James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Apr 15, 2021 17:58:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 15, 2021 18:27:04 GMT
Setting aside any sense of reason, reality, professionalism and need, here we go:
- Decision announced during 2016 campaign. No serious work done due to the unlikely nature of a Trump win
- November 2016: A collective feeling of horror goes through the USN. Old 80s plans are pulled out, but many weapons no longer exist
- April/May 2017: Rushed proposals submitted. The issues of having sold spare guns and ammunition for scrap, not having another conventional steam plant in service, not producing ABL Tomahawks and a not insignificant fraction of the experienced personnel used in the 1980s reactivations having died since 1992 proved significant. The fact that there is already an SSN named Missouri in active service is icing on the cake. One of the naval designers given the task considers defecting to Bolivia.
1.) There is no need for extra Tomahawks anymore, so they are not shipped
2.) There is a shortage of 16” shells, spares and support facilities, so each turret has a minimum manning and shell supply, with one gun active
3.) Wisconsin is suggested as the most applicable and available Iowa at a cost of $5 billion for a thorough modernisation, expected to take 28 months
4.) This begins with great ceremony in September 2017, perhaps even on the 11th as a symbolic gesture.
Funding for the other ships is held up in committee and then becomes a casualty of the 2018 midterms.
Wisconsin’s reactivation runs over times and she is finally recommissioned in March 2020. Shakedown cruise and working up operations are thrown into chaos by COVID-19
By November 2020, she has conducted trial, fired some 16” rounds for TV and went on a coastal cruise of the Atlantic seaboard. The USN doesn’t really have a mission for her or a need.
February 2021: The Biden Administration denies reports it wants to decommission the battleship.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Apr 15, 2021 18:33:56 GMT
Setting aside any sense of reason, reality, professionalism and need, here we go: - Decision announced during 2016 campaign. No serious work done due to the unlikely nature of a Trump win - November 2016: A collective feeling of horror goes through the USN. Old 80s plans are pulled out, but many weapons no longer exist - April/May 2017: Rushed proposals submitted. The issues of having sold spare guns and ammunition for scrap, not having another conventional steam plant in service, not producing ABL Tomahawks and a not insignificant fraction of the experienced personnel used in the 1980s reactivations having died since 1992 proved significant. The fact that there is already an SSN named Missouri in active service is icing on the cake. One of the naval designers given the task considers defecting to Bolivia. 1.) There is no need for extra Tomahawks anymore, so they are not shipped 2.) There is a shortage of 16” shells, spares and support facilities, so each turret has a minimum manning and shell supply, with one gun active 3.) Wisconsin is suggested as the most applicable and available Iowa at a cost of $5 billion for a thorough modernisation, expected to take 28 months 4.) This begins with great ceremony in September 2017, perhaps even on the 11th as a symbolic gesture. Funding for the other ships is held up in committee and then becomes a casualty of the 2018 midterms. Wisconsin’s reactivation runs over times and she is finally recommissioned in March 2020. Shakedown cruise and working up operations are thrown into chaos by COVID-19 By November 2020, she has conducted trial, fired some 16” rounds for TV and went on a coastal cruise of the Atlantic seaboard. The USN doesn’t really have a mission for her or a need. February 2021: The Biden Administration denies reports it wants to decommission the battleship. Yeah... sounds about right. Of course, there isn't a need really apart from anything not related to an EGO issue! |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 15, 2021 19:12:37 GMT
I love battleships as much as the next man - well, probably a heck of a lot more, when I think about it.
But that (battle) ship sailed a long, long time ago. In 1996-99, there was a bit more immediacy to the issue and a vague, vague hint of realism. Past 2000, it disappeared very, very rapidly, even in a time of military expansion and war. 2001/02 was the last real moment, but at the same time, was never more unlikely, given Mr. Rumsfeld’s beliefs and preference for lighter forces.
There might be a story there where there is more of conventional rearmament for the WoT - expansion to 12 Army and 4 Marine divisions, 14 carriers for 12 CVBG (10 Nimitz, Enterprise, Kitty Hawk, Constellation, JFK), 4 battleships and restarting bomber production. Not sure how, but it is more doable than 2016.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,834
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Apr 16, 2021 8:32:26 GMT
I love battleships as much as the next man - well, probably a heck of a lot more, when I think about it. But that (battle) ship sailed a long, long time ago. In 1996-99, there was a bit more immediacy to the issue and a vague, vague hint of realism. Past 2000, it disappeared very, very rapidly, even in a time of military expansion and war. 2001/02 was the last real moment, but at the same time, was never more unlikely, given Mr. Rumsfeld’s beliefs and preference for lighter forces. There might be a story there where there is more of conventional rearmament for the WoT - expansion to 12 Army and 4 Marine divisions, 14 carriers for 12 CVBG (10 Nimitz, Enterprise, Kitty Hawk, Constellation, JFK), 4 battleships and restarting bomber production. Not sure how, but it is more doable than 2016.
Very true. Fascinating inventions but simply not practical for water navy ships in the present day.
Took me a minute to realise what WoT was but that's a case in point. Other than using cruise missiles - which a much smaller and cheaper vessel can launch - they have no impact on any areas more than a few 10's of km from the coast, let alone a land-locked country like Afghanistan.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Apr 16, 2021 8:39:13 GMT
I love battleships as much as the next man - well, probably a heck of a lot more, when I think about it. But that (battle) ship sailed a long, long time ago. In 1996-99, there was a bit more immediacy to the issue and a vague, vague hint of realism. Past 2000, it disappeared very, very rapidly, even in a time of military expansion and war. 2001/02 was the last real moment, but at the same time, was never more unlikely, given Mr. Rumsfeld’s beliefs and preference for lighter forces. There might be a story there where there is more of conventional rearmament for the WoT - expansion to 12 Army and 4 Marine divisions, 14 carriers for 12 CVBG (10 Nimitz, Enterprise, Kitty Hawk, Constellation, JFK), 4 battleships and restarting bomber production. Not sure how, but it is more doable than 2016.
