tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post114899681924614020..comments2024-02-16T02:40:10.330-05:00Comments on Brickmuppet Blog: Soo...Lets Blog on BATTLEWAGONS....Brickmuppethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00884188361526609025noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149331439935145932006-06-03T06:43:00.000-04:002006-06-03T06:43:00.000-04:00“Power Projection is typical DOD talk -- important...“Power Projection is typical DOD talk -- important sounding with no content. It isn't a military capability, it is an attitude towards foreign policy.”<BR/><BR/>No – while power projection has a military and associated political context, at heart it is a basic military concept. Power projection is a measure of military’s ability to deploy a decisive force over a large distance. At its heart, theAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149285621393032752006-06-02T18:00:00.000-04:002006-06-02T18:00:00.000-04:001. "Trying fullfill a need that does not exit." - ...<I>1. "Trying fullfill a need that does not exit." - Power Projection is the basic requirement of today's military.</I><BR/><BR/>Power Projection is typical DOD talk -- important sounding with no content. It isn't a military capability, it is an attitude towards foreign policy.<BR/><BR/><I>Going with the theory that we will never need to do amphibious landing, IMO is a prescription for getting aAndrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149235576422252492006-06-02T04:06:00.000-04:002006-06-02T04:06:00.000-04:00Thanks everyone for the comments...I'm likely goin...Thanks everyone for the comments...I'm likely going to have to follow up on this. <BR/><BR/>A few things...<BR/><BR/>The superstructures of the BBs have good splinter protection, but are largely unarmored. The heaviest armor is the 17" plate on the front of the turrets, the barbettes and the 13 or so inch belt.<BR/><BR/> For ships with steam plants, the proplulsion plant is the main determiner Brickmuppethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00884188361526609025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149220555202034012006-06-01T23:55:00.000-04:002006-06-01T23:55:00.000-04:001. “Trying fullfill a need that does not exit.” -...1. “Trying fullfill a need that does not exit.” - Power Projection is the basic requirement of today’s military. Going with the theory that we will never need to do amphibious landing, IMO is a prescription for getting a whole lot of people killed. After the end of WW2, there was a theory that we would never do another amphibious landing, till Inchon came. In the Gulf war, the threat of an Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149208162542995632006-06-01T20:29:00.000-04:002006-06-01T20:29:00.000-04:00The artillery v. aircraft distinction is worthwile...The artillery v. aircraft distinction is worthwile, as long as you don't confuse cruise missiles with artillery.<BR/><BR/>Aircraft aren't a complete replacement for slug throwing artillery, whose virtues are low ammunition cost and the responsiveness that makes it well suited to supporting ground troops. And, some aircraft (the A-10 and AC-130, for example) are better substitutes for artillery Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149199579230285992006-06-01T18:06:00.000-04:002006-06-01T18:06:00.000-04:00I notice a recurring theme which is "we don't need...I notice a recurring theme which is "we don't need artillery, we have aircraft".<BR/><BR/>Well, gee, the Germans tried that during World War 2. On the other hand, while the Red Army understood the importance of ground-attack aircraft, they made sure they had plenty of howitzers in stock. I think they won that one.<BR/><BR/>Then, the Israelis tried it again in 1973 and got mauled.<BR/><BR/>Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149180363396270602006-06-01T12:46:00.000-04:002006-06-01T12:46:00.000-04:00I couldn't have put it better than the previous po...I couldn't have put it better than the previous post, but I'll throw out a test summary: <BR/><BR/>1. The DDX "alternatives"/shore bombardment platforms proposed above are trying to fill a need that doesn't exist, or can be fulfilled far more cheaply and with less risk by current Air Force and Naval Air assets, current cruise missile platforms, and emerging UAV platforms.<BR/><BR/>2. ANY new Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149145018422362112006-06-01T02:56:00.000-04:002006-06-01T02:56:00.000-04:00The problem with most of the ships discussed in th...The problem with most of the ships discussed in the original post is that they are not well suited to carrying out a mission that the U.S. military actually needs to fill.<BR/><BR/>Providing naval fire support to Marines at $3 billion per 155mm gun ($6 billion per ship), ranks right up there with a recent Air Force proposal to use F-22s to destroy IEDs. It may actually work, but it is so Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149134942366854932006-06-01T00:09:00.000-04:002006-06-01T00:09:00.000-04:00At the end of WWII, the Navy did some cost vs effe...At the end of WWII, the Navy did some cost vs effectiveness studies, and looked into the crystal ball - and came up with the theory that 1) aircraft can carry greater firepower with greater range then a BB, 2) BB's take up huge amount of the country's steel production & were very expensive. 2) New technologies would render the BB armor obsolete.4) Damage control and counter measures would enable Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149101598281725412006-05-31T14:53:00.000-04:002006-05-31T14:53:00.000-04:00The 1/2 billion dollar Arsenal Ship was cancelled ...The 1/2 billion dollar Arsenal Ship was cancelled to build DD-21. That was cancelled in favor of "cheaper" DDX. That was cancelled and now we got nothing.Mike Burlesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149098688944699142006-05-31T14:04:00.000-04:002006-05-31T14:04:00.000-04:00Hmmm, I've been unclear. It must be the frustratio...Hmmm, I've been unclear. It must be the frustrations of formatting via dial-up and having this thing crash on me 80% through the first attempt combined with my lack of writing skills...yes that it. :)<BR/><BR/>Legendary comment mogul Annonymous is right. The flight deck BB, the DDX & the arsenal ship are either redundant or mutually exclusive. <BR/><BR/>The DDX is well designed for current Brickmuppethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00884188361526609025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149084359744146852006-05-31T10:05:00.000-04:002006-05-31T10:05:00.000-04:00Everyone keeps talking about shore bombardment. W...Everyone keeps talking about shore bombardment. Which is lobbing lots of dumb munitions on targets about 20 miles away. While I would be the last person in the world to deny the coolness of being able to do that, how necessary will it really be in the future?