Big Battleship Doctrine

[Defcon 6]

Alright, with the webmaster's consent I've decided to make this thread which is dedicated to Iowa Battleship Reactivation.

Why do we need the battleship?

1.)
a: The NSFS mission gaps. Currently there are 4, which I will post in a min.
-Fires Volume: Can possibly be fully-mitigated by a battleship using guided rounds. While the DD(X) cannot mitigate this requirement even with guided rounds. The DD(X) can only partially mitigate this requirement.
-Collateral damage: The Iowa BB's do not mitigate this requirement as opposed to the DD(X) which partially mitigates it. However with guided rounds it could be partially mitigated by the BB most likely.

2.) Factoring cost.
A BB costs as much the same as 2.8 DD(X)'s. However the Iowa provides firepower equal to 3 DD(X)'s. So in actuallity the Iowa's are cost effective. Money isn't an issue in such a scenario. Furthermore even 3 DD(X)'s couldn't provide the same support as a BB. The idea that the 155mm is adequate is quite wrong upon reviewing recent requirements.

Battleship Costs :
* service life : 15 years
* reactivation cost : $2,000 millions per ship
* operating costs : $75 millions per year

=> cost per year : (2,000 / 15) + 75 = $208 millions

Battleship's Escort Costs :
* type : DDG-51
* number : 1 ship
* service life : 30 years, of which 15 years as BB escort
* building costs : $1,250 millions
* operating costs : $25 millions per year

=> cost per year : (1,250 * (15/30) / 15) + 25 = $67 millions per year

Battleship's Overall Costs :

=> cost per year : $275 millions USD

DD(X) Costs :
* service life : 35 years
* building costs : $2,750 millions (CBO says $3,700 millions!!!!!!)
* operating costs : $20 millions per year

=> cost per year : (2,750 / 35) + 20 = $99 millions per year ($105.7 millions)

BB vs DD(X) Costs :

=> 1 x BB = 2.8 x DD(X) (Or only 1.9 is you use the CBO cost!!!)

Figure excludes DDG-51 since the requirement for an escort is missleading when considering the escort could provide NSFS as well.
So really compared to the DD(X)-
1 x BB= 3 DD(X)'s in fire power
1x BB = 1.9 DD(X)'s in cost!
Thats what I call bargain basics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is text from the Navy CONOPS

If you read the Navy's 2003 Conops you would know that 18 Surface Combatants could not provide sustainable NSFS in the NEA Scenario.

The introduction of higher energy, hotter burning propellant for ERGM will reduce the expected gun barrel life. The threshold wear life of the Mk 45 Mod 4 gun 62-caliber gun barrel for ERGM is 1500 rounds with an objective of 3000 rounds.* The required barrel life for AGS is 3000 threshold and 6000 objective. This is compared with the current 5- inch 54-caliber barrel wear life in excess of 8000 rounds for ballistic ammunition fired with standard NACO propellants.

The 18 surface combatants in the NEA scenario (see section 8.3.1) would fire an average of over 4600 rounds from each gun during the 40-day campaign. Thus, on average every gun barrel would need to be replaced at least once, and in some cases maybe up to three times depending upon the actual wear experienced, assuming all rounds to be equivalent to ERGM or LRLAP in terms of barrel wear. That means all of the ships must return to the ISB at some point in the scenario for regunning. This will further affect the ability to provide sustained naval fires.
---------------------------------------------------------
The DD(X) won't fulfill the NEA scenario requirements. The only ship in my opinion that either can or comes very close are two Iowa battleships.

In light of what I've learned, I am all for reactivation. I would like to hear what other members have to say. Feel free to criticize.

My final solution, is to cut 2 DD(X)'s off of the currently funded 7 DD(X)'s so that the battleships can be reactivated. So the USN should build 5 DD(X)'s while reactivating two Iowa Battleships.

