact on naval aviation. Also, over the last few years almost the entire reserve fleet has been stricken, with most of the ships having been sunk as targets, for use as reefs, or scrapped. All ships which are decomissioned are stricken rather than placed in reserve. Also, once the current new construction is complete, there wil be none for quite some time. Also, as the Perry-class FFGs (now neutered so that they are FFs) are decomissioned over the next few years, the escort problem will become even bigger. The only areas in which we are doing good is in ship-based AAW systems and submarine technology.