Big Guns Go Silent
Robert Novak has an editorial on the Navy's plan to decommission it's last two battleships, the Iowa and the Wisconsin. He's pitching a line for the Marine Corps, whose commandant General Mike Hagee told Congress two years ago that the loss of naval surface fire support would place his troops "at considerable risk."
The Senate Arms Services Committee is considering a bill that would turn the two ships into museums. I was on a tour of the Wisconsin at Norfolk and I can tell you it's a hell of a ship. Very impressive, especially with the World War II veterans telling you stories on the tour about its history. What's interesting is Novak's story of an "anti-battleship bias" within the Navy, that the Navy somehow never liked the big ships since World War II and it's all a military-industrial complex plot to get funds for the next generation destroyer DD(X).
[As Defense Tech guru David Axe noted a few weeks back, Navy vets are leading a campaign to put the two mothballed battleships back into service as alternatives to the $3-billion-per-copy new-jack destroyer, which is being touted as a fire-support platform but, according to the Naval Fire Support Association, will provide only a fraction of the firepower of the old BBs at far greater cost, and much later. -- ed.]
Now I don't know the Navy well enough to see if this anti-battleship conspiracy story is true or not, and I'm hoping that someone from the Navy side can clarify this story. My observations within the Pentagon were that the Navy surface guys pretty much rule over their cousins in the Navy air, shore, and submarine fleet. It somehow seems strange to think that the Navy surface community would eschew these ships. This 2004 GAO report provides some more background. Seems that the last time the Navy used battleships was during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, then they made plans to mothball the ships. Congress intervened and told them to keep at least two ships on inactive duty while the Navy was to develop an alternative firepower solution by modifying the 5 inch guns on the destroyers. That hasn't happened yet.
These battleships are old, they're expensive to maintain, and the industry doesn't support manufacture of the ammunition for the big guns. The Marine Corps does have air support and field artillery systems for fire support. I don't see the justification to keep battleships just so you have an option to fire on North Korean military structures, as Novak alludes. Maybe it's time for the big guns to go silent?
-- Jason Sigger, crossposted at Armchair Generalist
THERE'S MORE: Check out heavy-gunned debate going on over at Murdoc's place.
Post a comment
the battleship was built/designed well before its
true intended time. Respectively, past wars
quickly reveiled the aircraft carrier is the american heavy-weight. Ships designed to deliver
a continuous pounding. Think of all the improvments carriers have received over the years,
yet, during the gulf war- there was only one nuke on station (cvn 71) out of the six carriers in the theater. It has been reported that a new destroyer could take on a carrier battle group.
A very curious statement considering the absolute
low number of carrier serving other nations.
To say the least, those ships along with all others would be monitored at all times, at a minimum. I believe they would be sunk when ever we wanted them sunk, period. That is how much
confidence I have in our military and our power
as a world leader. When is the last time you saw an american jump the fence to get to mexico or an american getting on a raft to get to Cuba. My
point you ask? Sometimes its simple-might is right. Be the advisary for a moment, its a destroyer or holly-god, its a battleship. Think
of all the ships in the resent future that have been hit. USS STARK- USS PRINCETON- USS ROBERTS
NOT TO FORGET AMPHIBIOUS CARRIER THAT HIT A MINE.
Can any one answer the question, how many of these ships after being hit left the seen under there own power? In todays war invironment, high sea battles are over. You must have a ship that
is designed to take a pounding and allow her crew
a chance to first of all, survive, and than actually stay on line and continue the mission.
Back in USS Missouri's early days, she was hit by a suicide plane on her starbard side, yet in the 1991 gulf war, it was reported that the dent from that encounter was still present. What about moral, national pride. New shell concepts, thick armor and modern defense systems make these ships extreamly powerful and survivable in a time of
the inevitable, you will get hit. What is a crew of 80 or so going to do when there ship is split in half because she was thin skined, they too will sink. I dont believe at that time they are going to be saying however, we are on the most powerful survivable platform available. That would be a lie, the most powerful and survivable
platforms are doing a much more, they are making
other politicle messages, come visit our city- we have a beautiful museaum for you to visit, please give us your money. Instead of saving the lives
of the very loved ones who voluntered to serve this country. Its clear, the mothball preservation process indeed saved these ships
that allowed there return in different situations
thru out there lives.
The Battleship will live on forever because, well, the americans love there Battleships, some-
how the navy thinks its there money and not the tax payers. Each ship has many years of service left at a minimun because of the mothball process
its time we made a final resolution to past mistakes and except the fact that survivability is
in fact important in stead of putting a destroyer
on another ship for a dry journey home. We should immediately wake these fine lady's, the
citizins of the United States demand it. Its
our own leaders fault, we have been the world police for many year. It has been reported that
the Battleship is to politically important to put in many situations of harms way. That is the most idiodic statement on could possibly make
about a Battleship. Here is what the statement
should have been, calm down over there and by the way, pay no attention to the battleship battle
group that will be in the area, she is there
avoiding bad weather elsewhere during training
exercises, im sure you can appreciate our situation. Not everything needs to make perfect fiscal sense. Isnt it clear by now war is expensive, we will fight for a country that want's
our money but also would like to set as deadline for us to leave. How much has the 1991 gulf war
actually cost this great nation since it actually
never really ended. It is to expensive not to have the Battleships, how much does a shell cost
compared to a missle? With the moderately new shells available, gps, etc, I bet its still a
million or so less. How long before the ships would actually pay for themselfs, in war, quickly.
When the Russian Admiral stated, when we would
shoot at you, our weapons would just bounce off
and then you would sink us.
The only people that are happy we dont have these ships is the enemy, it makes there life easier.
Has anyone actually asked the very people who
would be relying on these platforms, the marine
coming ashore, or did they just ask the arm chair
quarterbacks who will be eating there steak while
the invasion is taking place and then they have the adosity to apologise for the death of a loved one, and then say, we will learn from are mistakes
and there death will not go in vein. Can anyone
answer this question, how many military personal
were lost during the initial gulf war conflict when the Battleship in the theater? How about
after the conflict when a marine assalt wasnt going to happen and the Battleship was taken out
of commission? The numbers are stagering.
Posted by: dan schlicht at August 3, 2008 11:55 AM