USN to repeat Seawolf Fiasco.

[Asher]

I have never used my spare tire, is it worthless?

Bingo. You are correct in that naval guns for land bombardment is equivalent in use and worth to that of a spare tire.

This is precisely why you shouldn't be spending one trillion dollars on spare tires. There are far better uses for all of that money than tons of guns that may be useful in contrived situations but could also easily be replaced by, say, cruise missiles. Wait a second -- they already have been replaced by cruise missiles in modern engagements.

Thanks Patty. Love your analogy.

[Zkribbler]

Whatever happened to those proposed ships with Maglev railguns,? Stand off 200 miles and lob shells in.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Patroklos
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.

So it's useful if the enemy has deadly anti-air defenses but no anti-ship capability to speak of. Quite a small window of usefulness.

[PLATO]

I have to agree with Patroklos. Naval gunfire is the cheapest, best and most flexible method of close support for landing troops.
Why in the hell would we be shooting a $1million dollar cruise missle to take out a machine gun when a $500 5" shell will do the same thing and be there in seconds as opposed to minutes.

Further, I see no one who has debunked the need for naval guns to thwart the massed sppedboat scenario that Asher detailed. Patroklos is right on the money again that at 500 yards a 5 incher is highly effective and a missle nearly useless (not to mention the cost factor of the missle again, but hello!).

Finally, and even perhaps most importantly, the survivability and ability to continue fighting after the ship has taken damage, may well be the best reason to keep naval guns. If you need a computer to aim the missle and the computer is gone then you have lost the percision of the weapon and it becomes nearly useless over any distance or if any percision is required. A naval gun can be aimed manually (albiet no where near as accurately as if it had its computer, but you CAN aim it).

Clearly, the cost of having these weapons is justified by their utility.

[Asher]

Originally posted by PLATO
I have to agree with Patroklos. Naval gunfire is the cheapest, best and most flexible method of close support for landing troops.
Why in the hell would we be shooting a $1million dollar cruise missle to take out a machine gun when a $500 5" shell will do the same thing and be there in seconds as opposed to minutes.

Because it costs ONE TRILLION DOLLARS to construct the boats to shoot $500 shells? Not to mention the excessive maintenance on all of these additional boats.

I don't think the approach you want to take here is cost effectiveness. These boats are obscenely expensive for the "spare tire" scenario Patty admits is the case...

Quick math exercise: How many cruise missiles can you build with one trillion dollars?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Asher

Because it costs ONE TRILLION DOLLARS to construct the boats to shoot $500 shells? Not to mention the excessive maintenance on all of these additional boats.

I don't think the approach you want to take here is cost effectiveness. These boats are obscenely expensive for the "spare tire" scenario Patty admits is the case...

Quick math exercise: How many cruise missiles can you build with one trillion dollars?

So...are you saying we should only fire land based cruise missles or build more aircraft carriers to carry planes to drop air launched cruise missles?

Or are you saying that we should just go with what we have and hope it never wears out?

Asher, I must say that you are just not being clear here.

The firepower needs to be there in the future and the DD platform is probably the cheapest way to delver it in the long run and naval guns are clearly cheaper to use. Not to mention (which, of course you didn't eithier) the needed utility of the naval guns that I posted about above.

Long term cost effectiveness...survivability...more cost effective to operate...more diverse in mission capability. Clearly this is the best path to persue.

[Grandpa Troll]

Going from a very informative article, to wathing snipe hunting attempt by our beloved Asher, then I thought, heck, we fought to keep the rights he so enjoys, well, Canada is an Ally, but still, freedom of speech.





I have read,watched,participated and enjoyed Ashers commentary, made me a more informed computer person.

But wioll say, we simply cant allow ourselves to take options away, then, the enemies, present and future, will respond on our weakness

While perhaps the olf Battlewagons of the past are not "the" end all tell all, it is a vital important tool in our arsenal.

Platforms evolve through the ages as do defenses.

I am impressed by what is being worked on today.

I remember in early 1970's watching a show, maybe 60 minutes, that spoke of the prottype for the Abrams, and thought that was pretty cool.

But if we stayed with Sherman Tanks, we would be in a hurtlocker for sure!

Me, I operated, maintained took apart the old M-60 tank, pulled power plants out and all, loved it, but they have had their time.

