Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:06, 13 June 2006

Littoral Combat Ship is capitalized; see . Bbpen 15:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything on that page saying "Misplaced Pages must make an exception to their naming standards for this specific ship type." We don't capitalize "guided-missile frigate" or "air-cushion landing craft" or "aircraft carrier".... ➥the Epopt 16:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair point. On the other hand, nothing on the page says "Wikipedians should look silly by being the only ones not to capitalize LCS." Perhaps a distinction might be drawn between the Littoral Combat Ship program and its products, the littoral combat ships -- though this would still leave Misplaced Pages standing alone. Bbpen 17:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The class name

Earlier it was reported here that the name Zumwalt had been struck from the official records as the name for this ship. Did something change? TomStar81 08:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's really a change, but see this press release. Jinian 12:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Role section is full of errors

1) The Marines are not opposed to the DD(X) program. The upper ranks are actually strong supporters of the DD(X) program because it should provide the gunfire support they have required. CNN in this case is simply talking out it's ass and have confused opposition to retiring the two Iowas held in reserve, until DD(X) is launched, with out right hostility to the destroyer. They have only a small and inaccurate part of the picture in the article sighted.

The closest possible objection is some grumbling among the rank and file at losing the psychological presence of the battleship's 16 in guns. That's mostly emotional and based not any objective assesment of whether the DD(X) program delivers the required firepower for the practical requirements.

2) The DD(X) is not designed or planned to have a 5 inch gun, it is in fact designed in no small measure around a pair of 155 mm AGS. This will meet the requirements as defined by the USMC and the various laws passed for Naval Surface Gunfire Support. The author of the present article seems to be confused the DD(X)'s gun armament with that of the present Arleigh Burkes, which do indeed mount the inadequate 5 in gun. It should further be noted that the USMC was consulted fairly extensively in forumlating the requirements for the guns aboard the Zumwalts. As such, they absolutely meet official Marine Corps requirements for Naval Surface Gunfire Support.

3) Regarding the Iowa class battleships, the cost figure of $250,000 covers the costs of maintaining them in Class B reserve. They are not in position where they could be readily recalled to service at this point; at best they would require the modernization before effective use could be made of them. As such the numbers provided are deceptive indeed.

In addition to the aforementioned fact that the battleships are not ready to sorty at a moments notice, is the fact that both of the Iowas run on technology which was phased out of service in the 1940s and 50s. They require a crew of at least 1500, more than 3 times that of most vessels the Navy runs today, as well as specialists which the Navy has not had since the mid 1970s at least (during their 1980s activation they depended heavily in recalled and retrained personel). Needless to say, that is even less an option today.

Furthermore, the 16 in shells ceased production in the 1940s; there have been no new shells since then. There is also no longer the technology necessary to produce new ones. This means that the Navy has store 60 year old shells, as well as other necessary items, which is non-replaceable. Needless to say, maintaining all these supplies adds considerably to the cost incurred for preserving the ships them selves.

Riight. So General Hagee is just "rank and file" when he says that loss of naval surface fire support from battleships would place his troops "at considerable risk." http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2005/12/05/177720.html --Mmx1 02:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I would point out that the tiny snippet provided is NOT opposition to the DD program, as Novak and the wikipedian claim. General Hagee objects to the withdrawing of the Iowa-class battleships before any of the DD vessels actually hit the water. The official Marine Corps position, which the Commandant of the Marines would no doubt have a great deal of influence over, is that the pair of 155 mm AGS aboard the DD will indeed meet the requirements for NSGS. So the quote in question is nothing more than an out of context fragment. - AM2783 11:12, 28 April 2006

His rank does not mean he was speaking authoritatively. Some of those numbers in the article are hopelessly optimistic. And the talk about battleships is useless at this point - all the battleships are now stricken from the Navy list and will never go in harms way again. I agree that the Role section should be seriously edited. Spejic 07:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• I will point out that the role section adress concerns from the marines, it does not in any way present the marine stance on either the DDX destroyer or the Iowa-class battleships. In addition, most of the points you have raised under the number heading "3" are discussed at length in the Reactivation Potential in the article Iowa class battleship. TomStar81 03:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please go ahead and fix it as you see fit - or at least suggest a change here to be discussed. Spejic 06:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Will do. The overhaul may take a day or two get up. TomStar81 02:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The changes you made really weren't appropriate. They actually were part of this article many months ago, and were deleted because they became totally obsolete when the battleships were stricken from the Navy list earlier this year. You can't add things that make it seem like there is some debate between the DD(X) or restoring the battleships. There is no debate. The battleships will never, ever sail in harms way again. Spejic 07:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Last Battleships Retired in 1992

The last of the Iowa-Class battleships, USS Missouri, retired in May of 1992. While there is plenty to argue about regarding fire-support for ground forces, the battleships are out of the picture. Few experts believe the mothballed ships could be affordably restored to active duty status.

