The Navy's Giant New Electric Railgun

Mohonri said:
Bingo. The goal is pinpoint accuracy and extremely accurate response. The scenario is this: you get intel that Terrorist X is in a building at address Y. A destroyer or other installation 200 miles away fires a few of these projectiles, which arrive 30 seconds later, demolishing the building and leaving the rest of the neighborhood intact.

Reduced collateral damange, safer for the ship (no explosives!), no duds, pinpoint accuracy, extremely rapid response, low per-round cost....the list goes on.

The only major hurdle left, AFAIK, is the issue with the rails wearing out rapidly. If they can't fix that, I wonder if they could engineer the weapon to enable really fast barrel changes. It's still be a heck of a lot cheaper than using a $1M Tomahawk cruise missile.
Click to expand...

Also has tons of potential in conventional warfare as well. Russia, for example, has that pretty, new tank...that's cute. Oh, we know where the base is that these things operate out of?...cool...guess who's tanks are just chunks of metal on the tarmac now. How about munitions bunkers, I'm making an assumption that these could punch through however many feet of concrete they're made of, which if they can, goodbye munitions bunker. They also talk of guidance systems on the round, which could allow for indirect firing of the round....curious to know what they range of one would be if used in that manner...would probably need an explosive tipped round in that application though as you're losing all the energy that comes with ramming an object into something traveling about a mile per second.
 
bloodhawke83 said:
can't edit.

to add from my post.


also, there is no need for have full ammo cartridges. all you need is projectiles, no powder, no brass cases, no primers. saves weight and room. you could store more projectiles then before.

the equipment to move around ammo cartridges may no longer be needed. more room to save. they could just need a tube like feed device or hand feed it.
Click to expand...

On my ship, the equipment to move ammo cartridges was the Mk1, Mod0 human.
 
I think a lot of people miss the fact that these type of weapons are able to fire projectiles into space and potentially destroy an asteroid heading for our planet.
 
Kymer said:
Caseless ammo will replace current ammo way before this does in any practical application. Also for the most part, aren't large cannons mostly obsolete anyways? Big cannon equals big target for missiles. Carriers with airplanes rule the seas these day, not battleships.

I'd think developing a cannon that fires a small round and fires multiple a second would be much more useful for a defensive weapon against missiles at first. I'd think that would at least be less stressful on the weapon.
Click to expand...

not from space. You can cluster fuck the entire middle east with one round the size of a bus and with now fall out.
 
lcpiper said:
Don't know what you mean by "previously allocated". If the Navy want's a Rail Gun they put it in their budget and contract it's development. If they don't put it in their budget then their budget is one Rail Gun Development contract smaller unless they Budget for a different toy instead.
Click to expand...
Military budgets are usually planned and allocated 1-2 years in advance and sometimes have pre-planned solidified continued funding for certain budget item. In other words, the money being spent on this particular rail-gun project was allocated years ago. It's not like this was an emergency crash program where funding had to be allocated immediately.
Kymer said:
Caseless ammo will replace current ammo way before this does in any practical application. Also for the most part, aren't large cannons mostly obsolete anyways? Big cannon equals big target for missiles. Carriers with airplanes rule the seas these day, not battleships.

I'd think developing a cannon that fires a small round and fires multiple a second would be much more useful for a defensive weapon against missiles at first. I'd think that would at least be less stressful on the weapon.
Click to expand...
These rail-guns are meant to be installed on future Navy destroyers and cruisers, not battleship sized ships. They're suppose to give the US a bit more flexibility in the application of firepower. Not every target requires expensive air-strikes or cruise missile strikes. In addition, it also finally helps the Navy fullfill the Naval Gun Fire Support request the Marine Corps has had since the mothballing of the battleships. The Navy isn't trying to recreate a battleship but just add more lethality and flexibility to their forces.
 
3569672846


Meanwhile we still have these!! :p;)
 
kilroy67 said:
3569672846


Meanwhile we still have these!! :p;)
Click to expand...

Except the Navy decommissioned all the Iowa-class battleships. Sure, they could be brought back to active service, but the current military mindset is "high tech > all", and "fast and light > all". They're trying to put the A-10 out of service as well, despite its effectiveness and the sheer amount of panic it induces on the receiving end.

The eggheads in the Pentagon keep forgetting that just because something's old doesn't mean it's useless. Park an Iowa-class battleship on a shoreline and you've got the world's best bombardment platform that cannot be sunk by anti-ship missiles, and with proper carrier-based air support, can't be bombed from above, so it's practically invulnerable. The A-10? You can fly it over a battlefield and pound it with 20mm AA fire and it will just keep flying and turning tanks into Swiss cheese with the GAU-8/A. It's the same lesson they learned with the F-4 when they decided not to mount a cannon on it because missiles were the future. The MIG's just started flying near the tree line when they realized it had no machinegun, so the missiles couldn't lock. Then someone convinced the brass that 1) This was getting pilots killed because the MIG's did have guns and 2) It cost $5000 to shred a plane with a machinegun compared to $100,000 for a missile.

Lessons forgotten once again it seems.
 
Dangman said:
Military budgets are usually planned and allocated 1-2 years in advance and sometimes have pre-planned solidified continued funding for certain budget item. In other words, the money being spent on this particular rail-gun project was allocated years ago. It's not like this was an emergency crash program where funding had to be allocated immediately.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the money is allocated and if it isn't spent on the program as planned it will be used on whatever they want to use it on. We did it every year. Our unit would have excess funds at the end of every fiscal year and each platoon would submit a "wish list" for things they would like to have that had not been budgeted for in order to "burn" the unspent money from the budget. It's the "Use it or Lose it" concept in that if they don't spend what they asked for they won't get as much next year and eventually they won't get enough to do what they actually need to do.
 
