We'd upgrade as we build 'em. If we can move a Nimitz class aircraft carrier at 90,000 tons through the water at above 35 knots, why a 66,000 ton Montana class battlewagon would be able to throw up a rooster tail behind it! Why that thing would outrun the SS United States!
It already would be a cruise ship. It's just that the passengers would have to make a four year commitment to cruise on her.
Very interesting stuff. I still would like it to be validated by the United States military. This is really strong stuff and things being what they are between Iran and the US, I am VERY surprised that if this is true, it hasn't been plastered all over the newspapers of the world, especially ours.
I can personally see no reason why the US wouldn't trumpet such findings if indeed they are true as it would prove great propaganda if nothing else.....and don't believe for a minute we don't already know. Of course I'm just a guy on the street so what would I know?
Dean, just curious, and its a simple yes or no to this one. Have you ever been in the armed forces?
You have great knowledge and I respect that, and you have quoted your Dad on stuff personal to him. And so I can understand where you come from. But, have you ever been in the Navy or any branch of the armed forces or seen conflict?
Not being funny, but you seem more a historian than a person that’s been there. Sorry but being X military, you confuse me sometimes as to where you are placed on this.
As you are well versed regarding the military, but what’s your background?
Mine started at 18, it was boot camp and within 6 months of it my first NI tour for nearly three months, I nearly cra**ed myself. And at least two more tours on top of that before the Falklands war.
Maybe you have already posted this stuff and I missed it, sorry if you have. But given your knowledge I’m really interested in how this came about. Practical, historical or a mixture?
If we're gonna' do it then why not go for the gusto, up grade the plans for and then build the 60,500 ton Montana Class. They'll sport TWELVE 16"/50's!
No, forget that. Nine of the 16"/50 cal. guns are quite sufficient because nobody else has anything that can come close, but you are building on the wrong hull. Instead, start with a Nimitz class hull, which has nuclear propulsion and now comes with a lifetime fuel supply, and reconfigure the portion above the waterline. There should be plenty of room for two modern triple turrets of 16"/50 cal. guns forward and a third modern triple turret aft, along with a secondary battery of four 5"/62 cal. dual purpose (antisurface and antiarcraft) guns (one on each quarter) and 64 8-cell vertical launch modules for Standard, Tomahawk, and Vertically Launched ASROC (VLA) missiles (16 modules on each side of the forward turrets and 16 on each side of the aft turrets). There will be about 400' of "waste" between the forward and aft superstructures, which provides enough room for a decent main flight deck (helicopter & VTOL) on the 04 level and a hanger deck on the 01 level, above a vehicle deck on the main deck, with auxilliary VERTREP and transport landing spots and HIFR stations on the fo'c'sl and the fantail. The ship's organic air group would the following sqadrons:
* Attack Squadron of 10 A-8x "Harriers" (new, more advanced model)
* Support Sqadron of 4 EV-22x tiltrotors (AEW variant of MV-22 Ossprey) and 6 KV-22x tankers (tanker variant of MV-22 Ossprey)
* Heavy Transport Squadron of 8 MH-53E heavy lift/minesweeping helicopters, and
* Utility Squadron of 4 MH-60R helicopters (sea control/ASW) and 6 MH-60S helicopters (medium transport, minesweeping, and combat SAR).
Though based ashore, the MV-22/CV-22 Ossprey also would operate to and from the ship as an onboard delivery aircraft. The ship's air traffic control center would be capable of theater-wide air traffic control, including control of aircraft from CVN's on station further out to sea.
Finally, the ship's Marine Detachment would expand into a bona fide Marine Battalion that would be a pocket force capable of coordinating and controlling massive firepower during operations ashore, where it would become the ground combat element of a lethal combined arms unit. The Marine Battalion would look something like this.
* Infantry Company
>> Three (3) Rifle Platoons
>> Weapons Platoon
* Special Operations Company
>> Reconnaissance Platoon
>> Fire Support (Air & Naval Gunfire) Coordination & Control Platoon
>> Combat Engineer Platoon (EOD Capable)
>> Military Police Platoon
* Air Support Company
>> Terminal Air Control Platoon
>> Ground Service Platoon (Ground Handling, Refueling, Loading & Unloading, etc.)