I know. Its so...DEPRESSING. I curse this day and age, as I am: 1,000 years to late for the sword, 300 years to late for the US Revolutionary War, 200 years too late for the US Civil War, 65 Years to late for WWII, 15 years to late for the Cold War, and now I am officially 14 years to late to serve on a battleship. Its not fair. As per your question, I guess accu-ammo fired from the DDX will work; alternatively, the US could look at the feesablility of maybe redesigning one of there battleship classes with todays weaponry requirements. Consider what a Montana-class battleship could do with VLS cells and a nuclear reactor... TomStar81 03:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

DD(X) program not reduced to two ships yet.

"In April 2006, the DD(X) was cut back two 2 ships, effectively ending the DD(X) program as the Navy's future surface combatant and ending the future of the CG(X)."

Wrong on all parts.

Even the chairman of the House committee wants to see the CG(X) program continue and his move to cut the DD(X) program down to two ships is a long ways from becoming law.

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/060505biw.shtml Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine, said the House action should make little difference to BIW because the panel still endorsed designing the new ship and the Navy hadn't expected to start construction on the second ship until 2008.

-HJC

Please feel free to correct the article then. --Falcorian  06:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Original Research & Contradiction Tags

The Controversy section doesn't make sense. I don't know where the content in that section was drawn from, so I can't find out why the Marines should protest the commission of replacement ships. There doesn't seem to be a "controversy" regarding the DD(X) itself, but with the current lack of seabourne artillery support. This section doesn't seem to be anything more than wikipedian editorial. Hence, I have implimented the Original Research tag.

Also, this article states that "The United States Navy plans to utilize the DD(X) destroyer project as replacement for the Iowa and Wisconsin, battleships, which were stricken from the US Navy list on March 17, 2006", yet also states that, "the DD(X) was cut back to 2 ships, effectively ending the DD(X) program as the Navy's future surface combatant and ending the future of the CG(X)."

Unless we are to believe that two destroyers somehow equal two battleships, this article needs to clarify how it is not contradicting itself. Furthermore, it is contradictory that a program which is "effectively ended," can somehow supply any replacements. How can it, when it is "ended"? So I have also added the Contradiction tag. This content just needs to be clearer.

Antelope In Search Of Truth 01:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that the DD(X) destroyer is the intended replacement for both battleships. The guns on the DD(X) can fire an artillery round some 100 miles, give or take, which is further than the Iowa-class battleships can fire. This is the reason why both Iowa and Wisconsin have been struck from the NVR. That information was present in a GOA report I got from UTEP and was cited as the reason for the removal of the battlewagons in an online cnn.com news article. TomStar81 23:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If I were the enemy and I was asked what would I fear the most, and given the following three options...

-Air Strike -DD(X) Naval Gunfire -BB Broadside ...I would pick the BB Broadside.

Why? Simple really the strike from a 2700 pound shell at 23 miles is more devastating both physically and psychologically that a comparatively tiny shell fired from a DD(X) Broadside. And because there is really no such thing as close air support now (only from a distance with PGMs), I can really disperse my forces out for survivability purposes and can attack the enemy in strength for a few minutes before withdrawing before your airplanes finally arrive in the area. Geez ppl think technology is everything these days. The serbs, Iraqis and the Al Qaeda / Taliban in Afghanistan have proved repeatedly that Shock and Awe is BS. At Best Shock and Awe is basically reinventing the wheel, at worst it is expensive window dressing intended to deceive ppl to think that wars can really be surgical and swift. It's all BS! All of it! Tomcat200 10 June 2006

Not seeing the point. The thing that you (and all of the battleship-booster crowd) fail to get is that the battleships are not in the fleet now, and yet American troops have made countless successful amphibious invasions in the decade and a half since the last BB left service - including an amphibious invasion of a totally landlocked country (Afghanistan)! The raison d'etre of a battleship is to fight another battleship - and there are no battleships left to fight. The bombardment role can be and is very ably filled by other classes of ship. Can it be done better than it's done now? Certainly. But to say that only battleships can adequately perform shore bombardment is nostalgic BS at its finest.

