thedrifter
12-06-05, 06:01 AM
So Long Old Gals
Posted by Stephen Green · 5 December 2005
Bob Novak reports:
U.S. Marines, while fighting valiantly in Iraq, are on the verge of serious defeat on Capitol Hill. A Senate-House conference on the Armed Services authorization bill convening this week is considering turning the Navy's last two battleships, the Iowa and Wisconsin, into museums. Marine officers fear that deprives them of vital fire support in an uncertain future.
Gen. Michael W. Hagee, the current commandant of the Marine Corps, testified on April 1, 2003, that loss of naval surface fire support from battleships would place his troops "at considerable risk." On July 29 this year, Hagee asserted: "Our aviation is really quite good, but it can, in fact, be weathered." Nevertheless, Marine leaders have given up a public fight for fear of alienating Navy colleagues.
Hagee's complaint reminded me of something I read back when the Navy's other two remaining Iowa-class battleships were re-retired a decade ago. I Googled until I just couldn't Google any longer, but never found the exact quote or who said it. I do remember it was a Navy or USMC officer of flag rank.
Under President Reagan, the four WWII-era Iowa ships were retro-fitted with Harpoon missiles, modern radars, etc., and reintegrated into the Navy. The rationale was simple: Those old ships had thick hides (12-inch thick cold-rolled steel!*) and nine 16-inch guns†. We were never going to build anything like them again, so we might as well get as many years out of those old hulls as we could.
The New Jersey and the Missouri were retired after the Kuwait War. The rationale then was also simple: We lived in the age of cruise missiles, and no longer needed those 16-inch guns.
Well. When the Navy retired those two ships, some smart officer said (and I paraphrase), "Sometimes it's nice to have a bullet that costs less than the target." A cruise missile costs a million or more dollars. A 16-inch shell costs a few thousand.
Are we really saving any money, turning our big guns into scrap metal?
*Imagine the machines needed to roll foot-thick steel into the shape of a ship - at room temperature. The Iowa-class ships weren't only a marvel of naval firepower, they also described America's industrial-era might.
†Those guns fired simple bullets, each weighing as much as a Volkswagen Beetle. That's not just a whole lot of hurt, that's a whole lot of hurt moving at 2,500-ft/sec.
Ellie
Posted by Stephen Green · 5 December 2005
Bob Novak reports:
U.S. Marines, while fighting valiantly in Iraq, are on the verge of serious defeat on Capitol Hill. A Senate-House conference on the Armed Services authorization bill convening this week is considering turning the Navy's last two battleships, the Iowa and Wisconsin, into museums. Marine officers fear that deprives them of vital fire support in an uncertain future.
Gen. Michael W. Hagee, the current commandant of the Marine Corps, testified on April 1, 2003, that loss of naval surface fire support from battleships would place his troops "at considerable risk." On July 29 this year, Hagee asserted: "Our aviation is really quite good, but it can, in fact, be weathered." Nevertheless, Marine leaders have given up a public fight for fear of alienating Navy colleagues.
Hagee's complaint reminded me of something I read back when the Navy's other two remaining Iowa-class battleships were re-retired a decade ago. I Googled until I just couldn't Google any longer, but never found the exact quote or who said it. I do remember it was a Navy or USMC officer of flag rank.
Under President Reagan, the four WWII-era Iowa ships were retro-fitted with Harpoon missiles, modern radars, etc., and reintegrated into the Navy. The rationale was simple: Those old ships had thick hides (12-inch thick cold-rolled steel!*) and nine 16-inch guns†. We were never going to build anything like them again, so we might as well get as many years out of those old hulls as we could.
The New Jersey and the Missouri were retired after the Kuwait War. The rationale then was also simple: We lived in the age of cruise missiles, and no longer needed those 16-inch guns.
Well. When the Navy retired those two ships, some smart officer said (and I paraphrase), "Sometimes it's nice to have a bullet that costs less than the target." A cruise missile costs a million or more dollars. A 16-inch shell costs a few thousand.
Are we really saving any money, turning our big guns into scrap metal?
*Imagine the machines needed to roll foot-thick steel into the shape of a ship - at room temperature. The Iowa-class ships weren't only a marvel of naval firepower, they also described America's industrial-era might.
†Those guns fired simple bullets, each weighing as much as a Volkswagen Beetle. That's not just a whole lot of hurt, that's a whole lot of hurt moving at 2,500-ft/sec.
Ellie