>> Airfield Maintenance Platoon
>> Terminal Air Defense Platoon (with Stinger missiles)
* Logistics Company
>> Supply Platoon
>> Motor Transport Platoon
>> Vehicle Maintenance Platoon
>> Landing Zone Platoon
* Headquarters & Service Company (essentially same as that of a normal infantry or artillery battalion)
And each unit would have the appropriate vehicles for its mission -- hence the need for a vehicle deck. Finally, the Mobile Evacuation, Dispensary, Intensive Care, & Surgery (MEDICS) would provide medical personnel for the Marine Battalion when it goes ashore and the capability to establish a temporary medical clinic ashore in humanitarian situations.
This would be a very versatile platform capable of many missions.
Let me get this straight. All of what you say on a Nimitz Class hull, right?
Okay, say it's feasible to put all the necessary hardware etc on/in the vessel.
Have you any idea of what your crew complement would have to be? You wouldn't have to worry about hot bunking, they'd all have to sleep standing up! But then, I guess they'd always be ready for action stations.
Let me get this straight. All of what you say on a Nimitz Class hull, right?
Originally Posted by You
Okay, say it's feasible to put all the necessary hardware etc on/in the vessel.
Have you any idea of what your crew complement would have to be? You wouldn't have to worry about hot bunking, they'd all have to sleep standing up! But then, I guess they'd always be ready for action stations./quote]
No, it actually is not that bad. In fact, the total manning would be smaller than for the CVN configuration. IIRC, the numbers work out to be about 2,000 for ship's company, about than 1,500 for the air group, and about 1,000 for the Marine Battalion, for a total of about 4,500. By contrast, a CVN and its air wing come to over 6,000.
I dunno' 'ol buddy. A Nimitz class carrier takes a ships complement alone of 3,200 with an additional 2,500 Air wing personnel. That's a total of 5,700 and the crew, contrary to popular belief, is crammed in almost like sardines with bunk areas the size of closests. And you want to put aboard more than 300 additional crew -- and that doesn't even include the personnel necessary to man and service the guns (figuring around 40 for each turret alone!
I'll stick for now with my "sleeping while standing up" remark.
1 February 2008, Somali pirates hijack MV Svitzeer Korsakov. Pirates release crew for $700,000 ransom.
4 April 2008, Somali pirates hijack MY Le Ponant. Pirates release ship and crew after undisclosed ransom paid.
20 April 2008, Somali pirates hijack Spanish tuna fishing boat. Spanish Navy dispatches antenna ship, SPS Mendez Nunez. Pirates release crew for $1.2 million ransom.
21 April 2008, Somali pirates hijack cargo ship, MV Al-Khaleej. Puntland security forces storm ship, and capture pirates. Somali pirates sentenced to life in prison.
17 May 2008, Somali pirates hijack cargo ship, MV Victoria. Pirates release crew and ship for unspecified ransom paid.
24 May 2008, Somali pirates hijack cargo ship MV Amiya Scan. Pirates release ship and crew for unknown reasons, German Navy antenna ship FGS Emden responding.
3 June 2008, Somali pirates attempt hijacking of a commercial shipping vessel, but are deterred by a Sikorsky Sea King helicopter from Canadian Navy antenna ship, HMCS Calgary.
20 July 2008, Somali pirates hijack Japanese bulk carrier, MV Stella Maris. Pirates release ship and crew after $2 million ransom paid.
8 August 2008, Somali pirates attempt hijacking of Singaporean cargo ship, MV Gem of Kilakarai, but are deterred by helicopters from United States Navy amphibious assault ship, USS Peleliu LHA 5.
12 August 2008, Somali pirates hijack Thai cargo ship, MV Thor Star. Pirates release ship and crew after undisclosed ransom paid. Somali pirates hijack Nigerian tug boat, MT Yenegoa Ocean, for good measure.
19 August 2008, Somali pirates hijack Malaysian palm oil tanker, MV Bunga Melati Dua, killing a Filipino crew member. No further information available.