 

[Defcon 6]

Here are the current NSFS mission gaps, which I've attached.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I agree that NGS is an important capability, however Iowa class are only truly capable in this role. AsUW capabilities are okay, given the 16 Harpoon ASM's they mounted. ASW is totally non-existent. Anti-air capability is non-existent. DD(X) is designed to address all these roles. Furthermore it will carry TacTom, which I do not believe the Iowa's would.

"Can possibly be fully-mitigated by a battleship using guided rounds". What guided rounds? There is no such thing as a guided 16inch round. Development of any such round is going to have to address EXACTLY the same issues that exists for current generation 5inch and 155mm Naval guns. Furthermore it's a capability that can only be used with Iowa class ships. It could not be used in any other platform. Such a capability would therefore be enormously expensive, for a VERY narrow role.

Why is 155mm (ie: the 8 inch gun, due to be fitted to DD(X) I believe) not sufficient to meet requirements? What requirements are they? Are they in-sufficient to meet the required target set? Why then is the Navy target set so very different from Land forces target set? Armies are very happy with current generation 155mm projectiles? Why then is it insufficient for Navy fires?

Curious.

 

[Defcon 6]

I agree that NGS is an important capability,

NSFS.

AsUW capabilities are okay, given the 16 Harpoon ASM's they mounted.

It's in the same boat as the DD(X) as far as AShW goes.

ASW is totally non-existent. Anti-air capability is non-existent. DD(X) is designed to address all these roles. Furthermore it will carry TacTom, which I do not believe the Iowa's would.

The DD(X) lacks ASuW as well. While the Iowa would be refitted with ESSM if reactivated, or perhaps SeaRAM instead which could be mounted deckside.

What guided rounds? There is no such thing as a guided 16inch round. Development of any such round is going to have to address EXACTLY the same issues that exists for current generation 5inch and 155mm Naval guns.

The 16" rounds obviously do no exist at current time. Which is why I pointed out in my original post that they would need to be developed. nevertheless, if 155mm guided rounds can be developed, then so can 16" guided rounds. Last time I checked the 155mm guided rounds were doing extremely well in their progress.

Furthermore it's a capability that can only be used with Iowa class ships. It could not be used in any other platform. Such a capability would therefore be enormously expensive, for a VERY narrow role.

Actually your somewhat wrong concerning that notion. Currently only 7 DD(X)'
s are planned and funded for construction. Each has 2 155mm guns. That equals 14 gun barrels alltogether. The Iowa's each have 9 16" guns, for a total of 18 gun barrels that could fire it's ammunition. Furthermore that very narrow role, is currently the narrow role that cannot be fulfilled by current platforms as well as the DD(X). Furthermore, money isn't an issue because as I said reactivating one Iowa is equal to a new construction of 1.9 DD(X)'s. So the money you save by reactivation could be used to fund the R&D for guided 16" rounds and further modernization of the Iowa platform.

Why is 155mm (ie: the 8 inch gun, due to be fitted to DD(X) I believe) not sufficient to meet requirements?

I hate to break it to you digger, but 155mm is not even close to being a 8 inch gun. Last time I checked 155mm=6.1"

What requirements are they? Are they in-sufficient to meet the required target set? Why then is the Navy target set so very different from Land forces target set? Armies are very happy with current generation 155mm projectiles? Why then is it insufficient for Navy fires?

18 NSFS surface combatants were unable to supply the sustained firing rate for the NEA NSFS scenario. That is in the USN CONOPS report.

The introduction of higher energy, hotter burning propellant for ERGM will reduce the expected gun barrel life. The threshold wear life of the Mk 45 Mod 4 gun 62-caliber gun barrel for ERGM is 1500 rounds with an objective of 3000 rounds.* The required barrel life for AGS is 3000 threshold and 6000 objective. This is compared with the current 5- inch 54-caliber barrel wear life in excess of 8000 rounds for ballistic ammunition fired with standard NACO propellants.