Phoenix333 said:
Except the Navy decommissioned all the Iowa-class battleships. Sure, they could be brought back to active service, but the current military mindset is "high tech > all", and "fast and light > all". They're trying to put the A-10 out of service as well, despite its effectiveness and the sheer amount of panic it induces on the receiving end.

The eggheads in the Pentagon keep forgetting that just because something's old doesn't mean it's useless. Park an Iowa-class battleship on a shoreline and you've got the world's best bombardment platform that cannot be sunk by anti-ship missiles, and with proper carrier-based air support, can't be bombed from above, so it's practically invulnerable. The A-10? You can fly it over a battlefield and pound it with 20mm AA fire and it will just keep flying and turning tanks into Swiss cheese with the GAU-8/A. It's the same lesson they learned with the F-4 when they decided not to mount a cannon on it because missiles were the future. The MIG's just started flying near the tree line when they realized it had no machinegun, so the missiles couldn't lock. Then someone convinced the brass that 1) This was getting pilots killed because the MIG's did have guns and 2) It cost $5000 to shred a plane with a machinegun compared to $100,000 for a missile.

Lessons forgotten once again it seems.
Click to expand...

I find it amazing how the Defense Navy could justify deactivating the Iowa class Battleships and blame it on they were to expensive to run. When in reality they just wanted their new multi-billion dollar toys, that as of yet still haven't been able to replace or come close to even matching the Iowa class Battleships. The DDX ship program was a total waste of money, 15 billion to develop and build one Zumwalt-class destroyer which isnt even operational.. As far as the rail guns, yes they have potential, but they still haven't developed a rail gun that has durability to fire full power shots time after time without wearing out the barrels. It could take decades before the right materials are developed in order to fire hundred of rounds at full power . These things are nothing but toys for the Navy brass to play with. What has been proven time and time again is the Iowa class Battleships with their 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun, firing the Mark 8 Super heavy shell. It has also been feasible with the Mark 7 to use rocket assisted ordnance, making their range from about 23 miles to 100 miles. These ships have proven from WW2 to the Gulf War how devastating these weapon platforms are, and still have the potential to be. Hell, with the money being wasted on toys, the Navy probably could of built 4 Kentucky Class Battleships, with modern engines, updated optics and rangefinders.
 
Phoenix333 said:
They're trying to put the A-10 out of service as well, despite its effectiveness and the sheer amount of panic it induces on the receiving end.

The eggheads in the Pentagon keep forgetting that just because something's old doesn't mean it's useless. ..... The A-10? You can fly it over a battlefield and pound it with 20mm AA fire and it will just keep flying and turning tanks into Swiss cheese with the GAU-8/A.
Click to expand...

Let me be clear: I love the A-10. It was one of the first scale models that I ever built as a child. I still have that model nearby. But even I have to admit that the A-10 is no longer a major "must-have" item. It's nice to have it but it's not mission or capability critical. Here's why:
1567563_-_main.jpg

That's a Daesh fighter armed with a Chinese FN-6 MANPAD that's a generation or two better than the old SA-7 and Stinger MANPADs against an Iraqi M-35. It has a max altitude of 3,800 meters. The max effective firing range of the GAU-8 Avenger is 1,220 meters with a max firing range of 3,660 meters. This is Daesh we're talking about here, not a state created military force. So imagine how a near peer or future American adversary that's actually a state would be armed? Remember that all four A-10s that were lost during the First Iraq War were lost via SAMs.

Not to mention that there's been a trend towards increasing AA cannon calibre so we're now seeing SPAAG in 25mm to 35mm forms. The A-10 was only armored against 23mm cannons and low velocity 57mm rounds. The Chinese has the Type 95 SPAAA which has four 25mm cannons and four infrared SAM missiles hat has a max altitude of 3KM. Or the Russian Tunguska or Pantsir systems each armed with two 30mm cannons with 8 or so SAM missiles as backup. Or the Polish PZA Loara with its twin 35mm automatic cannons.

Then there's the issue of whether or not that GAU-8 is capable of killing modern day tanks. Even A-10 pilots themselves admitted that a a frontal attack against the antiquated T-62 was not advised:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/co...a-10-pilots-to-kill-soviet-tanks-a26385113bf0

So imagine how future tanks with presumably better armor designs can stand up to the A-10. So even at the one task it was specifically designed for, killing tanks, is in question.

Finally, the A-10 is only operable in air-spaces where we have mostly attained air-superiority. We may not have that luxury or advantage in the future with the rapid proliferation of MANPADs as well as the limitations and commitments of our aerial forces. At least with the A-10's F-35 replacement, the F-35 has a reasonable chance against other fighters or more up-to-date missiles.

Phoenix333 said:
It's the same lesson they learned with the F-4 when they decided not to mount a cannon on it because missiles were the future. The MIG's just started flying near the tree line when they realized it had no machinegun, so the missiles couldn't lock. Then someone convinced the brass that 1) This was getting pilots killed because the MIG's did have guns and 2) It cost $5000 to shred a plane with a machinegun compared to $100,000 for a missile.

Lessons forgotten once again it seems.
Click to expand...
That's not the same lesson at all. The lessons with the F-4 and guns showed that guns are still useful for air-to-air combat. That's why we're still seeing guns on the F-22 and F-35. The A-10 is all about whether or not you do need a huge cannon mounted to an aging air-frame to do CAS.

