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.
|
Big Guns Go SilentLeave a Reply |
|
This campaign isn’t new — the Naval Fire Support Association folks have been working the Hill for at least three years, and I think more.
The Marines are getting out of the amphibious landing business whenever possible; the ability to leap over the beaches direct to the objective is one of their main arguments behind the V-22. The long-range move into Camp Rhino in Afghanistan is much more emblematic of today’s and tomorrow’s Corps than the landing at Tarawa.
Yes, the lack of ammo is an issue, and yes, the O&M costs of a BB are a huge issue. But the argument really is the same as it was for the Crusader. In a joint military where fires can come from sub– or surface-launch Tomahawks, conventional ALCMs, long-range bombers, UCAVs, and many more sources, why is it necessary to carry your fire support alongside in a big, expensive, dedicated package? The answer then and the answer now is: It isn’t.
I thought I’ve seen ample discussion by the Marine Corps as to the continued need for amphib operations (thus the need for new amphibs, etc), so I might debate you on that. As for the Crusader, I think cancelling the program was a big mistake. The need for ground forces for a reliable and on-call fire support is and will continue to be vital — just ask the guys in Operation Anaconda in OEF. You can’t rely on the AF or Navy to always be there for your guys, thus the need for mobile, survivable fire support that (ideally) outranges your opponent’s fire support. Not saying that you need BBs to do that mission, I prefer lightweight 155mm arty, but killing the Crusader was not the solution — it should have been reduced, repackaged — the requirement remains even though the program was killed.
Hey Folks,
I agree with all of the reasons to take the battleships out.
But there is one main reason to keep them. Perception.
For all the practical considerations, the argument has overlooked the big D*@k argument.
As destroyers and cruisers have been getting smaller and smaller (to make them harder targets for antiship missile technology)the battle ship is an in your face, no holds barred signal to leaders who kill their citizens by the busload that we are not happy with that and their craziness will stop at the 12 mile marker.
I really think there is money to keep two of these working and on the front line.
If not, I am sure the Navy will continue to do the job right without them.
Bob Novak?
Please, he has less than zero credibility.
Dec. 7th is a good day to remember why BBs are obsolete. Not only do they require a large crew, there are all the support and screening ships that made up a BB battle group. Air dales have ruled the Navy for a long time; they have no use for anything that doesn’t fly. Never mind the pirates in the sea-lane choke points that require a surface presents to deter. Sorry, but BBs are just Big Bate waiting for the Chinese to target with their stolen technology.
The big battleship is the SR-71 of the Navy. We have no capability to replace it. There are damn few missiles in the world that are a threat to these monsters.
while having never served on a battle ship my last commanding officer was john d. bulkeley, he taught one thing above all,if you want to get some ones attention a 16 inch gun does the trick just fine. im surely no expert but i think the battle ships should be kept they are like insurance you only need it when its to late—-
Yes, the corps does have air support and field artillery, however “the king doesnt swim” (a common catchphrase that means you cant use field artillery until you are well established on the beach) and you cant use air power if 1)coastal anti-air defences are too menacing and 2)if the weather doesnt cooperate! We need those battleships as insurance we never find ourselves in such a position. The Navy is anti-battleship the same way the airforce is anti anything below 10,000 feet, namely ground-support. I wish the services would embrace the marine corps philosophy that if you arent infantry you’re a form of support.
Too bad the Navy couldn’t(why not?) mount a turreted MLRS on the deck of destroyers.
I, by no means, am a military expert; however, in the past few years I have read extensively into military strategy, and the use of newer technology to do the same job, but better. The age of the battleship is pretty much over. The modern era is more concerned with delivering more firepower faster and cheaper, and more accuratly.
I, like most people who have seen one, am in love with the BB’s, although, I do see how they are no longer effective in todays warfighting.
The next time a battleship will be needed, and most useful, will be if we have to attack a country that has extensive coastline, but even that could be down easily with any of a hundred other options.
Remember the old saying…if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’ However, I guess the lobbyist got to the senators and congressfolk, who in turn said to the navy let’s get rid of this proven warships so we can build tremendously exspensive DDX’s on top of unproven modular technology. My old frat buddy Todd would love to have the contracts in his state. And gee, at the rate of 1 DDX a year it would mean decades of work for my constituents.