21 August 2008, Somali pirates thumbing their noses at the United States Navy, score a hat-trick. Somali pirates hijack German cargo ship, MV BBC Trinidad. Pirates release ship and crew for $1.1 million ransom paid. Somali pirates hijack Japanese ship MT Irene. Pirates release ship and crew for $1.5 million ransom paid. Somali pirates hijack Iranian ship, MV Iran Deyanat. Pirates continue to hold ship pending ransom paid.
25 August 2008, Somali pirates hijack Malaysian tanker, MV Bunga Melati 5. Pirates release ship and crew for $2 million ransom paid.
2 September 2008, Somali pirates hijack 50-foot yacht, Carre d’As, and demand 1 million Euros ransom. French Navy Special Forces storm the yacht and free the captives, killing one pirate, capturing 6.
25 September 2008, Somali pirates hijack Ukrainian cargo ship, MV Faina, carrying 33 Russian T-72 main battle tanks. The United States Navy dispatched antenna ship, USS Howard DDG 83.
10 October 2008, Somali pirates hijack a Greek chemical tanker. The United States Navy has yet to respond.
29 October 2008, Somali pirates hijack Turkish ore carrier, MV Yasa Neslihan. Turkish authorities are desperate to rescue the ship. The United States Navy has failed to respond.
And The Beat Goes On………
Somali pirates hijack ships on the high seas with relative impunity. And get paid millions in ransom! Somali pirating is a career path with little down-side disadvantage, and huge up-side potential. A rewarding career path in today’s tough economic times.
Some of you are upset by this kind of thing. Good for you!
For the United States Navy does not share your concerns.......
Who’s afraid of the United States Navy? No one, apparently......
And yet there is a simple solution to this problem.
Schoolyard bullies ply their trade everyday at America’s schools. Schoolyard bullies retreat when forcefully confronted........
The solution to Somali pirates is simple: Large-caliber rifle fire...
A United States Navy large-caliber surface combat force stationed off the coast of Somalia would end pirate hijackings.
4 November 2008 we cast our ballots. We have an opportunity to change things. We have an opportunity to make a difference.
Write your Senator. Write your Congressman.
Write everyone who will listen.
Do you believe bullies are more deterred by non-threatening antenna ships?
Or by large-caliber surface combat ships?
It’s time for a change. It’s time for solutions to problems. It’s time for a United States Navy that doesn’t run and hide. It’s time for a United States Navy we can be proud of……
Write your Senators, people. Write your Congressmen. Write everyone who will listen.......
"Israeli Army starts deliveries of Micro-Tavor submachine gun
Although mightily expensive, Tavor guns might become as legendary as Uzi. Israel stopped manufacturing Uzi after the US dumped on us surplus M-16 at $60 a piece. M-16 is heavy, huge, and doesn’t work well in desert.
Tavor was developed at the state enterprise Magen, which was later privatized along with the highly profitable Tavor patent."
Phil & Liz
The Original Phil & Liz
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. Margaret Thatcher
Never take an idiot travelling, you can always pick one up when you get there. Billy Connolly
I Didn't Come here and I ain't Leaving.
9/01/2013 Carnival Legend
2/16/2014 BC 7
20 years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs. Please don't let Kevin Bacon die.
This is in no way contrary to your post but rather an explanation to other readers (and even possibly you as well Phil, if you're unfamiliar with the following). Obviously there is a definite place for both submachine guns and fully automatic carbines (i.e.: M-16's) in the military environment.
Just wish to state my bona fides up front. I am retired law enforcement the last thirteen years of my career spent as a Police Firearms Instructor. As such, I'm at least casually familiar with a lot of the small arms out there as of 12 years ago. I am far, however, from being a true firearms "expert" when it comes to military hardware and I don't know what has been done during that period to increase what I refer to as "short barreled accuracy"). I shall proceed on the assumption that the reply to my last sentence would be along the lines of "not a whole lot." Of course, "being out of the trade" for so long" I've missed an awful lot.
Now that all that is out of the way, I concur that Uzi made one of, if not the absolute best modern submachine gun and the Micro-Taver undoubtedly exceeds even the Uzi's capabilities.