Phoenix333 said:
Except the Navy decommissioned all the Iowa-class battleships. Sure, they could be brought back to active service, but the current military mindset is "high tech > all", and "fast and light > all".
.....
Park an Iowa-class battleship on a shoreline and you've got the world's best bombardment platform that cannot be sunk by anti-ship missiles, and with proper carrier-based air support, can't be bombed from above, so it's practically invulnerable.
Click to expand...

kilroy67 said:
I find it amazing how the Defense Navy could justify deactivating the Iowa class Battleships and blame it on they were to expensive to run. When in reality they just wanted their new multi-billion dollar toys, that as of yet still haven't been able to replace or come close to even matching the Iowa class Battleships. The DDX ship program was a total waste of money, 15 billion to develop and build one Zumwalt-class destroyer which isnt even operational.. As far as the rail guns, yes they have potential, but they still haven't developed a rail gun that has durability to fire full power shots time after time without wearing out the barrels. It could take decades before the right materials are developed in order to fire hundred of rounds at full power . These things are nothing but toys for the Navy brass to play with. What has been proven time and time again is the Iowa class Battleships with their 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun, firing the Mark 8 Super heavy shell. It has also been feasible with the Mark 7 to use rocket assisted ordnance, making their range from about 23 miles to 100 miles. These ships have proven from WW2 to the Gulf War how devastating these weapon platforms are, and still have the potential to be. Hell, with the money being wasted on toys, the Navy probably could of built 4 Kentucky Class Battleships, with modern engines, updated optics and rangefinders.
Click to expand...

While I'm not a fan of the current military mind-set towards big-ticket high-tech weaponary plan that really went overboard with Rumsfeld, but the battleship is dead. It's not coming back. Look at where the U.S has been fighting the last 14 years. Look at our potential adversaries. How many of our potential coastal adversaries don't have long-range anti-ship missiles yet are perfectly valid and cost-effective targets for a battleship? That also doesn't warrant carrier air strikes and is a bit too big for a destroyer to handle?

Remember the context behind the reasons why the battleships were mothballed in the 90s. That was a period of major defence cuts across the board. Lots of weapon systems got cancelled or were close to the chopping block.
 
Last edited:
Phoenix333 said:
Except the Navy decommissioned all the Iowa-class battleships. Sure, they could be brought back to active service, but the current military mindset is "high tech > all", and "fast and light > all". They're trying to put the A-10 out of service as well, despite its effectiveness and the sheer amount of panic it induces on the receiving end.

The A-10? You can fly it over a battlefield and pound it with 20mm AA fire and it will just keep flying and turning tanks into Swiss cheese with the GAU-8/A.
Click to expand...

This is false. The A-10 is very out dated for its original role (tank killing), although it does work against enemies that can't field a military (like who we fight in the middle east). The GAU-8 doesn't kill modern tanks like the Leopard 2, although it is good for soft armor. While it can survive small arms fire that is not the concern. Things like the SA-11, S-300, SA-15 & SA-19 are. And A-10s doesn't have much of a chance to survive against those. The harsh reality is that it was dated when it entered service.

It is largely why the B-1 was also scrapped originally, because by the time the program neared completion SAM technology had made the concept obsolete. Although it does work well in a traditional bomber role and is much more survivable than the B-52. The same can't be said for the A-10, which is a flying target for any semi modern military. Something like an F-16 can defend itself much more easily against SAMs, fighters, and flies faster making small arm fire hits less probable.

Additionally, it also lacks a radar which makes it a poor night aircraft. The main weapon system, the AGM-65, is used by all kinds of planes. The AGM-65 itself is dated and the British Brimestone is superior. We're working on a replacement missile, but one such project was already shelved.

The A-10 does fill a niche that we've had to fill these last couple of years though. But with UAVs, which can be on station longer, and attack helicopters one can say there are some alternatives to the A-10. The battle ships with big guns have come and gone. And sadly, the A-10's time has partially come and gone to.

The reason the A-10 has a lot of fans is because it has a big gun. And people actually think this big gun is its primary weapon system.

As for the Vietnam era missile argument, do you prefer to ride horses over cars? Because back when car technology was new, horses were much more practical & reliable. Missile technology has changed a lot in the past half century. Fully active radar guided missiles, TWS, accuracy, range, data link, IIR, HMD, ect.
 
Well I never said the Battleships would be reactivated, but I totally disagree that they are dead or of no use, but thats just my opinion. Im confident the one Zumwalt-class destroyer we have built for 15 billion and the rail gun that blows out its barrel after a few shots can fully replace the Iowa class Battleships. :rolleyes:

As far as the F-35 replacing, yeah sure. The first ones are not due until July 2015 for the Marines, 2016 for the USAF and 2018 for the USN. Not to mention the two Pentagon reports done in 2014 and 2015 dont bode well for this plane, but hey a few billion more can fix it, right?! But yeah, lets kill off the A-10, its obsolete.:rolleyes:

A 2014 Pentagon report found these issues:

First two mission data sets available November 2015, after USMC IOC.
Overall operational suitability relies heavily on contractor support and unacceptable workarounds.
Aircraft availability reached 51% but short of 60% goal.
Fuel Tanks don't retain inerting for required 12 hours after landing.
High dynamic loads on the rudder at lower altitudes in 20-26 AoA preventing testing.
82 pounds added to F-35B in last 38 months, 337 pounds below limit.
Transonic Roll-Off (TRO) and airframe buffet continue to be program concerns.
572 deficiencies remain affecting Block 2B capability, 151 of which are critical.
VSim would likely not support planned Block 2B operational testing in 2015.
Maintainability hours still an issue.
ALIS requires many manual workarounds.[141]
A 2015 Pentagon report[192] found these issues:

The Joint Program Office is re-categorizing or failing to count aircraft failures to try to boost maintainability and reliability statistics;
Testing is continuing to reveal the need for more tests, but the majority of the fixes and for capability deficiencies being discovered are being deferred to later blocks rather than being resolved;
The F-35 has a significant risk of fire due to extensive fuel tank vulnerability, lightning vulnerability and an OBIGGS system unable to sufficiently reduce fire-sustaining oxygen, despite redesigns;
Wing drop concerns are still not resolved after six years, and may only be mitigated or solved at the expense of combat maneuverability and stealth;
The June engine problems are seriously impeding or preventing the completion of key test points, including ensuring that the F-35B delivered to the Marine Corps for IOC meets critical safety requirements; no redesign, schedule, or cost estimate for a long-term fix has been defined yet, thereby further impeding g testing;
Even in its third iteration, the F-35’s helmet continues to show high false-alarm rates and computer stability concerns, seriously reducing pilots’ situational awareness and endangering their lives in combat;
The number of Block 2B’s already limited combat capabilities being deferred to later blocks means that the Marine Corps’ FY2015 IOC squadron will be even less combat capable than originally planned;
ALIS software failures continue to impede operation, mission planning, and maintenance of the F-35, forcing the Services to be overly reliant on contractors and “unacceptable workarounds”;
Deficiencies in Block 2B software, and deferring those capabilities to later blocks, is undermining combat suitability for all three variants of the F-35;
The program’s attempts to save money now by reducing test points and deferring crucial combat capabilities will result in costly retrofits and fixes later down the line, creating a future unaffordable bow wave that, based on F-22 experience, will add at least an additional $67 billion in acquisition costs; and
Low availability and reliability of the F-35 is driven by inherent design problems that are only becoming more obvious and difficult to fix.
 
kilroy67 said:
Well I never said the Battleships would be reactivated, but I totally disagree that they are dead or of no use, but thats just my opinion. Im confident the one Zumwalt-class destroyer we have built for 15 billion and the rail gun that blows out its barrel after a few shots can fully replace the Iowa class Battleships. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
They are dead considering the following factors:
1) The situations that requires a battleship but doesn't require a carrier yet is too much for a destroyer are small
2) The manpower requirement for a battleship equal that of six Arleigh Burke class destroyers
3) It requires its own battlegroup for defence and offensive purposes
4) The USMC, the service that protested against the mothballing of battleships in the first place, is no longer actively pushing for their reintroduction
5) All four of Iowa-class battleships are now museum ships and thus required extensive, costly, and time consuming remilitarzation and retrofits to make them viable combat vessels. Last I checked, it might take around three years to make the an Iowa-class battleship active again. In other words, we would have to know without a doubt that we're going to do an amphibious invasion of another country to justify the expenditure and time sink.
6) The trend these days is towards more accuracy rather than sheer firepower.
7) Relatively lack of versatility.

The Zumwalts are the starting point. The new goal for the Zumwalts are to act as technology demonstrators so that we can push developments from the Zumwalts onto newer cheaper ships. A clear example of this is the expensive Seawolf-class submarines which pioneered technology that would show up in the mass-produced Virgina class submarines. We have to think about the future. If we had let the failures of all those early air-to-air missiles get to, we would not have the advance air-to-air missiles we have today.

In the last 14 years, was there ever a particular combat situation where not having a battleship meant casualties were higher than normal?
kilroy67 said:
As far as the F-35 replacing, yeah sure. The first ones are not due until July 2015 for the Marines, 2016 for the USAF and 2018 for the USN. Not to mention the two Pentagon reports done in 2014 and 2015 dont bode well for this plane, but hey a few billion more can fix it, right?! But yeah, lets kill off the A-10, its obsolete.:rolleyes:

A 2014 Pentagon report found these issues:

First two mission data sets available November 2015, after USMC IOC.
Overall operational suitability relies heavily on contractor support and unacceptable workarounds.
Aircraft availability reached 51% but short of 60% goal.
Fuel Tanks don't retain inerting for required 12 hours after landing.
High dynamic loads on the rudder at lower altitudes in 20-26 AoA preventing testing.
82 pounds added to F-35B in last 38 months, 337 pounds below limit.
Transonic Roll-Off (TRO) and airframe buffet continue to be program concerns.
572 deficiencies remain affecting Block 2B capability, 151 of which are critical.
VSim would likely not support planned Block 2B operational testing in 2015.
Maintainability hours still an issue.
ALIS requires many manual workarounds.[141]
A 2015 Pentagon report[192] found these issues:

The Joint Program Office is re-categorizing or failing to count aircraft failures to try to boost maintainability and reliability statistics;
Testing is continuing to reveal the need for more tests, but the majority of the fixes and for capability deficiencies being discovered are being deferred to later blocks rather than being resolved;
The F-35 has a significant risk of fire due to extensive fuel tank vulnerability, lightning vulnerability and an OBIGGS system unable to sufficiently reduce fire-sustaining oxygen, despite redesigns;
Wing drop concerns are still not resolved after six years, and may only be mitigated or solved at the expense of combat maneuverability and stealth;
The June engine problems are seriously impeding or preventing the completion of key test points, including ensuring that the F-35B delivered to the Marine Corps for IOC meets critical safety requirements; no redesign, schedule, or cost estimate for a long-term fix has been defined yet, thereby further impeding g testing;
Even in its third iteration, the F-35’s helmet continues to show high false-alarm rates and computer stability concerns, seriously reducing pilots’ situational awareness and endangering their lives in combat;
The number of Block 2B’s already limited combat capabilities being deferred to later blocks means that the Marine Corps’ FY2015 IOC squadron will be even less combat capable than originally planned;
ALIS software failures continue to impede operation, mission planning, and maintenance of the F-35, forcing the Services to be overly reliant on contractors and “unacceptable workarounds”;
Deficiencies in Block 2B software, and deferring those capabilities to later blocks, is undermining combat suitability for all three variants of the F-35;
The program’s attempts to save money now by reducing test points and deferring crucial combat capabilities will result in costly retrofits and fixes later down the line, creating a future unaffordable bow wave that, based on F-22 experience, will add at least an additional $67 billion in acquisition costs; and
Low availability and reliability of the F-35 is driven by inherent design problems that are only becoming more obvious and difficult to fix.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no doubt that the F-35 has been a troubled program. But with 115 F-35s now built and the sheer amount of money spent as well as the major international commitments, there's no way the F-35 is getting cancelled. Does it have issues? Yes. But those issues can be solved. Not to mention that even in its current unfinished state, the F-35 is still more survivable against a peer enemy or at least a well equipped enemy than an A-10.