The 18 surface combatants in the NEA scenario (see section 8.3.1) would fire an average of over 4600 rounds from each gun during the 40-day campaign. Thus, on average every gun barrel would need to be replaced at least once, and in some cases maybe up to three times depending upon the actual wear experienced, assuming all rounds to be equivalent to ERGM or LRLAP in terms of barrel wear. That means all of the ships must return to the ISB at some point in the scenario for regunning. This will further affect the ability to provide sustained naval fires.

It has nothing to do penetrating power. It has to do with sustained firing rates.

 

[alexsa]

I gave up debating this issue but here goes for one last time.

I do love the old battle wagons but you cannot escape the OLD bit. In regards to these platforms they are:

too old,
too limited in cability (except for NGS everything else has to be added),
too noisy,
too expensive to maintain over a prolonged period,
too big in so fare as RCS ans IR signature are concerned,
too main power intensive to run, and
too much of a liability.

Some of these issue just cannot be solved without completely rebuilding the ships, so then there would be no point. The major feature of these ships is their armour and 16" guns. The armour willnot ensure surviviablity without adequate systems and the guns are largely manually handled, have a slow rate of fire and fire a shell currently not in production. As an added problem the guns are not designed for 'advance muntions'. It is not a simple task of 'scaling up shells' from 155mm either.

Finally a large proportion of the majority of the cost of the new DD(X) are the systems that enable it to gather and process information and to employ its weapons. These will be needed on nay survivable hull operating inthe manner you foresee for the BB which will balloon your costs on a ship that still does not have the hull and propulsion enhancements.

Sorry to say these ships are where they belong. Paid off but a useful reminder of the past.

 

[Defcon 6]

too old,

So's the B-52.

too limited in cability (except for NGS everything else has to be added),

Limited? Hardly a one trick pony.
1.) AAW (SeaRAM)
2.) AShW (Harpoons, replace with Harpoon II's)
3.) ASuW
4.) NSFS

too noisy,

USN doesn't care about this. In every report I've read noise level is never mentioned. They have no need of stealthiness at sea.

too expensive to maintain over a prolonged period,

I gave the number in my first post.
* operating costs : $75 millions per year
So no. It isn't too expensive.

too big in so fare as RCS ans IR signature are concerned,

Doesn't need to a small RCS or Ir sig. It's like a carrier, you don't send it into a contested zone. Instead, it will sit out at sea outside of hostile territory and drop shells and missiles on it's inland targets. Or sea targets if need be.

too main power intensive to run, and

Main power? Where did you come up with this?

too much of a liability.

No, your thinking of a Nimitz with 5,500 crew members.

Some of these issue just cannot be solved without completely rebuilding the ships, so then there would be no point. The major feature of these ships is their armour and 16" guns. The armour willnot ensure surviviablity without adequate systems and the guns are largely manually handled, have a slow rate of fire and fire a shell currently not in production. As an added problem the guns are not designed for 'advance muntions'. It is not a simple task of 'scaling up shells' from 155mm either.

The armor is useless. The 16" guns are only useful if they gain guided extended range munitions. But, if guided rounds prove to be unworkable, then the DD(X) won't be getting them either. However if 155mm guided rounds are perfected and put into production, then a 16" version will cost peanuts and be relatively simple.

The shells may not be in production but we have tens of thousands of them in stock, and they are already paid for. The guns are manual, but they have radar controlled firing to assist. And unlike most ships, a mission kill won't stop an Iowa from firing it's guns. Thus we see the advantage of manual guns.

The 16" guns are pefectly capable of firing advanced munitions. As stated in the CONOPS snippet I provided, there are issues concerning the barrel erosion, but the barrel life extension programs run in the past have been so successful as I have mentioned in other threads, the barrel life is now measured in FER.

Finally a large proportion of the majority of the cost of the new DD(X) are the systems that enable it to gather and process information and to employ its weapons. These will be needed on nay survivable hull operating inthe manner you foresee for the BB which will balloon your costs on a ship that still does not have the hull and propulsion enhancements.