Very true. Fascinating inventions but simply not practical for water navy ships in the present day.
Took me a minute to realise what WoT was but that's a case in point. Other than using cruise missiles - which a much smaller and cheaper vessel can launch - they have no impact on any areas more than a few 10's of km from the coast, let alone a land-locked country like Afghanistan.
Why have an Iowa with maybe 16 cruise missiles tops when the in service Ohio SSGN conversions have 154 at hand? It's only the desire to have something pretty and seen the keeps the Iowa dream alive. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,971
Likes: 49,378
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 16, 2021 14:03:12 GMT
Trump would be out of office before the first of the Iowas would be back into service and then will suffer the fate of being re=deactivated by the next administration. |
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Apr 17, 2021 7:14:16 GMT
A costly overture considering the U.S. Navy is going to add to more Gerald R. Ford-class supercarriers namely the John F. Kennedy and the Doris Miller. Plus, the Pentagon was criticized for their controversial littoral combat ship program and the stealth destroyer program that ended up as expensive failures. Hence, the USN would purchase Italian frigates for their littoral combat force. A battleship would just be another resource sink that would make the LCS failure look kinder in comparison.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,834
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Apr 17, 2021 9:29:54 GMT
A costly overture considering the U.S. Navy is going to add to more Gerald R. Ford-class supercarriers namely the John F. Kennedy and the Doris Miller. Plus, the Pentagon was criticized for their controversial littoral combat ship program and the stealth destroyer program that ended up as expensive failures. Hence, the USN would purchase Italian frigates for their littoral combat force. A battleship would just be another resource sink that would make the LCS failure look kinder in comparison.
Must admit I was wondering who the hell was Doris Miller until I looked on wiki and saw it was a guy! Brave man bit does make a change from the CVNs being named largely after former Presidents.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,971
Likes: 49,378
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 17, 2021 9:41:14 GMT
A costly overture considering the U.S. Navy is going to add to more Gerald R. Ford-class supercarriers namely the John F. Kennedy and the Doris Miller. Plus, the Pentagon was criticized for their controversial littoral combat ship program and the stealth destroyer program that ended up as expensive failures. Hence, the USN would purchase Italian frigates for their littoral combat force. A battleship would just be another resource sink that would make the LCS failure look kinder in comparison. Must admit I was wondering who the hell was Doris Miller until I looked on wiki and saw it was a guy! Brave man bit does make a change from the CVNs being named largely after former Presidents.
Well we always can agree that politics play a role in naming any ships. If you want, here is a 40 min YouTube clip called, Which Museum Ships Would be Brought Back First if Needed? |
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Apr 17, 2021 12:15:15 GMT
A costly overture considering the U.S. Navy is going to add to more Gerald R. Ford-class supercarriers namely the John F. Kennedy and the Doris Miller. Plus, the Pentagon was criticized for their controversial littoral combat ship program and the stealth destroyer program that ended up as expensive failures. Hence, the USN would purchase Italian frigates for their littoral combat force. A battleship would just be another resource sink that would make the LCS failure look kinder in comparison.
Must admit I was wondering who the hell was Doris Miller until I looked on wiki and saw it was a guy! Brave man bit does make a change from the CVNs being named largely after former Presidents.
He's known as the Hero of Pearl Harbor. He was played by Cuba Gooding Jr. in that infamous movie by Michael Bay. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 17, 2021 15:45:38 GMT
In my view, his name is more properly suited to a DDG, but, given the horrifically inconsistent nomenclature employed by the modern USN, it isn't the worst. It does seem that former Acting SecNav Modly had some very ...creative...ideas about ship naming.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,971
Likes: 49,378
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 17, 2021 15:48:42 GMT
In my view, his name is more properly suited to a DDG, but, given the horrifically inconsistent nomenclature employed by the modern USN, it isn't the worst. It does seem that former Acting SecNav Modly had some very ...creative...ideas about ship naming. Well if he wanted to impress his former boss, the USS Trump would be added to the list, doubt the next admiration would have change it, i think. But we are leaving the track regarding the purpose of this thread. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,834
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Apr 17, 2021 18:00:39 GMT
In my view, his name is more properly suited to a DDG, but, given the horrifically inconsistent nomenclature employed by the modern USN, it isn't the worst. It does seem that former Acting SecNav Modly had some very ...creative...ideas about ship naming. Well if he wanted to impress his former boss, the USS Trump would be added to the list, doubt the next admiration would have change it, i think. But we are leaving the track regarding the purpose of this thread.
I suspect that there would be a storm if any 'active' politician, which Trump technically might still be, had a ship, let alone a major capital ship named after them.
Do recall in the movie "The Final Countdown" when the rescued senator is brought about USS Nimitz one of his 1st comments is how is a ship being named after a serving naval officer so that was a similar step that was seen as unacceptable.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,971
Likes: 49,378
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 17, 2021 18:10:11 GMT
True at that time most of the major battleships where named after states, carriers mostly after battles, other naval ships ore personal who served in the naval aviation and cruisers after cities and only destroyers where named after naval personal if i recall correctly.
|
|
