A Modern Battleship?

[Guest pfcem]

You've spoken to a quite a few marines over the past decade. Well pardon me, but I don't believe that many marines in the past decade have conducted an amphibous assault since possibly Greneda, nor would most even have known what 8" or 16" gunfire actaully achieves. Don't you find it strange how the US army gets by with 155mm gunfire, MLRS and Air support? Why aren't they screaming for a bigger artillery piece? Why did the 8" SPG get withdrawn?

268686[/snapback]

1st of all this is the wrong thread for this discussion. This thread is about some foreign leader "demanding" that he have a proper battleship. We do not know why he wants a battleship but he is willing to pay whatever it takes to get it.

 

As to the 155mm, armies have significant mobility requirements that are very difficult to achieve with a 8" howitzer. Basically, the MRLS has taken over for the 8" howitzed but is comparatively expensive & until GMRLS and unitary warheads are available in significant numbers does not even fully match the capabilities of 8" howitzers.

 

 

Right... www.dtic.mil/jv2010/usmc/omfts.pdf . So the USMC absolutely did not set the requirements? http://www.navyleague.org/seapower/accurat...nd%20timely.htm

 

Nor here? OMFTS and the requirements set forth have been set by the USMC, and wanted by USMC. True, NSFS solutions like ALAM & LASM have been canned, but quite emphatically, the USMC do not want the Iowas. They are a piss poor solution, which can't do the job in the first place.

268686[/snapback]

The only mention of any Marine involvemnet is the operational requirements for NSFS outlined in a 3 December 1996 memo signed by Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper, then commanding general of the Marine Corps' Combat Development Command, who established a threshold range of 41 nm and an objective range of 63 nm. And even this has now been increases to 100nm.

[TDHM]

1st of all this is the wrong thread for this discussion.  This thread is about some foreign leader "demanding" that he have a proper battleship.  We do not know why he wants a battleship but he is willing to pay whatever it takes to get it.

 

So you're refusing to answer the questions put to you

 

As to the 155mm, armies have significant mobility requirements that are very difficult to achieve with a 8" howitzer.  Basically, the MRLS has taken over for the 8" howitzed but is comparatively expensive & until GMRLS and unitary warheads are available in significant numbers does not even fully match the capabilities of 8" howitzers.

 

Armies have had calibres greater than 155mm for a long while and since the end of the cold war and the introduction of MLRS have they gone away. As for mobility requirements, whats happened to the Armies lethality requirements? If apparently they are so hard to meet without the 8 inch! Or are you telling me that the mobility requirements are set in stone, but actual firepower requirements aren't?

 

The only mention of any Marine involvemnet is the operational requirements for NSFS outlined in a 3 December 1996 memo signed by Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper, then commanding general of the Marine Corps' Combat Development Command, who established a threshold range of 41 nm and an objective range of 63 nm.

 

Only mention? So basically, the USMC told the USN what support it needed in a open letter to the USN for the USMC to have the requisite support for OMFTS. So the requirements set forth for the USN NSFS Capabilities were set by the USMC?

 

And even this has now been increases to 100nm.

 

no it hasn't been increased at all. Infact the USMC wants support up to 200nm inland. Gunfire range to 63nm (which has to be increase by a further 25nm to meet with the USN's requirements.) The ranges requirements still haven't changed.

269279[/snapback]

[Chris Werb]

TDHM, I'd let it go. To be fair to pfcem he has set the parameters of this thread and it's his thread after all. Unfortunately he made the requirement so vague that I immediately lost interest.

[Yama]

Would a modern battleship really need to be well armored?

265727[/snapback]

 

Would a modern battleship really need to have large calibre guns?

 

I would propose something in 25-30kton range, with VLS for supersonic land attack/anti-ship missiles (Yakhont) and with very signifant area AAW capability, with couple modern, long range 127/130/155mm guns thrown in. In other words, more modern version of Kirov.

 

If Dear Leader complains that it is no battleship, I'd tell him to stfu and point out that since 20th Century battleships had no sails or broadsides of muzzle-loading guns, there is no reason why 21st Century battleship should have armour belt and heavy guns. Times change, and definitions with them.

[Guest pfcem]

So you're refusing to answer the questions put to you

270050[/snapback]

What questions have I not answered?

 

 

 

Armies have had calibres greater than 155mm for a long while and since the end of the cold war and the introduction of MLRS have they gone away. As for mobility requirements, whats happened to the Armies lethality requirements? If apparently they are so hard to meet without the 8 inch! Or are you telling me that the mobility requirements are set in stone, but actual firepower requirements aren't?

270050[/snapback]

Again, armies are emphazinging mobility & all the earlier 8" howitzers do not meet the new mobility requirements.

 

 

 

Only mention? So basically, the USMC told the USN what support it needed in a open letter to the USN for the USMC to have the requisite support for OMFTS. So the requirements set forth for the USN NSFS Capabilities were set by the USMC?

270050[/snapback]

I read the entire article you linked to & that was the only mention af any Marines.

 

 

 

no it hasn't been increased at all. Infact the USMC wants support up to 200nm inland. Gunfire range to 63nm (which has to be increase by a further 25nm to meet with the USN's requirements.) The ranges requirements still haven't changed.

270050[/snapback]

So why is the goal for the 155mm AGS 100nm?

[Guest pfcem]

TDHM, I'd let it go.  To be fair to pfcem he has set the parameters of this thread and it's his thread after all.  Unfortunately he made the requirement so vague that I immediately lost interest.

270061[/snapback]

No, FlyingCanOpener started this thread & it is he who set the parameters. Try reading the 1st post.

[Guest pfcem]

Would a modern battleship really need to have large calibre guns?

 

I would propose something in 25-30kton range, with VLS for supersonic land attack/anti-ship missiles (Yakhont) and with very signifant area AAW capability, with couple modern, long range 127/130/155mm guns thrown in. In other words, more modern version of Kirov.

 

If Dear Leader complains that it is no battleship, I'd tell him to stfu and point out that since 20th Century battleships had no sails or broadsides of muzzle-loading guns, there is no reason why 21st Century battleship should have armour belt and heavy guns. Times change, and definitions with them.

270175[/snapback]

Read the 1st post.