It doesn't need the propulsion enhancements. But furthermore the USN has made it clear that a reactivation would have included propulsion improvements while a modernization would include gas turbine replacements. Nevertheless, steam power is better so I say keep it.

Now the C4I systems would need to be replaced with digital systems, which is no big deal. Furtehrmore the cost of such a thing is provided for in the 2.0 B per reactivated Iowa. However as I have stated, thats still a good deal.

Sorry to say these ships are where they belong. Paid off but a useful reminder of the past.

I look forward to your responses since it would appear that this post wasn't the debate ender.

 

[alexsa]

Sorry it is a debate ender for me as I have no wish to discuss the further of a vessel that is 70 years old and not capable in the real world.

These ships are only capable of NGS. To do anything else they need significant upgrading, particualry their systems.

As you say the armour is useless and currently the 16" has signficantly less range than the AGS. You cannot simply turn 16" shells in the guided munitions so what is the point?

that was a retorical question.

 

[Defcon 6]

Sorry it is a debate ender for me as I have no wish to discuss the further of a vessel that is 70 years old and not capable in the real world.

The problem for you, if that you have given no evidence, no facts, no web links to prove anything. Therefore I will now point out that your arguement:

A.) Had nothing to do with the NSFS mission gaps
B.) Doesn't take into account current and future assets
C.) Used unrealistic notions and ideas such as "noise level," and "too much power consumption."
D.) No solid evidence.
E.) No reports I have read mention any of the points you made in your last arguement. So evidently the GAO and Congressional Budget Office are not concerned with such issues.

Therefore I point out that I effectively debunked your arguement.

These ships are only capable of NGS. To do anything else they need significant upgrading, particualry their systems.

How so? Where is the proof? Are you stating that they are incapable of using SeaRAM? Are you also stating that you have some notion that Harpoon's can't be replaced with Harpoon II's (which wouldn't need any additional upgrading to what would be refitted during refurbishment.)

As you say the armour is useless and currently the 16" has signficantly less range than the AGS. You cannot simply turn 16" shells in the guided munitions so what is the point?

Back in the 80's and early 90's DARPA investigated the idea of designing ans building 16" guided/extended range munitions. One which was finalized in the concept stage had the following charcateristics:


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]Advanced Gun Weapon Systems Technology Program[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]16/11 Inch Long Range GPS Concept with Sabot[/SIZE][/FONT]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_pics.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_Sabot_pic.jpg

Sabot Diameter 16 in (40.6 cm)
Projectile Diameter 11 in (28 cm)
Range 100 nm
Launch Weight 650 lbs. (295 kg)
Fly Away Weight 525 lbs. (238 kg)
Launch Length 69 in (175 cm)
Payload 175.2 lbs. (79.5 kg)
248 M46 Submunitions
Guidance Modes GPS & INS


So very clearly it is possible to design a 16" guided munition using guided technology.

 

[Izzy1]

Maybe Defcon,

But, like the point of this whole thread and the one before it - is it worth the financial outlay??

 

[Aussie Digger]

I agree that NGS is an important capability, however Iowa class are only truly capable in this role. AsUW capabilities are okay, given the 16 Harpoon ASM's they mounted. ASW is totally non-existent. Anti-air capability is non-existent. DD(X) is designed to address all these roles. Furthermore it will carry TacTom, which I do not believe the Iowa's would.

"Can possibly be fully-mitigated by a battleship using guided rounds". What guided rounds? There is no such thing as a guided 16inch round. Development of any such round is going to have to address EXACTLY the same issues that exists for current generation 5inch and 155mm Naval guns. Furthermore it's a capability that can only be used with Iowa class ships. It could not be used in any other platform. Such a capability would therefore be enormously expensive, for a VERY narrow role.

Why is 155mm (ie: the 8 inch gun, due to be fitted to DD(X) I believe) not sufficient to meet requirements? What requirements are they? Are they in-sufficient to meet the required target set? Why then is the Navy target set so very different from Land forces target set? Armies are very happy with current generation 155mm projectiles? Why then is it insufficient for Navy fires?