<BR/><BR/>New missiles, new technologies - drone swarms with hellfire or better missiles, metalstorm for point defense, whatever - plus Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149073360162370682006-05-31T07:02:00.000-04:002006-05-31T07:02:00.000-04:00Well, I think there is a point to having modernize...Well, I think there is a point to having modernized battleships, they can be useful in both asymmetric and "Desert Storm" type wars. In asymmetric wars they can be long-range, hard hitting artillery batteries (as they were used in Vietnam for example, to good effect). In "Desert Storm" type wars they can be used to obliterate fixed targets along the enemy's coast while aircraft strike targets Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149062268134867392006-05-31T03:57:00.000-04:002006-05-31T03:57:00.000-04:00how much would a new BB cost? Many of the parts- t...how much would a new BB cost? <BR/>Many of the parts- the castings- I dont think we can make anymore. They are to big. And I dont think we can make the 16" barrels. <BR/>And if we did make one we wouldnt rely on armor- wwII studies were clear on this point: better to put the money into better damage control and design.<BR/>With that said, whats the point? Having an assault leader ship? or a Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149061026133750322006-05-31T03:37:00.000-04:002006-05-31T03:37:00.000-04:00NicholasCost of building new battleship? Extremely...Nicholas<BR/><BR/>Cost of building new battleship? Extremely high I would imagine. So much so, that a DD(X) would look cheap. The primary issue is the armor belt. Simply put, one of the reasons so few IOWA's were built is the each one took up a significant percentage of the steel fabrication capasity of the 1939's American industry. At the time US steel industry produced about 19000 tons of Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149057053790361162006-05-31T02:30:00.000-04:002006-05-31T02:30:00.000-04:00I've been wondering a few things lately:* How much...I've been wondering a few things lately:<BR/><BR/>* How much would it cost to build a new BB with the same hull, turrets, etc. but with new (standard) propulsion plants, navigation, comms, etc.?<BR/><BR/>Given that the plans already exist and the new technology should be pretty much "drop-in" I wonder if it will cost less than a modern "marvel" ship like the DDG-1000. Of course, manufacturing Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149050483385287632006-05-31T00:41:00.000-04:002006-05-31T00:41:00.000-04:00BucketheadYour idea makes perfect sense. Which of ...Buckethead<BR/><BR/>Your idea makes perfect sense. Which of course means it will never be done. Ok so what to do it cheap and be survivable? The cheapest what is to take a liberty ship make it into a multi-hull survivable ship. You create this by compartmentalizing its peripheral sections, then filing the compartments with Prycrete. Say about 3 compartments 5 feet thick. (so about 15 feet of Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149043081685071432006-05-30T22:38:00.000-04:002006-05-30T22:38:00.000-04:00What, some folks have opinions on this issue? Who...What, some folks have opinions on this issue? Who would have guessed? Here are Murdoc's two cents:<BR/><BR/>+++I love the BBs, and have trouble buying most of the arguments against them. While not banging the drum to reactivate today, I supported the idea of keeping them in reserve "just in case".<BR/><BR/>+++I like the DD(X), but blanch at the cost and fear that they're not surviviable enoughMurdochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05513322896308436307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149041257744127602006-05-30T22:07:00.000-04:002006-05-30T22:07:00.000-04:00Not to get into the DD(X)/BB debate because I thin...Not to get into the DD(X)/BB debate because I think that both ideas are flawed, let's focus on the arsenal ship.<BR/><BR/>I've been thinking on this a little, and it occurs to me that an arsenal ship doesn't need to be particularly large, well-equipped, or even survivable to be useful. <BR/><BR/>Consider a (relatively speaking) cheap, small container ship armed with maybe two hundred missiles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149039351580167992006-05-30T21:35:00.000-04:002006-05-30T21:35:00.000-04:00Comrades, Bring on the BB's... The DD(X) is dead ...Comrades,<BR/><BR/> Bring on the BB's... The DD(X) is dead in the water, due to it's exhorbitant price, even by Washington standards. <BR/><BR/> The advantage of the BB's is that their main armament is more than adequate to support Marines ashore, which is all they are required to do anyway. We don't NEED 100nm range guns on ships for shore bambardment. That's what the ARMY has guns for. <BR/>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149039055648086422006-05-30T21:30:00.000-04:002006-05-30T21:30:00.000-04:00Your DD(X) description was a tad off. It's VLS ca...Your DD(X) description was a tad off. It's VLS capability is 80 rounds. The hull is not armored. The R&D for a fully integrated electric drive is a jobs program with little practical worth. Why? because the civilian ship builders are already building integrated electric drives. You have to wonder about a ship that the Pentagon had to PAY Ratheon to bid on the project. (yes- we had to pay Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5153773.post-1149027694398921432006-05-30T18:21:00.000-04:002006-05-30T18:21:00.000-04:00I like the way you think.There's still an advantag...I like the way you think.<BR/><BR/>There's still an advantage to having a ship with big guns, though, which is that the cost per round is a lot lower than missiles. However, if that makes the ship too expensive to acquire/refit, it may not be worth it.<BR/><BR/>But in sustained combat, the smaller size and cheaper cost of shells would win out. Question is, what kind of conflict are these ships Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13063984716849375299noreply@blogger.com