Because of being spending the last 14 years in multiple conflicts, a lot of our military equipment are significantly worn down. Not just the A-10 but our F-16s, F/A-18 and AV-8B Harriers. So even if the F-35 program was cancelled right this moment, that leaves us with no new replacement airframes for at least 15 years judging from current development rates for combat aircraft. We'd have to buy updated versions of our current hardware in the meantime which are sadly starting to fall behind some of our European counterparts as well as Chinese and Russian.
 
You make a lot of good point and are clearly knowledgeable about military hardware. Im especially impressed that you are knowledgeable with the Iowa class Battleships, a lot of people don't know a thing about them. I visited the USS Missouri when she was in mothballs in Bremerton, WA in the late 1970's and ever since have been impressed with their massive firepower and strength. In my mind, no ship today is as good looking as a Iowa!! LOL!! They just project power!! Sadly as much as I would love to see them sail the high seas again, I do believe their day has come to a close. They did go out with a bang though, literally!! Im glad all four Iowa's were made into museums and saved from the scrap heap, they served their country better then any other ship I can think of.

You have to admit though, seeing those 16" guns fire a full broadside is beyond impressive!!;):D
 
kilroy67 said:
You make a lot of good point and are clearly knowledgeable about military hardware. Im especially impressed that you are knowledgeable with the Iowa class Battleships, a lot of people don't know a thing about them. I visited the USS Missouri when she was in mothballs in Bremerton, WA in the late 1970's and ever since have been impressed with their massive firepower and strength. In my mind, no ship today is as good looking as a Iowa!! LOL!! They just project power!! Sadly as much as I would love to see them sail the high seas again, I do believe their day has come to a close. They did go out with a bang though, literally!! Im glad all four Iowa's were made into museums and saved from the scrap heap, they served their country better then any other ship I can think of.

You have to admit though, seeing those 16" guns fire a full broadside is beyond impressive!!;):D
Click to expand...
Well I'm a bit of an military history nerd. Not to mention that my little brother is in the USMC so we do spend time talking about the military as it is.

The USS Iowa museum is actually about a 50 minute drive away from me. Might go down there next month when I get my car back from the shop. But yes seeing those pics of a battleship firing is pretty damn awe-inspiring.
 
kilroy67 said:
I find it amazing how the Defense Navy could justify deactivating the Iowa class Battleships and blame it on they were to expensive to run. When in reality they just wanted their new multi-billion dollar toys, that as of yet still haven't been able to replace or come close to even matching the Iowa class Battleships. The DDX ship program was a total waste of money, 15 billion to develop and build one Zumwalt-class destroyer which isnt even operational.. As far as the rail guns, yes they have potential, but they still haven't developed a rail gun that has durability to fire full power shots time after time without wearing out the barrels. It could take decades before the right materials are developed in order to fire hundred of rounds at full power . These things are nothing but toys for the Navy brass to play with. What has been proven time and time again is the Iowa class Battleships with their 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun, firing the Mark 8 Super heavy shell. It has also been feasible with the Mark 7 to use rocket assisted ordnance, making their range from about 23 miles to 100 miles. These ships have proven from WW2 to the Gulf War how devastating these weapon platforms are, and still have the potential to be. Hell, with the money being wasted on toys, the Navy probably could of built 4 Kentucky Class Battleships, with modern engines, updated optics and rangefinders.
Click to expand...

Umm, because a few old B-52 Bombers that are still in service can deliver just as much ground eating ordnance in a shorter period of time. In simple terms, there is nothing an Iowa can do that other weapon platforms can't do cheaper and many things that these other platforms can do that a BB is unsuited for. I do still think they are cool tho, but the bare bones truth is the only thing a BB adds to the equation is that it's damn hard to sink.
 
This is unfortunately an argument full of holes.

Here we go, the arguments about up-gunned AAA, SPAAGs, etc, these weapons were not up-gunned to defeat A-10s, they have increased the gun caliber in order to increase range to that greater then the range of Hellfire Missiles, the gun's targets are helicopters, not fixed0wing aircraft. The Missiles on these SPAA systems are intended for fixed winged targets and the missiles are usually derivatives of the man-pads in a vehicle mounted form. Yes, the battlefield is now proliferated with them, but the vehicles almost invariably include RADAR Systems and those RADARs are always a double edged sword that provide a terrific targeting capacity while also making the AA System a terrific target as well. Turn those RADARs on and hope you get your kills in cause your the next to die.

It's true, 4 A-10s shot down in the first gulf war, and how much damage did all those A-10s do? Sucks to be the unlucky 4 pilots but in warfare, that's a no-brainer trade.

Tough attacking a tank from the front?, your in an aircraft operating in groups attacking from multiple directions, ever seen them work? Besides, the top surfaces of the hull and turret are extremely vulnerable no matter what and that's where the killing rounds usually penetrate anyway.

Lastly, the A-10 filled the need for an aircraft which could remain on station for a good period of time and even loiter over target areas to provide cover for extended time frames. In order to do this air-superiority was already a requirement and will remain one. None of the new aircraft can meet this need and so something new will need to be designed and fielded unless they can provide the capability with another platform.

The A-10 is still an entirely viable platform and there is no suitable replacement in sight to full fill it's role on the battlefield. Getting rid of it before a replacement is near is stupid. Of course we seen stupid before.

These are the arguments of people who are set to get rid of the Aircraft. It's run by the Air Force for the Army, that has as much to do with it as anything. After playing second fiddle to the Army and Marines for over ten years the Air Force is just tired of playing support. I mean really, the Air Force went so far as to field their own Infantry and Snipers just because they couldn't stand sitting in the back of the bus. Canning the A-10 is just a way for them to separate themselves from that back seat position. It's ironic that it was also the Air Force that couldn't stand it when the Army wanted to own the A-0s to start with.
 