Curious.

NGS, NSFS, seems to be the same thing. I am a former ADF member and NGS is what that particular task is called in the ADF. Hence my familiarity with that term.

8 inch v 6.1 inch. Okay you got me. I didn't bother checking if 155mm equalled that or not, merely assumed it.

ESSM or SeaRam does not provide significant AA capability. It provides a moderate level of self defence capability. Something such a ship is definitely going to need, if it's as capable as you suggest it would be. DD(X) will provide SM-2/3/6 series SAM's, ESSM, (probably) SeaRAM, plus Tactom, vertical launched Harpoon ASM's and VL "anti-submarine rockets", quite a range of capability there...

A re-activated Iowa class, would have non of this, bar possibly the SeaRam system. Do the Iowa's have the required continuous wave illuminating radars needed to guide ESSM? I don't know, but I doubt it. Plus, do you know what's involved in fitting a VLS system to a ship that's not fitted with it originally? Large amounts of deck cut out. If you want to read more about it, the FFG-upgrade thread can provide some insights.

Harpoon II is capable of being fired from existing vessels designed to operate Harpoon. They cannot however utilise the full capability of the Harpoon II missile. An upgraded fire control system is required.

AS to the 155mm gun question. You didn't respond to that, merely re-hashed your original data on the Mk 45 Mod 4 127mm gun and ERGM.

I ask again. What target sets exist that 60-70 year old 16inch guns can succesfully engage and yet modern 155mm guns can't? LRLAP has recently been tested at

 

[Defcon 6]

NGS, NSFS, seems to be the same thing. I am a former ADF member and NGS is what that particular task is called in the ADF. Hence my familiarity with that term.

Basically they are very similar. However NSFS stands for Near shore fire support. NGS is ground based fire support. However NSFS is not NGS, because anything fired from a ship would be NSFS.

ESSM or SeaRam does not provide significant AA capability. It provides a moderate level of self defence capability. Something such a ship is definitely going to need, if it's as capable as you suggest it would be. DD(X) will provide SM-2/3/6 series SAM's, ESSM, (probably) SeaRAM, plus Tactom, vertical launched Harpoon ASM's and VL "anti-submarine rockets", quite a range of capability there...

SeaRAM has a 95% success rate. I'd be fine with depending on it. Theres a reason the Iowa has escorts with it. Those escorts would carry the SM series, while the Iowa has SeaRAM to defend itself. Last time I checked DD(X) did not have SeaRAM.

So the Iowa has-
1.) NSFS
2.) AA
3.) AShW
4.) ASuW

A re-activated Iowa class, would have non of this, bar possibly the SeaRam system. Do the Iowa's have the required continuous wave illuminating radars needed to guide ESSM? I don't know, but I doubt it. Plus, do you know what's involved in fitting a VLS system to a ship that's not fitted with it originally? Large amounts of deck cut out. If you want to read more about it, the FFG-upgrade thread can provide some insights.

So the Iowa has-
1.) NSFS
2.) AA
3.) AShW
4.) ASuW

Well considering that VLS goes below deck, yeah I figured that. In fact I probably understand more about it than you do since I know quite a bit about the Iowa's deck structure. Maybe we can mount the VLS in the mess hall right next to the salad bar.

Harpoon II is capable of being fired from existing vessels designed to operate Harpoon. They cannot however utilise the full capability of the Harpoon II missile. An upgraded fire control system is required.

It's a software difference. The hadware for the Harpoon II is virtually the same. So yes, the Iowa could make full use of it. Would reactivation include this? Yes.

AS to the 155mm gun question. You didn't respond to that, merely re-hashed your original data on the Mk 45 Mod 4 127mm gun and ERGM.

The 155mm does not put enough HE on target to meet the NEA scenario objectives.