But one must remember something that most true firearms experts and ballistics people (including military) will tell you about submachine guns. Submachine guns are a "hoot to shoot" and are excellent for very close quarters work such as sweeping out rooms as is often found in urban neighborhood combat. They however fire a "pistol" round as opposed to a "rifle" round. A pistol round does not carry the all important aspect of "penetrating" power as does a rifle round. Sub machine guns are in essence, a close quarter type weapon. Standard machine guns (i.e.: the venerable M-60) fire rifle rounds as do fully automatic assault rifles such as the M-16. Here's what, however, the public doesn't understand about any fully automatic weapon and many who shoot don't either.
Many true experts can do the following: Take a fully automatic assault rifle with the selector on "full auto" and literally firing it from the shoulder position (as opposed ot the hip) and working end to end with a sweeping motion while actually trying to aim at each target as he sweeps down the line, sweep a line of say six targets forty or fifty yards away with a full magazine of twenty rounds. As often as not, he will have missed most everyone and those he did hit may well not have suffered a disabling wound. He is now confronted with five bad guys still charging at him shooting (much closer now) with no wounds and maybe one with a grazing shoulder wound and our man has an empty magazine. What if in a true combat situation, that were his last magazine?
Our expert then can take the same weapon, place the selector on semi-auto and take out each target individually. Here's your kicker. He can do this within less than a half second of the total time it took him to "sweep" the line with full auto fire, yet he not only hit each target with a disabling shot (usually you can translate that to read "kill") but he still has fourteen rounds left in his weapon.
The M-16 has an "effective range" (meaning that range (as defined by law enforcement -- it's probably much higher in the military) at which an average trained shooter can hit and disable his target each and every time) of around 200 yards. I have never known the Uzi's "effective range" but just the shortness of the barrel pretty much precludes the average shooter from hitting anything smaller than a two story barn at that distance and maybe not even that.
In other words and keeping in mind I am not familiar with the Micro-Taver and barring information I don't expect immediately forthcoming, my conclusion is that for other than urban very close quarters ("house cleaning") combat, Israel made a very wise decision purchasing their AR-16's at sixty bucks apiece. Now look up what an AR-16 is worth today.
Oh, and as an aside to Mean Dean, I personally love the B.A.R. (heavy as hell but talk about a "door buster").
As for the effect of 5”/38 caliber surface combat rifles, we are going to have to disagree.
We Oregonians have particular experience with 5”/38 caliber rifles.
The experience of the United States Navy vs. bulk carrier MV New Carissa is a prime example.
To recap, United States Navy antenna ship, USS David R. Ray DD 971 conducted a naval gunfire exercise against MV New Carissa in order to dispose of the hulk.
United States Navy antenna ship, USS David R. Ray DD 971 fired 69 - 5”/38 caliber main battery projectiles at a derelict hulk on the verge of sinking of its own volition. 69 main battery projectiles fired, with no discernable effect whatsoever……..
So let’s make sure we all understand this completely:
A United States Navy warship comes alongside a derelict hulk on the verge of sinking. A United States Navy surface combat ship fires and scores hits with 69 main battery rifle projectiles on a non-moving derelict hulk. With no discernible effect………
69 - 8”/45 caliber, large-caliber main battery rifle hits would have left nothing but flaming debris………
A 5”/38 caliber popgun is simply not capable of sinking anything larger than a tugboat.
And it’s time that the United States Navy acknowleged that.
So how do we dress up our antenna ships? Make them look more ferocious? Well let’s drop 5”/38 caliber popguns on their foredecks. It doesn’t matter how ineffective they are. They’re only for show.
Perhaps they’ll deter a pirate. And perhaps that makes good use of taxpayer money.
Or for a few dollars more, perhaps the taxpayers get a bit more bang for their bucks.
An 8”/45 caliber rife is a quantum leap ahead of a 5”/38 caliber rifle. In addition to vastly greater range, an 8”/45 caliber high-explosive projectile has exponentially greater destructive potential.
9 August 1942 at Savo Island, Imperial Japanese Navy heavy cruisers, Chokai, Furutaka, Aoba, and Kako, scored 24 – 8” main battery hits upon heavy cruiser HMAS Canberra, setting her ablaze from stem to stern.