I’ve followed the DDX program in the Navy’s professional magazine Proceedings, and let me tell you this, they make no sense. They are supposed to work in the litorals (area right off shore) where the Iowa class battleship was the former master. One problem.….you can see ships from land in the litorals. For the BB, no problem. Armor as thick as 17″ in some spots provide a level of protection unrivaled in today’s navy. Those who were unlucky enough to see the BB could expect cruise missles, 16″ main guns or the versatile 5″ secondary batteries. Lot’s of fire power from one ship. We need only look to the Stork and Cole to figure out how paper thin our ships have become. We’ve sacraficed a proven platform in favor of spending more money on a ship that would be utterly defenseless (minus the 1 .50 M2) if it took a hit to its computer systems.….or, god forbid, lost power. All it takes is one rubber boat with explosives.….and bang.….we’re out billions of dollars and have to wait several years to get a replacement.
High tech doesn’t even come close anymore to meaning better. We’ve all seen that in Iraq. We should seriously think about going back to the 16“ers.….……just like our ground troops are going back to the tried and trusted .45’s and M-14’s.
My grandfather fought at Okinawa and he told me that the sound of battleship support was like a roar from God. The japanese ahead of him would cower with fear at the thought of a Volkswagon beetle sized projectile landing next to them.
We need these ships.
I guess the navy still hasn’t learned the lessons of WWII, Korea, Vietnam & Persian Gulf.
The battleship is still the best ground support we have in the navies arsenal to protect amphibious assaults, just ask any marine who has participated & he’ll tell you what he knows helped him stay alive.
I know that there are Harrier jets that have been assigned to that same task & they do a good job but the battleship can stay on scene a longer period of time & hit the enemy all that valuble time saving many marine lives & isnt that whats most important!!!
Lets honor all the brave men & women who serve & all those who made the ultimate sacrafice by trying to save many more from having to meet the same fate!!! tryng to serve our country.
Joe Cottone
Valley Stream NY
The age of the battleship was over before it began. It never really played a decisive role in any conflict. Read “Sacred Vessels: The Cult of the Battleship and the Rise of the US Navy” by Robert O’Connell. Seeing as how they never effectively accomplished their original mission, keeping them around with all the logistical support that’s required just to provide naval bombardment for marines comes off as ridiculous. That’s a fairly skewed perspective of the role of the navy. I know that the focus going towards littoral warfare but it is quite another to build the entire navy around floating artillery for ampbhibious operations. Need I remind people that we haven’t done a large scale opposed amphibious landing since Inchon during the Korean War? The Persian Gulf War did serve as a final glory hour for the battleship but its capability has been more than replaced. The navy is not anti-battleship, I’ve heard many people in the navy express admiration for them. They just don’t like big fat targets sitting out in the water that they then requires them to tie up smaller ships to defend.
On a side note, surface guys do not rule over the air community. In fact, I’d say that the navy is very aviation centered. The carrier remains the center of naval operations and it would be silly to say otherwise. All of their best weapons systems are geared towards air warfare.
I have wondered at the power that the battleship.They are of an era that brings to thought ship against ship battle.I think,my humble position,that this platform is still viable.Bear with me as I digress.The Marines have a very hard job.They are required to assault places that are not ideally suited to land based artillery.So a sea based system is ideal.Second,the platform already exists.Third,with the technology that we posess we can make this happen.Why create a new class of ship.To make a ship builder out of luck rich?My proposal:let the Marines have the Battle ships.The ships leave alot for improvements.But that is why their size makes them great.They have lots of room for the technology of the future.Let the people who have the most to lose choose the means to that end,and let the tax dollars fall where they may.I have faith that the Marines know what they need why don’t you?
ok
the old battleships take too many people and funds to keep up.
build new ones
build a nuke battlecruiser with 12 inch guns and 155mm guns that can cover a lot of territory.
with modern guns, modern amror, computers, GPS guided rounds, and VLS cells, we can make a ship that can take on a Carrier Group.
when you asses the battleship and ability to rearm with modern arms also keeping the big guns you have a very stabble platform that was designed to take a beating but when you look at the powers that be well they feel new is the only option as a canadian a friend of mine served in the gulf and he was impressed by the bb they escorted as a gun platfrom it was right for the job and the shells are cheaper but it would need refit to modern weapons and stealth well time will beat it to
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.