I ask again. What target sets exist that 60-70 year old 16inch guns can succesfully engage and yet modern 155mm guns can't? LRLAP has recently been tested at

You don't seem to be understanding the problem. Engage what?

This has nothing to do with engaging anything. It's the age old simplistic problem of dropping a specified HE on target. 18 surface combatants cannot get enough HE on target in NEA. That means-

A.) It doesn't matter if LRLAP has been tested
B.) It doesn't matter if Exalibur is ever perfected
C.) It doesn't matter what kind of 155mm shell it is

Because it won't have a significant increase in HE payload, thus is will never meet NEA objectives without a whole bunch of ships participating. As I have said, it's a matter of sustained fire rates (in the form of HE lbs/min).

 

[Defcon 6]

Maybe Defcon,

But, like the point of this whole thread and the one before it - is it worth the financial outlay??

Of course.

An Iowa carries 3 times the firepower of a DD(X) costing 2.5 B per reactivation.

A DD(X) carries 1/3 the firepower of an Iowa while costing 3.7 B.

An Iowa as far as cost goes: = 1.9 DD(X) reactivated.

So, yes it's absolutely worth it. Like I said, cut the 7 DD(X)'s down to 5 and reactivate 2 Iowa's, the modernize them with the money saved.

2 Iowa's are equal to 6 DD(X)'s. So 2 Iowa's would be almost as powerful as all 7 DD(X)'s the Navy is currently planning to build.

 

[Wooki]

Of course.

An Iowa carries 3 times the firepower of a DD(X) costing 2.5 B per reactivation.

A DD(X) carries 1/3 the firepower of an Iowa while costing 3.7 B.

An Iowa as far as cost goes: = 1.9 DD(X) reactivated.

So, yes it's absolutely worth it. Like I said, cut the 7 DD(X)'s down to 5 and reactivate 2 Iowa's, the modernize them with the money saved.

2 Iowa's are equal to 6 DD(X)'s. So 2 Iowa's would be almost as powerful as all 7 DD(X)'s the Navy is currently planning to build.

I think what has happened between the legislative branch of government and the Navy is a butting of heads over NSFS. Both parties have drawn lines in the sand and have dug their heels in, so you will not see a BB come back into service Defcon, until some old foagies retire from the Navy.

The concept of a BB is basically a sound one, especially in this day and age with the advent of the cruisemissile, which gives it the power projection (with reference to range) of a CV.

I disagree with the AGS program as a whole (not enough range) and thought it would have been better to concentrate on developing a rail gun, but hangups in RG development and "need" have brought it (AGS) to the fore one would presume, as a platform is being designed around it [DD(x)].

Once the railgun is developed then you will see the BB come back in, in the form of the DD(x) and the new Cruiser. It seems no one is interested in revamping the Iowa platforms which is a pity as they are a good design and would be ideal as a RG platform.

Anyway, this is kind of like the V-22 project, with stop, start abandon, reinstate, etc, etc. The longer the ships are not maintained to a certain standard, the more expensive it will become to modernize them. Ships rust and once rust is allowed to set in, it is expensive to return to "good as new". E.g. Replacing the webbing in one ballast tank is a couple of hundred thousand dollars right there.

Anyway, I don't see a future for the BB as a NSFS platform. As TBMD platform, yes. I thought it would have been obvious. But I am not an Admiral signing the papers.

my 2 cents worth.

 

[Defcon 6]

I think what has happened between the legislative branch of government and the Navy is a butting of heads over NSFS. Both parties have drawn lines in the sand and have dug their heels in, so you will not see a BB come back into service Defcon, until some old foagies retire from the Navy.

The concept of a BB is basically a sound one, especially in this day and age with the advent of the cruisemissile, which gives it the power projection (with reference to range) of a CV.

I disagree with the AGS program as a whole (not enough range) and thought it would have been better to concentrate on developing a rail gun, but hangups in RG development and "need" have brought it (AGS) to the fore one would presume, as a platform is being designed around it [DD(x)].

