USN to repeat Seawolf Fiasco.

[Grandpa Troll]

By the way, it is an honor and gives old Gramps a lil lead in his pencil, to speak from authority, to hear those who speak from authority, as oppossed to us all reading an article and trying to sound like we know what we are doing!


Of course, I could speak of my active duty, but it has been 29.5 years since I got out

Me and Wittlich served same Command, but still, makes me feel just like a man


Glad we have these chats, to help inform some of the fine Poly members why things are needed

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
You have the causality backwards.

"Industrial-military-congressional complex" is what Ike called it.

[Patroklos]

They're also considerably less useful. Ship Guns died in World War 2, get over it.

Unless you are talking about guided munitions, which for the sake of economy they shouldn't be using for extended fire support anyway, NGFS is just as accurate as CAS, and much safer. They also have the added bonus of dominating the arteries the world depends on.

Ship guns are alive and well, just not in the primary role.

"Industrial-military-congressional complex" is what Ike called it.

So?

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Asher


They're also considerably less useful. Ship Guns died in World War 2, get over it.

Baking Powder?

squeeze me?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Unless you are talking about guided munitions, which for the sake of economy they shouldn't be using for extended fire support anyway, NGFS is just as accurate as CAS, and much safer. They also have the added bonus of dominating the arteries the world depends on.

Ship guns are alive and well, just not in the primary role.

In other words, they're virtually useless.

How are you using ship guns in Iraq or Afghanistan?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Aircraft come and go, the two 155mm guns can sit 10 miles offshore and provide constant support all day, without risking pilots.

If the enemy has modern weapons capable of bringing down US planes, isn't it likely they'll have anti-ship weapons as well?

[Dinner]

These days missiles are cheap as are speed boats. I'd be surprised if the Iranians didn't have several hundred speed boats with portable anti-ship missile launchers on them. Hell, they could probably sink an aircraft carrier task force very cheaply just by swarming a couple of hundred such speed boats.

[Patroklos]

In other words, they're virtually useless.

Is this your admission you have not backed up your claim in th slightest?

How are you using ship guns in Iraq or Afghanistan?

I am going to give you a chance to simply withdraw this stupidity since it is Friday and I am feeling charitable.

If the enemy has modern weapons capable of bringing down US planes, isn't it likely they'll have anti-ship weapons as well?

No. AA missiles are easier to use because the sky being what it is, you can see a lot more of it. Planes also don't shoot down you missiles. There are some simple realities to naval warfare that make coastal based defenses, while certainly an obsticle, the inferior position.

These days missiles are cheap as are speed boats. I'd be surprised if the Iranians didn't have several hundred speed boats with portable anti-ship missile launchers on them. Hell, they could probably sink an aircraft carrier task force very cheaply just by swarming a couple of hundred such speed boats.

How did the same tactic used agains tanks work out? Please stick to things you know about, which given the quote above seems to be video games.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Is this your admission you have not backed up your claim in th slightest?

I am going to give you a chance to simply withdraw this stupidity since it is Friday and I am feeling charitable.

If you're feeling charitable, consider hopping off the short bus and answering a simple question. The condescending douchebag routine works for me, it doesn't for you. Consider modeling your behaviour after someone else.

You may think it is a stupid question to ask operation details about what goes on with ships no one cares about in far reaches of the world, but not all of us make a career of scrubbing toilets in floating tin cans and some of us have never been exposed to being an imperialistic pawn. So rather than trying to deflect a simple, innocuous question, answer the damn thing before I take you to task.

[Patroklos]

The thing is Asher, I hold you in high enough regard to know you are just being a "douchebag" and know the answer to your question.

If you really want to discuss this, you can first tell us why NGFS is useless since you are the one who stated it, and I will happily give you a rebuttal.

[Asher]

I'm not aware of Naval gun systems being used in any important activities that are not easily replaced. To my knowledge they are only being used sparingly and only because they're there, not because they are needed.

I'm looking for you to teach me something but clearly you know nothing and know that getting into an argument with me about this would be a losing proposition for you.

[Patroklos]

When was the last time a naval vessel shot down an enemy aircraft with its flashy SAMs? When was the last time an ICBM was used? When was the last time a torpedoe was fired in combat? When was the last time our engineers had to build runways under fire?

I think you are smart enough to tell us why you think they are useless, not just simply that you think they are. If you are serious, this should be a trivial request and make it worth my time to type out a rebuttal to your one liner.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
When was the last time a naval vessel shot down an enemy aircraft with its flashy SAMs? When was the last time an ICBM was used? When was the last time our engineers had to build runways under fire?