Tanks will be necessary, and yes must evolve with advancing technologies. Same with Naval Warfare/craft.

If I am not mistaken, our government used to have a decree that we as a nation had to be able to engage equally in 2 world wars at once. Not sure if it still stands though................

Iraq and Afghanistan in reference to Naval Craft..meh..debateable on "bang for buck" but do we have water near Korea or China? I seem to remember some recent sabre rattling........


Asher, I do not wish to argue with you, IO like you and enjoy your valued community input.

But as a veteran and staunch military supporter, realize, we as Americans were dealt off bottom of deck when our "enemy" big,bad USSR collapsed and we cut back, well, the piper is a calling and he dont take credit so we have to pay him.

This is why we must stay on the cutting edge of technolgy.

Just old Gramps on Vicodin sharing an opinion, not trollong, just sharing is all


Be well

GT

[Asher]

I'm all for advancement of military technology. I'm a hardcore technologist and I respect the technology involved on these new ships.

I'm not sure spending a trillion dollars on them is wise. For all of the niche uses these guns still have, it's an outmoded military tool. Just as wooden ships weren't too useful in World War 1, ships with big guns as a primary weapon are not too useful today. There's a paradigm shift in modern combat and I worry that too often the Navy frontliners like Patty don't realize when the time has passed.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Asher
I'm all for advancement of military technology. I'm a hardcore technologist and I respect the technology involved on these new ships.

I'm not sure spending a trillion dollars on them is wise. For all of the niche uses these guns still have, it's an outmoded military tool. Just as wooden ships weren't too useful in World War 1, ships with big guns as a primary weapon are not too useful today. There's a paradigm shift in modern combat and I worry that too often the Navy frontliners like Patty don't realize when the time has passed.

No one has spent a trillion dollars on "niche tools" or "Guns", that would be more than the entire US DoD budget.

Second, Naval Gunfire support is not "niche" far from, going back...

(1)My own 2004-05 deployment we were preparing to put over a 1000 Marines on the ground in Somalia after a LNG tanker, the Feisty Gas(I thought they were talking about food issues when I first heard of it) got hijacked by Somali pirates. With no air support(The Bon Homme Richard only had 3 Harriers), virtually the entire show was going to be run from the guns from one USN CG, two USN DDGs, and one FN FFG. Hardly "Niche".

(2)OIF, Polish and Aussie naval vessels provided gunfire support for the British forces heading towards Basra.

(3)Persian Gulf War, plenty of gunfire support action there.

(4)Operation Praying Mantis, more widespread gunfire use there.

(5)Grenada, more gunfire use there.

I'm sure Pat and others will be abel to think of other relatively recent instances where naval gunfire support was used.

And, of course, the AGS will be able to send 6 155mm rounds downrange in under a minute, basically giving each gun the firepower of a battery of 155mm howitzers.

I guess if gunfire support is a dinosaur, then the Army is a bunch of idiots for investing in stuff like Excalibur, which is quicker and more accurate than waiting for an aircraft to get on site?

Or the Dutch were a bunch of flaming retards to haul 155mm PZH2000 guns to Afghanistan?

The answer as to why missiles are not to replace the naval gunfire support mission, is, frankly, sometimes the Marine of Soldier on the ground might say "Hey, I need you to shoot up that tree line". The Navy isn't going waste missiles that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for that, and take longer to get to the target than something shot out of a gun. Neither will any of the other services.

Guns are here to stay, for a long long time.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Lonestar
No one has spent a trillion dollars on "niche tools" or "Guns", that would be more than the entire US DoD budget.

Budgets are yearly...
Work out the cost, it's estimated to be like $813B for these. You always know they go overbudget.

Second, Naval Gunfire support is not "niche" far from, going back...

(1)My own 2004-05 deployment we were preparing to put over a 1000 Marines on the ground in Somalia after a LNG tanker, the Feisty Gas(I thought they were talking about food issues when I first heard of it) got hijacked by Somali pirates. With no air support(The Bon Homme Richard only had 3 Harriers), virtually the entire show was going to be run from the guns from one USN CG, two USN DDGs, and one FN FFG. Hardly "Niche".

Yes, that is niche and you don't need a $2.6B ship to do that.

Guns are here to stay, for a long long time.

As long as they're cheap. Which this boat is not. I don't know why you're surprised it got canned.