Once the railgun is developed then you will see the BB come back in, in the form of the DD(x) and the new Cruiser. It seems no one is interested in revamping the Iowa platforms which is a pity as they are a good design and would be ideal as a RG platform.

Anyway, this is kind of like the V-22 project, with stop, start abandon, reinstate, etc, etc. The longer the ships are not maintained to a certain standard, the more expensive it will become to modernize them. Ships rust and once rust is allowed to set in, it is expensive to return to "good as new". E.g. Replacing the webbing in one ballast tank is a couple of hundred thousand dollars right there.

Anyway, I don't see a future for the BB as a NSFS platform. As TBMD platform, yes. I thought it would have been obvious. But I am not an Admiral signing the papers.

my 2 cents worth.

I had this really wild idea for a BB(X).

Anyways, I agree with you. The reason the Iowa's aren't coming back is all about politics. Congress wants new ships, the Navy wants some fancy money pit called the DD(X), and the jet jockey admirals of course have some sort of prejudice against the BB? I don't know about that last bit, but theres politics concerning this issue everywhere in the military and gov, that it's not even clear who's calling the shots and whos doing what.

 

[Wild Weasel]

Without trying to complicate issues-

A.) At this time, there is no such thing as "VL-Harpoon".

B.) The most up to date, publicly-available information re. the proposed DD(X) weapons fit does not include any Harpoon capability- VL, or otherwise.
Infact, as far as I can see, it seems as though the only ASuW capability that the current design of DD(X) is slated to mount would be have to be provided by:
1) TACTOM(?), which seems to be a very expensive/inefficient manner in which to use an advanced long range cruise missile.
2) 155mm AGS(?). It is unknown how effective, ( if at all ) this weapon would be VS surface ships.
3) 57mm MK101 Bofors. ( Probably very capable against vessels up to patrol boat size, out to 15-17km, but probably inadequate against anything much larger. )
4) LAMPS III helo w/ Hellfire, and Penguin ASM. ( Hellfire is effective against most vessels up to corvette size, but has a dangerously short range VS ship-launched SAMs, placing the launching helicopter at serious risk.
The Penguin ASM is getting quite old these days, but may be the only other helo-launched ASuW option available for DD(X).
It is unknown ( but probably very unlikely ) if the MH-60R will ever be capable of carrying Harpoon, or SLAM(-ER). It is unknown what the DD(X) avaition facilities will actually entail at this early stage in its design. It is unknown whether or not the Penguin ASM will still be included in the active OOB when(/if) the DD(X) is ever activated.

C.) VLS for the Iowa has been proposed, and soundly rejected. The design complications involved in mounting the armored box launchers, and Harpoon quads were extensive, to say the least. I doubt very much that the Congress, and DOD, would be at all interested in taking on the expenditures of reactivating the BB's. The costs involved in upgrading them further, would certainly impact procurment of other, vitally needed platforms, such as the Super Hornet, JSF, DD/CG-21, and the LCS, etc etc etc.

I can appreciate the desire to reactivate the Iowas, as they certainly were/are impressive naval warfare platforms.
But that said, I believe that the best way forward, is not a sixty-year step backwards into the past. The US should definately act in regards to deficits in their NGFS/NSFS capability, but they should be replacing the Iowas with a new ship that will be even more effective as fire support ships than the the BB's were. A new design, based on an existing CVN/LHA/LHD/LSD hull, could also provide other roles, not the least of which would be a significant self defence capability.
I should also point out that another area that the USN is developing a critical deficit in, is ASW capablity- and this is particulalry dangerous, given the proliferation of advanced, high-endurance SSK's, and the USN's tendency to place such heavy reliance on HVU's like super-carriers, helicopter assault ships, and major NGFS platforms. Without replacing obselescent ASW systems with modern platforms and weapons, the risk to the USN's power-projection mission is greatly increased. They have already eliminated an ASW-variant of the Osprey, there is currently no replacement for the S-3 Viking, the VL-ASROC is critically short-ranged VS modern, heavy-weight torpedos, there is no replacement for the SUBROC, and they cancelled the Sea Lance long-range ASW weapon system a long time ago.
What this means is- even if they reactivated the Iowas, their susceptability to the ASW threat may be extremely serious, perhaps to such a extent that it makes using them for NGFS that close to shore too risky in an actual combat enviroment.