I think you are smart enough to tell us why you think they are useless, not just simply that you think they are. If you are serious, this should be a trivial request and make it worth my time to type out a rebuttal to your one liner.

They are useless because they've no use.

They're not as accurate as precision guided weapons, they're not as deadly either. They're restricted to coastal or near-coastal regions. The guns on the remaining naval ships are sufficiently small to be increasingly useless. The US' main opponent now and in the future is not an organized military ,but a paramilitary organization with underground fighters.

Now, why don't you show me a single use they've got. From the googling I've done, the Royal Navy used it a tiny bit in the Iraq invasion but the US Navy hasn't used it in the invasion or support of the invasion since.

This is clearly why you're squirming and not answering. If Naval gunfire support was truly important, the US wouldn't have gotten rid of its battleships.

[Kuciwalker]

IIRC the battleships we had left played a fairly big role in the first Gulf War.

[Patroklos]

They're not as accurate as precision guided weapons, they're not as deadly either.

As I stated earlier, there are indeed no precision guided munitions for naval guns, but then I don't see you saying field artillery is useless either.

And yes, they are just as deadly as field artillery, and have many specialized rounds as well. Rounds that are timed to explode after impact, rounds that explode so far over the ground, rounds that are inert but penetrate, HE, radio taged, star shot, ect. Ground based artillery has these rounds as well, but there isn't any ground based artillery before and when the Marines are landing in myraid scenarios.

They're restricted to coastal or near-coastal regions.

90% (or 80%, something around there) of the worlds population lives withing 100 miles of the shore, a current Burke 5" can reach 10-12 miles inland depending on the coastal features. Not that that matters, as it is intended for close to the coast work anway. Once we get something like an ERGM, which is inevitable, that just makes guns more useful.

The US' main opponent now and in the future is not an organized military ,but a paramilitary organization with underground fighters.

And why is that? Because with the capabilities the US wields conventional war is always rolling snake eyes these days maybe? The reason we don't have to use naval gunfire is very likely the fact that we have naval gunfire.

Of course we use ground based artillery almost every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, what if we were in a country doing the same work that had extensive coastlines?

Now, why don't you show me a single use they've got. From the googling I've done, the Royal Navy used it a tiny bit in the Iraq invasion but the US Navy hasn't used it in the invasion or support of the invasion since.

Again, just because they are not being used does not mean they are worthless. I have never used my spare tire, is it worthless?I have never had to use my surge protector, is it useless? I can't think of a singe time the US has used a ship based SAM to shoot down an enemy aircraft, are they worthless?

As for when they could be useful, Oerdin's scenario is a good point. While his characterizatio of the prospects of success for that sort of thing were ridiculously inflated, that is primarily because of naval gun fire. From the horizon to the effective range of a 50cal, the primary defense against such small boats is the 5"/54 cal gun system, which can either shoot HE rounds or more importantly a relatively new round which is basically a huge shotgun shell full of ball bearings. We are not going to be shooting missiles at jet skiis.

Even if the surface contact is large enough for missiles, it might be too close. We also might be engaging aircraft/shooting down missiles at the same time so the guns will cover the surface threats. Or maybe we are launching ASROCs at subs at the same time, the VLA can only launch so many missiles so fast. What if it is bad weather and we can't get a surface radar lock on surface ship for a missile?

THe 5" is the backup for the CIWS in the role of shooting down incoming missiles.

Another one would be what I already mentioned, artillery support for landing Marines. Aircraft have their uses, but sustained on demand support will never go out of style. Add to that that a loitering aircraft can't change its payload if the situation changes, an offshore ship can do so in seconds.

Even basic things like battle space illumination are done by gunfire, unless you know of another way to get a flare over a target seven miles away.

Gun systems are durable. Nothing particularly complicated or breakthrough about them, they work. So while your sophisticated radars and missiles might not survive that first hit (or even a sandstorm), your gun will.

This is clearly why you're squirming and not answering. If Naval gunfire support was truly important, the US wouldn't have gotten rid of its battleships.

Thats funny coming from you who has failed to support your ill concieved one liner.

In any case, we got rid of battleships because guns were LESS important, not unimportant. Missiles will never be a fire support weapon, they are to expensive and to few. And the trend now is to get away from missiles if possible for that very reason. Thats is why the rail gun (which the DDG-1000 alone will be able to mount) is being developed to greatly increase range so those cheaper rounds can be used longer. Things like the ERGM, while not entering the fleet anytime soon, are the future.