The Iowa class battleships are rather vulnerable to underwater explosives; their torpedo protection was never the equal of their protection against gunfire (nor did it ever truly match up to the standard set by the best foreign warships). Are you, perhaps, not aware that it took several weeks in 1991 for minesweepers to clear out a couple of grid squares for Wisconsin and Missouri to operate in off of the coast of Iraq, while during that time it was the 5"-armed cruisers and destroyers and 3"-armed FFGs which provided shore fires. Third, Zumwalt is a hell of a lot closer to being in the fleet than Iowa ever will be again. Fourth, it's funny you mention adaptability. The four Iowas had a weapons and electronics fit limited by the shock requirements of the 16" guns in the 1980s - the government would have liked, for example, to fit them with more extensive datalinks and a better AA suite than just four Mk 15 Phalanx, but the shock of firing the big guns kept damaging the equipment. It'll be worse with the modern electronics needed to operate with the rest of the 2006 fleet, and without those electronics the battleships will be nothing but a pair of white elephants. Fifth, battleships are built to survive... combat with other battleships. Which makes them very tough against heavy gunfire, but not so tough against even light missiles. Even a light missile's warhead is as heavy or heavier than the bursting charge in a 16" shell, and better yet, they start jet- or rocket-fuel fires, which Iowa's firefighting system is ill-equipped to handle. And imagine a monster like Moskit or Granit - a missile heavier than even a Yamato 18.1" shell, flying in at over twice the speed of sound and packed with more heavy explosives than a hundred battleship shells. The only way to avoid that one is to shoot it down before it hits, and Phalanx is notoriously bad at hitting high-speed sea skimmers. The only real answer to that question is a SAM, which can't be mounted on a battleship. Why would we even think about using battleships as a stores ship? We have real stores ships that don't need the stores they would be offloading to another vessel in order to fight. The debate is NOT between battleships and destroyers, and never has been. The debate involving battleships was with the aircraft carrier, and battleships lost that debate, 65 years ago on the 7th of December. Incidentally, there's a reason we've never fought an amphibious invasion against a built-up beachhead since World War II, and that reason is the helicopter. And as a parting shot, try as a mental exercise to figure out exactly where the Navy is going to get 3,000 sailors, many of whom would end up filling billets that haven't been used since the end of the Cold War, who are going to be willing to sabotage their careers by spending a cruise or longer learning systems that are over six decades old and are not shared by any other vessel in the fleet. If your answer starts with or involves the words "aircraft carrier," keep dreaming. Iceberg3k 12:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in getting invloved in this arguement/debate/discussion, however I will remind both side that there are to be no personal attacks her on wikipedia, and that voilation of this policy could result in a temporary edit block. TomStar81 08:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Have rectified my posts. You will hear nothing from me. It does not change my position in that Battleships are tougher, adaptable and exist today, because they are all that. The views promoted by a certain poster are just a play on words and facts that do not pan out when studied more closely. Accusations of nostalgia on the part of supporters for the battleships is quite clearly unfounded. I apologise to the offended parties who thought my posts were outrageous and aggressive in content, however I still stand behind my truthful, factual comments relating to the stupidity of acquiring 2 expensive destroyers (with suspect technology) to replace 2 battleships that have been proven in action and that exist today. My view is that these two destroyers are not as survivable and are too expensive for the capabilities that they will give to the fleet. Furthermore the technologies that have been projected for the DD(X)'s either have not worked to a satisfactory standard, have not worked at all, and all fall short of requirements needed to conduct Naval Surface Fire Support. The Hulls themselves are not survivable enough for the ships to keep fighting once damaged, and the ammunition (artillery and missiles) that these ships contain, while good for set-piece precision land attack missions, cannot provide the volume of fire needed either in a more dynamic situation or against an enemy that might not only be dynamic in thinking but will actually stand up and fight. Because we have not really seen either, especially in an littoral environment as of late, it does not mean it will not happen. My opinion is that eventually it will. We are so in love with new technology that we forget the axiom that "If it aint broke don't fix it". We have to get out of the habit of thinking that new is best and old is less, that all that glitters is gold. The reason why the U.S. Navy has no viable NSFS capability is because it retired the battleships, pure and simple. It is plainly obvious that Battleships will never surpass the aircraft carrier as the primary capital ships, yet the Navy is so paraniod in that it regards the BB's as a threat to their aircraft carrier programs that they sort to terminate the BB program once and for all and go for cheaper less capable platforms that will not take the spotlight away from Naval Aviation and the PGM Mafia. They use excuses such as big billets, old technology, lack of capability to manufacture parts and machinery and main gun ammunition, and other far-fetched reasons to highlight the supposed obsolescence of the battleship. The only thing that is obsolete is the use of the battleship as the primary surface combatant, however as history shows the battleships have proven to be able to adapt to other roles to suit their unique cpabilities and characteristics, conducting missions far and beyond the capability of other fleet components. Battleships are still a symbol of might and power because of their imposing size, massive firepower and survivability, and doubtless the Navy has exploited this psychological aspect of these type of ships, especially during the 1980's. You will not get the same result from a destroyer, or even funnily enough, from a flat top. As we all know the battleship has also successfully conducted deep precision strike through the use of its Tomahawk missiles, in addition to naval bombardment missions to which it had no equal, relieving other naval aviation assets of attacking highly defended targets that would have likely incurred severe losses. They also have routinely refueled their escorts at sea and as I understand it, also have a limited ship repair capability. So in closing I will say this. Retiring the Battleships was a mistake. Relying on PGM's and naval light artillery to support an amphibious "door-kicking" operation is a bigger mistake and an expensive one. And building two new destroyers imbued with suspect, expensive technology, to fulfill the NSFS mission will deny our commanders the capability of force-entry from the sea against determined opposition, in effect denying decision makers options that may just shorten any new wars that we are unlucky to get ourselves into, and that is not acceptable.Tomcat200 10:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Have edited out last post by Iceberg. We were asked to end this. Why do you want to keep going?Tomcat200 12:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

