From the ongoing discussion raging in this NG on battleships, it is clear
that there is a significant body of opinion that holds that shore
bombardment is an important task that is presently not adequately served
without major caliber gun vessels.

It also seems clear that the day of the BB as a major combatant is over, and
that these vessels are too expensive to maintain as limited capability
bombardment ships.

Proposal:

Build up to 6 monitors using the turrets from 2 of the Iowas. Each monitor
has one 3 gun turret. There is no need for heavy armor protection as they
will not be designed to fight battleships.

The monitor should be a 25 knot 10,000 ton ship with a reasonable outfit of
5 inch guns, a small outfit of cruise missiles, sensors and defensive
weapons including an ASW helo hanger and pad. Crew about 200.

There will be few shore bombardment missions that 3x16 inch guns will not
deal with, particularly if they are optimized for bombardment with heeling
tanks, to further increase the range, and have a large magazine filled with
300 RPG of super high capacity HE shells, shells carrying submunitions,
smart guidance munitions, subcaliber 12" discarding sabot rounds and shells
with rocket boost to range up to 50 miles inland.

With this strategy, USN would have 6 relatively small, modern vessels with
decent AA/ASW survivability and the capability to inflict major pain on any
adversary vulnerable to long range heavy caliber bombardment. That includes
most of the Mediterranean and large parts of the rest of the world. A
bombardment from one of these vessels could, in properly chosen situations,
be about as effective as a small to medium air strike. It would have the
advantage of not putting pilots at risk. The cruise missile outfit would
provide additional range for small surgical strikes (as distinguished from
extensive bombardments).

With these assets, USN could have the option of small task forces (2 to 5
ships) providing a force projection capability without committing a CV task
group.

Comments?

In WWII, in Korea, in Vietnam and finally in Desert Storm the usefulness and
even criticality of this fire support has been demonstrated. In one battle
after another it either did a lot to reduce casualties, or (as at Normandy
and Salerno) broke the back of enemy resistance. Seems to me that before we
irrevocably abandon the last assets that can provide it, we had better be
REALLY REALLY SURE that this kind of fire support will not be needed again.

What is the rationale for concluding that large scale fire support won't be
needed? Has the US Marine Corps been heard from on this? After all, if the
wrong decision is made here, it will be the Marines who die first ...

And since when has popularity with Navy brass and Congress become the sole
determinant of whether an idea is good?

The Navy didn't plan at all for Korea or for Vietnam, but had major missions
in each conflict where the BBs were needed.

Landing craft can be built relatively quickly, but heavy gun systems take
about 3 years to construct AFTER the design is complete and the
manufacturing plant is built.

Before we dismiss the need for heavy gun bombardments by saying that air
strikes will do the job, let's recall that some terrain (like the Bekaa
valley) is very unfavorable for air strikes. There is also the issue of
pilot casualties and captives becoming hostages. Finally, expensive though a
BB may be, it doesn't cost nearly as much as a CVN to operate. Will the Navy
always have enough CVNs to cover every trouble spot?

Now consider that the British monitors were built of low grade steel, had a
significant amount of armor plate and torpedo bulges, and a heavy
inefficient steam power plant instead of gas turbines. Surely a couple of
thousand tons go away with construction advances.

Can any 5 inch gun, no matter how advanced, really be a satisfactory
bombardment weapon? If so, why would the US Army keep weapons of calibre
larger than 155 mm? If missiles really can do the job, why does the Army
keep artillery instead of relying on missiles?

A lot of bytes have been devoted above to the cost of the heavy gun
solution. What do these other weapons systems cost? How do we know they can
do the job? Will they be there when needed?

A final question: The US Army operates many types of aircraft which are
basically useful only in a ground support role. The reason that the Army
developed this capability is that the Air Force was busy planning for a
nuclear air war and had no interest in ground support. The usefulness, even
the vital necessity, of these ground support aircraft is (I believe) now
admitted by all. So why is it justifiable to say that the Navy should not
have a ground support ship? If a single mission aircraft like the A-10 is
justified for the important role of killing tanks, why isn't a single
mission ship justified if it has an important role to play?

Dave Welsh from dwe...@deltanet.com wrote:

I have said before that I would rather have a rapid fire 8 inch gun for this
job, but we don't have any of those left. We do have the 16 inch guns.

One brief comment:

Why the cruise missles? What's the purpose with such
a vast disparity in range? The cruise missle role
could be better handled with ships with much more
capacity.

What's the proposed target set? Do you really think we
are going to do Pacific Island/ D-Day style invasions
anymore?

Any significant opponent faced with a large invasion fleet
probably would nuke it or have air assets such to put the ship
at risk. Now your CVBGs would have to worry about another
ship?

Remember the Brits splashed a Styx in the Gulf on the way to
a BB.

Last, as pointed out - intimidation value is minimal
against well trained committed and dug in troops.

In article <1998070218115700.OAA14...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Krztalizer
<krztali...@aol.com> writes

Also remember that Monitor's sank in heavy

  So - there will be other combatants.  That is, other targets.  IF this
proposed vessel has a single twin Standard mount (the old ones, I know...),
with a limited magazine, it can contribute to the group's defense from air
threats.

  I'm just an ARMY grunt, and I know this much.  If you want to argue just to
shut him up, do better.  I say this simply because you're sniping, and it seems
you didn't think about the ship in an actual operational environment.  Hence,
my conclusion.  If this is TRULY not the case, I apologise.

  >At 25

  Instead of focussing on high-end, massive systems that a dedicated platform
would have - how about:

1 Standard twin arm launcher
1 ASW helo (SH-60)
1 triple 16 in mount

  The helo could only support the group's ASW effort.
  The Standard launcher won't have a lot of ammo, enough for point defence.
Maybe a phalanx instead.

  The guy has an idea that, just as the Air Farce is screwing over the Army in
CAS missions (yeah, the newest F-16 can provide better CAS than the "ageing"
A-10, yeah, that's the ticket!), looks to the navy supporting the Ground troops
as they make a forced entry.

  > And it doesn't have heavy armor...  
<SNIP of junk>

  Don't need it!  Over the Horizon is easily done.  Overhead imagery can ID
enemy strong points, UAVs can help adjust fire.

<*>

Velovich
"Who IS Keyser Souze?"

On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:06:12 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"

Drax