Guns on boats may be useful, but a $2.6B boat with guns is just outrageous.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Asher

Budgets are yearly...
Work out the cost, it's estimated to be like $813B for these. You always know they go overbudget.


Yes, that is niche and you don't need a $2.6B ship to do that.


As long as they're cheap. Which this boat is not. I don't know why you're surprised it got canned.

Guns on boats may be useful, but a $2.6B boat with guns is just outrageous.

You know, one part is not the sum of the ship. The primary cost behind this was the virtually insurmountable problems of the hull shape and integrated sensors, not the AGS, which will probably make it's way to some of the new DDGs being built.

[Patroklos]

This is precisely why you shouldn't be spending one trillion dollars on spare tires.

Because it costs ONE TRILLION DOLLARS to construct the boats to shoot $500 shells?

Please provide a source on it costing one trillion dollars, Thanks.

Of cours the gun system doesn't cost one trillion dollars, the most advanced Air search radar for HVU defense (X and S band technology demonstrator), SAMs, anit ballistic missiles, ASW package, strike, integrated propulsion (technology demonstrator) AND gun system costs 3 billion dollars.

There are far better uses for all of that money than tons of guns that may be useful in contrived situations but could also easily be replaced by, say, cruise missiles.

So why do we and every advanced military still have field artillery? Why is it in constant use in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Wait a second -- they already have been replaced by cruise missiles in modern engagements.

Your willful ignorance is amusing. It has been explained to in rather simple and easy to understand logic why this comment by you is retarded.

Whatever happened to those proposed ships with Maglev railguns,? Stand off 200 miles and lob shells in.

These are those ships, they have the extra generator capacity built in to accomodate those when they finish development. The first few CG-47s didn't have VLS for the same reason.

So it's useful if the enemy has deadly anti-air defenses but no anti-ship capability to speak of. Quite a small window of usefulness.

No, shore based anti ship missiles, while potentially dangerous, are the inferior position and surmountable with a combination of air and sea strike warfare.

Not to mention the excessive maintenance on all of these additional boats.

We are going to build more hulls now than before Asher, you fail.

I don't think the approach you want to take here is cost effectiveness. These boats are obscenely expensive for the "spare tire" scenario Patty admits is the case...

As has been pointed out to you already, this is not a gun boat. In any case, I did not admit that, I simple totally crushed your "because it hasn't been used it is valueless," arguement. Again, have ICBMs been valueless because we never used them? Is your health insurance valueless if you don't use it? Surely the shallowness of your postion is apparent to you.

Just as wooden ships weren't too useful in World War 1, ships with big guns as a primary weapon are not too useful today.

Please explain why you thing the AGS is the "primary weapon" of this class? Do you know anything about the DDG-1000 that isn't derived from your imagination?

[Grandpa Troll]

Just marking for updates, very interesting topic, and debate

[ColdWizard]

The "guns aren't needed, just use missiles" stance reminds me of the lack of ACM training leading into Vietnam.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
So why do we and every advanced military still have field artillery? Why is it in constant use in Afghanistan and Iraq?

It still has use, and it doesn't cost 3 billion dollars per unit?

Your willful ignorance is amusing. It has been explained to in rather simple and easy to understand logic why this comment by you is retarded.

If it's so simple and easy why do you find it so difficult?

As has been pointed out to you already, this is not a gun boat. In any case, I did not admit that, I simple totally crushed your "because it hasn't been used it is valueless," arguement. Again, have ICBMs been valueless because we never used them? Is your health insurance valueless if you don't use it? Surely the shallowness of your postion is apparent to you.

By your logic, Canada should enlist about half of its population in an arctic Navy full of $3B ships just incase Russia decides to invade us from the North. Your logic, which you seem to think is infallible, is that while it is not useful now it may be useful, which is why you should spend inordinate amounts of money on it.

How dare you say I fail. Do you know how much you can do with one trillion dollars, aside from building a fleet of ships based on an old Naval combat paradigm that will likely not be used in any reasonable capacity?

Please explain why you thing the AGS is the "primary weapon" of this class? Do you know anything about the DDG-1000 that isn't derived from your imagination?

It's certainly the most distinctive feature vs its competition (Arleigh Burke class ships), is it not? I understand it still has missiles, but it's a lot more expensive for in reality, not much more except a sexier hull, "new radar", and a nice gun system.