Dangman said:
They are dead considering the following factors:
1) The situations that requires a battleship but doesn't require a carrier yet is too much for a destroyer are small
2) The manpower requirement for a battleship equal that of six Arleigh Burke class destroyers
3) It requires its own battlegroup for defence and offensive purposes
4) The USMC, the service that protested against the mothballing of battleships in the first place, is no longer actively pushing for their reintroduction
5) All four of Iowa-class battleships are now museum ships and thus required extensive, costly, and time consuming remilitarzation and retrofits to make them viable combat vessels. Last I checked, it might take around three years to make the an Iowa-class battleship active again. In other words, we would have to know without a doubt that we're going to do an amphibious invasion of another country to justify the expenditure and time sink.
6) The trend these days is towards more accuracy rather than sheer firepower.
7) Relatively lack of versatility.

The Zumwalts are the starting point. The new goal for the Zumwalts are to act as technology demonstrators so that we can push developments from the Zumwalts onto newer cheaper ships. A clear example of this is the expensive Seawolf-class submarines which pioneered technology that would show up in the mass-produced Virgina class submarines. We have to think about the future. If we had let the failures of all those early air-to-air missiles get to, we would not have the advance air-to-air missiles we have today.

In the last 14 years, was there ever a particular combat situation where not having a battleship meant casualties were higher than normal?


There is absolutely no doubt that the F-35 has been a troubled program. But with 115 F-35s now built and the sheer amount of money spent as well as the major international commitments, there's no way the F-35 is getting cancelled. Does it have issues? Yes. But those issues can be solved. Not to mention that even in its current unfinished state, the F-35 is still more survivable against a peer enemy or at least a well equipped enemy than an A-10.

Because of being spending the last 14 years in multiple conflicts, a lot of our military equipment are significantly worn down. Not just the A-10 but our F-16s, F/A-18 and AV-8B Harriers. So even if the F-35 program was cancelled right this moment, that leaves us with no new replacement airframes for at least 15 years judging from current development rates for combat aircraft. We'd have to buy updated versions of our current hardware in the meantime which are sadly starting to fall behind some of our European counterparts as well as Chinese and Russian.
Click to expand...

Just need to keep in mind, when the A-10 was being developed and fielded, it didn't have to compete with F-14, F-15, or F-16. It doesn't have the same mission set. To make such comparisons today is a dodge. The role of the F-35 is multipurpose Fighter, not dedicated ground support attack aircraft.
 
I still see the A-10 as a viable weapons platform, sure they have the F-35 waiting to go online, but that may be delayed for delivery to the USMC due to mechanical problems. So in the meantime why put the A-10 out to pasture when you truly dont have anything to replace it with at this time??

I hold the same argument with the Iowa class Battleships. Two of these ship were supposed to be kept on the Naval Register in reserve until their replacement materialized. Well the Navy was quick to get rid the Battleship as fast as it could because they supposedly had something better. Well all four Iowas are museums now, and even if they were to be reactivated, I believe the navy got rid of all their spare Mark 7 barrels and other equipment and ordnance to support them. As of now there is nothing in the Navy to provide Naval Gunfire support on the same level as the Iowa class battleship, besides the current 5 inch guns which don't even come close. The Iowas have proven in places like Korea, Vietnam and Iraq that heavy naval gunfire is a valuable asset. You cant shoot down a Mark 8 super heavy projectile. I would imagine places like Somalia, Libya probably could of benefited from a Battleship parked offshore. Might of been nice to have a Battleship for Naval gunfire support when the whole Benghazi incident went down or the Battle of Mogadishu. These would be perfect places for the Iowa class Battleship to have provided heavy naval gunfire. But Iowa class Battleships are museums now, so go for a visit and one can only dream what could of been.;):D
 
The Iowas are sexy beasts that is for sure.

You hit the nail on the head about the difference in planning for the future and dealing with today. Of course dealing with today means dealing with today's budget and as gross as these budgets are, they are not unlimited and basically always get spent.

So many people read up and study war material and read reports written by people who actually don't know anything about how war is actually fought. This leads to incorrect ideas about capabilities and limitations.

As an example, it frequently happens that a platform may be viewed as superior when in fact, what is seen as superior has no effect because they way these platforms are employed makes the advantage moot. An advantage is nothing if it can't be leveraged.
 
lcpiper said:
This is unfortunately an argument full of holes.

Here we go, the arguments about up-gunned AAA, SPAAGs, etc, these weapons were not up-gunned to defeat A-10s, they have increased the gun caliber in order to increase range to that greater then the range of Hellfire Missiles, the gun's targets are helicopters, not fixed0wing aircraft. The Missiles on these SPAA systems are intended for fixed winged targets and the missiles are usually derivatives of the man-pads in a vehicle mounted form. Yes, the battlefield is now proliferated with them, but the vehicles almost invariably include RADAR Systems and those RADARs are always a double edged sword that provide a terrific targeting capacity while also making the AA System a terrific target as well. Turn those RADARs on and hope you get your kills in cause your the next to die.

It's true, 4 A-10s shot down in the first gulf war, and how much damage did all those A-10s do? Sucks to be the unlucky 4 pilots but in warfare, that's a no-brainer trade.

Tough attacking a tank from the front?, your in an aircraft operating in groups attacking from multiple directions, ever seen them work? Besides, the top surfaces of the hull and turret are extremely vulnerable no matter what and that's where the killing rounds usually penetrate anyway.

Lastly, the A-10 filled the need for an aircraft which could remain on station for a good period of time and even loiter over target areas to provide cover for extended time frames. In order to do this air-superiority was already a requirement and will remain one. None of the new aircraft can meet this need and so something new will need to be designed and fielded unless they can provide the capability with another platform.