So basically, I see no other option but to build a modern, multi-role ship that will be worth it's salt, and worth defending- for the next sixty years or more.
A new design, based on a modified LHR/LHA/LHD hull, would have the size and space needed to mount an extensive number and variety of weapon mounts around the edges of the flight deck- particularly PVLS. A ship the size of a Wasp-class assault ship could easily fit as many as 12 PVLS along her flanks.
Other systems could include: a navalized MLRS for GMLRS-ER and ATACMS, the 155mm AGS, and the MK45 Mod III- as well as self defence systems such as the MK101 and MK46 gun systems, Sea RAM, and SVTT.
An up-armored, stealthy superstructure/island similar to that of the DD(X), would provide 360 degrees of advanced Aegis-class sensors, countermeasures and comms. The propulsion and engineering system is probably best left in it's current, conventional fit- so as to reduce costs, maintain commonality with the amphibius warfare fleet, and reduce the politcal ramifications when the vessel is forward deployed.
In addition to a significant number of USMC JSFs- ( at least 24 ) the existing aviation facilities/air wing would also provide this advanced, multi-role ship with an entirely new capability in air defence, strike/interdiction, CAS, SEAD, stand-off OECM, ELINT/RECCE, as well as ASW, and mine countermeasures. Naturally, it would also be an ideal platform to launch and operate UAVs, and possibly even UCAVs.
A dock/well deck at the stern allows the ship to function as an additional major amphibius assault unit, and can also be used to deploy SOCOM units, EOD, ship-board raiding parties, and quickly launch small craft like the ASDV, Mark V SOC, personnel-recovery boats, and even fast gunboats. It could even be used to deploy ROVs/UUV's, and the DSRV submarine.
Best of all, this design is truely multi-role, allowing the vessel to function as a: NSFS ship, an "arsenal-ship" strike cruiser, an ASW/counter-mine aviation cruiser, a SPECOPS mother ship, an amphibious assault carrier, a fast attack/escort carrier, or a task force/theater command ship.
It would have real AAW, ASuW, ASW, strike warfare, and C4ISR capacity. It would fit easily as an integral force multiplier in an AARG, or ESG- or, it could operate as the centerpiece for any other type of SAG.

So, in conclusion- I believe that reactivating the BB's is simply taking a tremendous leap backwards with an obselete design. In my humble opinion- this is not going to permit the USN to sail into a dangerous future of modern naval warfare. I think reactivating the Iowas would just be a combat liabilty, a financial blackhole, and potentially- an embarrising, costly, and tragic disaster at the hands of a modern enemy.

 

[gf0012-aust]

In other words, you'd make a great infomercial for the DD(X), but unfortunately you fail to prove any point whatsoever. But, nice job copying and pasting that from where you got it.

I see you haven't learned anything about manners and posting etiquette since coming back.

Just a small hint. There are at least 3-5 people in these forums who are actually maritime engineers, work with electronic warfare systems or are currently contracted on military projects.

They are highly regarded within their fields and do have substantial credibility. Unfortunately you've taken the same dismissive approach which earned you a ban on Warships1. I might add that some of the people that you felt compelled to argue with on that forum were nuclear engineers and were also involved with current warship modification and design programmes.

It would pay for you to actually remember that not everyone on here will necessarily tell you what they do, I can assure you though that there are people in here who are way ahead on the knowledge curve in both the practical and theoretical sense.

They are fully qualified engineers within their disciplines, they are highly regarded within industry - and they are certainly highly regarded within their respective militaries.

This is the second time that this particular thread was given the benefit of the doubt. It has however exhausted itself and is now closed.