24 - 5”/38 caliber projectiles would have had no effect whatsoever against HMAS Canberra’s 8” armor plating.
So let’s get right down to it:
Pirates take captive a large cargo ship laden with war materiel. 33 Russian T-72 main battle tanks, perhaps. During the hijacking, pirates kill most, or all of the ship's company. Pirates sail said ship on course to deliver its cargo to the enemy for a substantial profit.
Let me ask you Norm, which of these scenarios would you feel most comfortable with?
Scenario #1. A United States Navy antenna ship responds, and comes alongside the commandeered vessel. To prevent the captured heavy weaponry from falling into enemy hands, Commanding Officer, United States Navy antenna ship, makes the decision to sink the commandeered ship. The United States Navy antenna ship trains out its lone 5”/38 caliber main battery rifle, and commences main battery rifle fire against the commandeered vessel. The United States Navy antenna ship pounds away at the commandeered ship to little effect.
Scenario #2. A United States Navy large-caliber surface combat ship responds, and comes alongside the commandeered vessel. To prevent the captured heavy weaponry from falling into enemy hands, Commanding Officer, United States Navy Northampton-class heavy cruiser, makes the decision to sink the commandeered ship. The United States Navy heavy cruiser trains out 9 – 8” large-caliber main battery rifles, and commences main battery rifle fire against the commandeered vessel. Receiving numerous large-caliber shell hits, commandeered vessel, ablaze from stem to stern sinks rapidly.
It comes down to a fundamental question: how do we deal with the enemy? With popguns, or with large-caliber rife fire?
I hope everyone out there had a good Veterans Day.
For our Somali pirates certainly did! Three hijackings, two attempted hijackings, and another hijacking on the 12th to boot.
I wonder if Sonny and Cher had Somali pirates in mind when they wrote The Beat Goes On……
11 November 2008 Somali pirates hijack a Philippines chemical tanker, 23 crew aboard. The United States Navy fails to respond.
11 November 2008 Somali pirates attempt to hijack Mumbai bulk carrier, MV Jag Amav. Indian Navy antenna ship INS Tabar responding dispatches a helicopter carrying Special Forces and thwarts the hijacking. Shortly thereafter, an Indian Navy antenna ship thwarted Somali pirates attempting to hijack Saudi Arabian cargo ship, MV Timaha. The United States Navy fails to respond to either hijackings.
11 November 2008 Somali pirates aboard a dhow attacked Danish cargo ship MV Powerful twice in an attempt to hijack her. British helicopters from an unspecified source thwarted the attacks. Later in the day, Royal Navy antenna ship HMS Cumberland intercepted the dhow and dispatched its unit of Royal Marines aboard a small craft to engage the dhow. Coming into range, the Marines were engaged by the Somali pirates. The Marines returned the Somali pirates fire, and defeated the Somali pirates, capturing their dhow.
12 November 2008 Somali pirates hijack Turkish cargo ship Karagol, carrying 4500 tons of chemicals, with 14 crew aboard. The United States Navy has not responded.
Business has been good for Somali pirates this month. Not half-way through the month, and they’re setting records for hijackings, and attempted hijackings. The United States Navy has been notably absent the month of November.
Perhaps it’s due to an election year. Perhaps it’s due to the economic crisis. Perhaps there isn’t enough in the budget.
Or perhaps the United States Navy just isn’t worthy any longer………
Which seems to be the case…
The United States Navy can’t seem to figure out what to do. Its sole offensive combat platform is the aircraft carrier, all other surface ships in supporting roles. In today’s combat environment, the aircraft carrier is out of synch with today’s combat needs.
The United States Navy has forgotten how to deal with pirates. Without a high-tech enemy to deal with, today’s United States Navy is all-too-many ships without a mission.
And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know the answer. It takes a Gun Captain……..
When it comes to low-tech surface combat operations, the United States Navy simply cannot compete. The United States Navy doesn’t have the manpower, the training, the equipment, the ships -- or the cajones to deal with its adversaries…….
The United States Navy simply has forgotten how to point a weapon at the enemy and shoot at him…….