The A-10 is still an entirely viable platform and there is no suitable replacement in sight to full fill it's role on the battlefield. Getting rid of it before a replacement is near is stupid. Of course we seen stupid before.

These are the arguments of people who are set to get rid of the Aircraft. It's run by the Air Force for the Army, that has as much to do with it as anything. After playing second fiddle to the Army and Marines for over ten years the Air Force is just tired of playing support. I mean really, the Air Force went so far as to field their own Infantry and Snipers just because they couldn't stand sitting in the back of the bus. Canning the A-10 is just a way for them to separate themselves from that back seat position. It's ironic that it was also the Air Force that couldn't stand it when the Army wanted to own the A-0s to start with.
Click to expand...
I'm not set to get rid of the aircraft. I would love to keep the A-10 if it was still cost-effective. From what I've been reading,it's not going to be cost-effective for long.

I never said that those AAA, SPAAGs, etc were upgunned to kill A-10s. Nevertheless, the results of said upgunning means that the A-10 is now more vulnerable should those AAA/SPAAG crews decide to just use their guns anyway against the A-10. As the U.S saw in the 2003 Attack on Karbala, even antiquated non radar guided S-60 AA guns can do enough damage to force 28 AH-64 Apaches to be out of action for a month. In the case of the Tunguska and Pantsir weapon systems, the two most likely systems the A-10 may face in the future, those aren't using modified MANPADS. They're using full-sized surface to air missiles. As we saw with the Serbs during the conflicts in the Balkans, airpower won't kill every single mobile anti-aircraft weapon.

But again even if those were MANPADs, those manpads generally have enough range to make using the A-10's cannon a dicey operation. Since the biggest argument I've seen from A-10 supporters is that the A-10's huge cannon is very much needed, if there are widespread proliferation of weapons that prevents or at least makes A-10 pilots from using that cannon on ground targets, wouldn't that mean that the A-10 would have to use missiles or rockets? The same rockets and missiles that you can fit to just about any other aircraft? So what would the A-10's weapons advantage be then in that situation?

Tough attacking a tank from the front that was designed in that was designed in 1961. Outside of monkey model T-72s with their lower quality armor, more than likely current and future generation of tanks will have better armor designs that can better stand up to the A-10's rounds even from the top surfaces. With that said, even if you needed to kill a fuckton of tanks, that cannon isn't the most optimal solution. We now have the CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon for that with each one capable of capable of killing at least ten tanks. An F-16 can carry about 4 to 6 of those cluster weapons. A B-1B can carry 24.

The USAF is saying that for the time being, F-15Es and F-16s will do CAS work until a new replacement or setup for CAS is designed. Considering that those two airframes airframes are already doing CAS work in Iraq and Afghanistan, it just means more of those airframes are used for that purpose. As for the ability to remain on station for a long time, that same argument could be used to justify more combat drones. In fact, we're already seeing Predators and Reapers doing CAS work in Afghanistan and Iraq. At least if a drone goes down in a contested environment, no pilot is lost and it is relatively cheaper to replace. With a drone, you can even swap pilots to give them rest.

Another alternative would be the Textron Scorpion. It's cheaper to operate than the A-10 on an hourly basis (~$17,000 VS just $3,000) and does carry, IIRC, better sensors and such. Yes it has many of the same limitations as the A-10 in terms of survivability but it's significantly cheaper to operate and a slightly higher speed.

I totally agree that the USAF have essentially been total dicks about the A-10 from the beginning. If this was a mere five years ago, I'd be right there with you supporting the continued use of the A-10 and chalking another USAF attempt at killing the A-10 as bullshit. When it comes to aircraft, the USAF are real illogical primma donnas about them.

However, in light of sequestration and emerging threats, I don't see as much of a strong case to keep the A-10 in service compared to just five years ago. If the A-10 is still kept in service, GREAT! I have no real problem with that as I still love the A-10. If it's not kept in service, GREAT! In other words, whatever happens to the A-10 is a win-win in my book.
lcpiper said:
Just need to keep in mind, when the A-10 was being developed and fielded, it didn't have to compete with F-14, F-15, or F-16. It doesn't have the same mission set. To make such comparisons today is a dodge. The role of the F-35 is multipurpose Fighter, not dedicated ground support attack aircraft.
Click to expand...
Not a dodge to compare the A-10, F-16, and F-15E since they're both being used for CAS work in Afghanistan and Iraq. The F-16 is a multi-role fighter just like the F-35, albeit less advanced.
kilroy67 said:
I still see the A-10 as a viable weapons platform, sure they have the F-35 waiting to go online, but that may be delayed for delivery to the USMC due to mechanical problems. So in the meantime why put the A-10 out to pasture when you truly dont have anything to replace it with at this time??
Click to expand...
Well not sure why you're referencing the USMC in regards to the A-10's CAS work. The point about talking about retiring the A-10 soon is due to a point I made earlier: Defence budgets are planned 1-2 years in advance with some items having guaranteed set periods of funding. Kill the A-10 now and the USAF saves money. If this was before sequestration, oh yeah, keep the A-10. But since sequestration is still in effect, gotta make hard choices about the budget.
kilroy67 said:
I hold the same argument with the Iowa class Battleships. Two of these ship were supposed to be kept on the Naval Register in reserve until their replacement materialized. Well the Navy was quick to get rid the Battleship as fast as it could because they supposedly had something better. Well all four Iowas are museums now, and even if they were to be reactivated, I believe the navy got rid of all their spare Mark 7 barrels and other equipment and ordnance to support them. As of now there is nothing in the Navy to provide Naval Gunfire support on the same level as the Iowa class battleship, besides the current 5 inch guns which don't even come close. The Iowas have proven in places like Korea, Vietnam and Iraq that heavy naval gunfire is a valuable asset. You cant shoot down a Mark 8 super heavy projectile. I would imagine places like Somalia, Libya probably could of benefited from a Battleship parked offshore. Might of been nice to have a Battleship for Naval gunfire support when the whole Benghazi incident went down or the Battle of Mogadishu. These would be perfect places for the Iowa class Battleship to have provided heavy naval gunfire. But Iowa class Battleships are museums now, so go for a visit and one can only dream what could of been.;):D
Click to expand...
While I fully agree that the firepower level of a battleship is not matched by any gun in the USN at this point in time, I disagree that the BBs would have actually been useful in Benghazi or Moghadishu. Those were situations where U.S forces and personnel were in close contact with the enemy. Firing a 16" shell at those enemies would have also hurt U.S forces as well. As for Libya, maybe the BB would be useful but I doubt the BB would have been near the area.
lcpiper said:
So many people read up and study war material and read reports written by people who actually don't know anything about how war is actually fought. This leads to incorrect ideas about capabilities and limitations.
Click to expand...
The irony of this is that I actually agree with you on this premise. I see too many People reference from poorly knowledgeable sites and people like FoxTrotAlpha (well a lot of times they're on the mark), Pierre Sprey (he had a few good ideas but nowadays he's getting "out there"), Mike Sparks, Air Power Australia, Tom Kratman, as well as POGS from the various different branches that never went into combat or was anywhere near the capability they're talking about. At least in my case, I have a family member who's an active duty fighter pilot so he keeps me in check on reading/having poor ideas and such in regards to the military.
 