All the armor will only aid the power of a torpedo - modern designs create a cavity of gas under the ship's keel, collapsing it under its own weight. The use of "shock and awe" is overrated and studies of WWII landing sites (the shining moment for NGFS, so its supporters claim), showed that other than creating cover in the form of craters, NGFS really didn't do much as far as destroying or "putting terror" into defenders in well-constructed barricades - for the simple reason that it was next to impossible to hit them and only a direct hit could take out a concrete emplacement. Modern PGM's are fully capable of destroying anything we see (in fact, so well that the trend is to smaller warheads). Moreover, the accuracy of the 16" guns, while great by 1945 standards, sucks. I recall seeing a target plot superimposed on a scale drawing of the pentagon, if anyone can find that picture. There are few instances today where such wanton and unprecise destruction would be warranted. Your love of the "psychological aspect" illustrates your emotional bias; anyone not still stuck in the 1950's would realize that they pose little threat relative to modern munitions and platforms. --Mmx1 21:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Modern PGM's did not cause the demise of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. We are still in Afghanistan as of this point in time trying to eradicate them. Meanwhile America continues to look bad and damn hypocritical across the world. All war is psychological, how can you NOT know that? Show me the studies that say that overall NGFS was not effective in WW2. Show me how Psychological aspects don't count in war? Do you understand what Shock and Awe is? How has Shock and Awe become your definition of psychological aspects of warfare? Shock and Awe is someone elses slant at warfighting that includes psychological aspects. It is not the definition of Psychological Warfare. Instead of twisting facts and words around do some proper research, before making anymore ridiculous vague comments. On a more topic related issue, what is the problem of integrating guidance technology into the 16 inch shells? The Navy has tried expensively mind you with the 5 inch ERGM's and now the 155mm AGS. Look, you are making new platforms, new systems and new weapons whereas you already have existing weapons that can accomodate these technologies once they have proven to work reliably. And the range factor of the 16 inch (23 miles) can be extended with base bleed technology or as some engineers suggested making a sabot round that can go as far as 115 miles, with still enough explosive to kill tanks and armored vehicles and engage field fortifications. These modifications cost much less than the programs that you seem to advocate, that is if you think destroyers with a pair of 155mm guns can truly replace the battleship in NSFS.Tomcat200 05:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

DD(X)Just another item on the long list of defence industry profiteering

It seems to me the defence industry is making a killing, being handed contracts which seem to last years for products that in the end don't seem to work at all, don't work as advertised, and or are just too plain expensive.

The U.S. has atleast 14000 16 inch shells in storage today, that is a fact!

To date almost all the technologies related in the replacement for the Battleships have proven to be expensive and disappointing to say the least, and that is after many years and billions of dollars in taxpayers money spent on Research & Development. I believe these companies are leaching off the taxpayers to keep making loads of dough, and are getting away with it.

I believe that there should be stiff penalties both legal and financial against defence contractors and subcontractors for not living up to their end of the bargain in providing weapons and equipment that work to specifications and requirements laid down by the customer.

These companies are rorting the system, and put many more lives at risk for profit. This is not acceptable.

Tomcat200 10 june 2006

I would believe that. I personally think that it would not matter if the USN supported the DDX or the reactivation of the Iowa’s as long as whoever was doing the modernization and armament work got paid their millions at the end of the day. Thats my two cents on the matter. Furthermore, if Constitution can be maintained in the active fleet well past the time she was built to fight in why can't the Iowa’s? TomStar81 03:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)