While I fully agree that the firepower level of a battleship is not matched by any gun in the USN at this point in time, I disagree that the BBs would have actually been useful in Benghazi or Moghadishu. Those were situations where U.S forces and personnel were in close contact with the enemy. Firing a 16" shell at those enemies would have also hurt U.S forces as well. As for Libya, maybe the BB would be useful but I doubt the BB would have been near the area.
Click to expand...

Not to say that I believe the Battleships will be reactivated, I believe it would be highly improbable. But in the case of a good discussion, the USS New Jersey was reactivated during the Vietnam War from 1967-1969 due to heavy aircraft loss, and provided Naval gunfire support for the Marine 1st and 3rd divisions as a example. She also took out numerous structures, fortified bunkers and artillery positions. She fired over 5000 rounds of 16 inch projectiles and almost 15,000 round of 5 inch shells. Both the Battleships Wisconsin and the Missouri fired numerous 16 inch and 5 inch rounds during the gulf war. The naval bombardment was so heavy and devastating by the Battleship Wisconsin, that the Iraqis surrendered to her spotter drone, making this a 1st in naval warfare.
 
Well not sure why you're referencing the USMC in regards to the A-10's CAS work. The point about talking about retiring the A-10 soon is due to a point I made earlier: Defence budgets are planned 1-2 years in advance with some items having guaranteed set periods of funding. Kill the A-10 now and the USAF saves money. If this was before sequestration, oh yeah, keep the A-10. But since sequestration is still in effect, gotta make hard choices about the budget.
Click to expand...

The USMC are supposed to take delivery of the 1st batch of F-35's in July 2015, but may be delayed due to mechanical issues, some of which may not be able to be corrected.
 
kilroy67 said:
The USMC are supposed to take delivery of the 1st batch of F-35's in July 2015, but may be delayed due to mechanical issues, some of which may not be able to be corrected.
Click to expand...
How does that affect the A-10's proposed retirement? USMC doctrine relies heavily on AH-1 Cobras, F/A-18Cs, Harriers, and Harvest Hawk equipped KC-130Js for their CAS needs. Not to mention that in the kind of future conflicts that the USMC sees itself in, the A-10 won't be anywhere close enough to support them. Remember there is a supposed pivot to Asia now. Even the U.S Army, the chief client of the A-10, understands that in light of current budget circumstances why the A-10 is being retired even if they don't like that. That's according to General Raymond T. Odierno, Chief of Staff of the Army.

Now if we're talking about retiring some of the USAF's big cargo aircraft, now that would be a major issue for the USMC as the USMC still relies on the USAF for airlift of some of their heavier gear.

kilroy67 said:
Not to say that I believe the Battleships will be reactivated, I believe it would be highly improbable. But in the case of a good discussion, the USS New Jersey was reactivated during the Vietnam War from 1967-1969 due to heavy aircraft loss, and provided Naval gunfire support for the Marine 1st and 3rd divisions as a example. She also took out numerous structures, fortified bunkers and artillery positions. She fired over 5000 rounds of 16 inch projectiles and almost 15,000 round of 5 inch shells. Both the Battleships Wisconsin and the Missouri fired numerous 16 inch and 5 inch rounds during the gulf war. The naval bombardment was so heavy and devastating by the Battleship Wisconsin, that the Iraqis surrendered to her spotter drone, making this a 1st in naval warfare.
Click to expand...
Fantastic war record on the part of those BBs. But not a good enough record to wipe away the facts that a battleship wouldn't be that much more useful to justify the costs. Especially nowadays. With a CVBG, the carrier has better chance of defending it self since its aircraft allows for a longer ranged defensive and awareness umbrella. A battlship based battle group would more or less have only their onboard radar and sensors for detection of enemy targets which gives enemies a better chance of getting closer to the BBs.
 
Last edited:
Fantastic war record on the part of those BBs. But not a good enough record to wipe away the facts that a battleship wouldn't be that much more useful to justify the costs. Especially nowadays. With a CVBG, the carrier has better chance of defending it self since its aircraft allows for a longer ranged defensive and awareness umbrella. A battlship based battle group would more or less have only their onboard radar and sensors for detection of enemy targets which gives enemies a better chance of getting closer to the BBs.
Click to expand...

battlegroup-052b.jpg


Now I actually like this idea...a Battleship/Aircraft Carrier Battle group!! :p;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top