When the United States Navy remembers how to point large-caliber main battery rifles at the enemy, and shoot them at him, I’ll come aboard.
Until then, I want nothing to do with the United States Navy……
To its credit, the United States Navy has tried to replace its large-caliber surface combat rifles.
And yet, you’ve got to be kidding me……..
In 1975, the United States Navy attempted to replace its heavy cruiser’s large-caliber surface combat rifles with a single large-caliber, 8”/55 caliber rifle, plopped upon the foredeck of a United States Navy destroyer.
Nothing could look more ridiculous than a United States Navy destroyer with an enormous gun on its foredeck. And yet, that’s how United States Navy destroyer, USS Hull DD 945 must have looked like in 1975.
(United States Navy Destroyer, USS Hull DD 945, 21 October 1971.)
Plopped upon a United States Navy destroyer hull, the 8”/55 caliber main battery rifle was deemed operationally unstable. Funding was discontinued in 1978.
The United States Navy has dilly-dallied around the subject. And the answer lies not in destroyers with ridiculous unstable rifles on their foredecks.
The answer lies in large-caliber surface combat ships.
(United States Navy heavy cruiser, USS Chicago CA 29, 31 May 1934.)
Of course it would, Venice; we could even kill three birds with one stone and real cheap too!
Just take the USS Wisconsin with its 16"/50's and it's added cruise missle launchers out of inactive reserve; sail it off the coast of Ethiopia to get some target practice wiping out the coast where they store all of their "mother" ships while of course sinking every pirate vessel of any size with heavy caliber rifle fire and then, as the Wisconsin's crew is enjoying their scenic cruise, proceed up through the Arabian Sea and bombard both the mountains on the Pakistan/Iraq border with cruise missiles while simultaneously taking out Iran's nuclear capability.
Sounds like a real winner, huh? I thought you'd love the idea!
We could also do that Venice, but it would cost only a fraction to use the Wisconsin and it would be oh so much more cool to take out those jackasses with a piece of hardware constructed in 1943. Not to mention it looks so much more exciting to take 'em out with heavy caliber battery fire. Remember, there's nothing like the smell of cordite in the morning to go along with that aromatic napalm, but as a true Hawk, you undoubtely know that.
Todd, you are absolutely right that our leaders should listen to people in charge of all branches of our services. As a person that has lived in the Tidewater area of Virginia for thirty-six years and as the wife of a retired lieutentant commander, I know and appreciate what our armed forces do for us everyday. Our country needs to maintain a strong defense system in all corners of the world. We were caught, literally, "with our pants down", when September 11th occurred because one agency was not talking to another agency. We need a unified defense force. Never again should the travesty of September 11th ever happen!
I gotta just jump in with one comment.
I'm pretty sure that the navy won't go any bigger than a 5" gun because of how the modern ships are constructed.
Today's navy uses a lot of aluminum to reduce constuction costs.
For this reason they use a compensated fuel system which means that the tanks are alway full. Additionally, there is no need for ballast tanks as the compensated tanks will keep the ship "in" the water rather than "on" it.
The heavy steel cruisers and wagons of yester year had a strong foot for the bigger guns. I worked on the NEW JERSEY back in '82. I cannot describe the awe of looking down a 16" barrel.
I don't think today's hulls can handle anything more than a 5" gun.
One more little point: That 5 inch gun has a speed governor to keep the gun from shooting so fast the barrel will melt.
I saw this as a 10-year old when my dad skippered the USS Norton Sound stationed in Port Hueneme, CA>
Peace through superior firepower.
It wouldn't be at all difficult Venice as the number of crew on that behemoth is so limited that you could probably get fifty guys on board, and have a beer bust with a country band for five hours before anyone would ever guess anything was amiss.
One thing I've been thinking about. These idiots haven't highjacked an American flagged vessel probably because they are so few. But if they did, I have a strong suspicion that the United States Military would have a tad more input(?) were that to occur.
I know it may be a bit harsh, but I have too much respect for the Navy to abide this kind action.
Not unlike a football coach who gets on his team when he knows they should win.
The United States Navy has a long and proud tradition, and I believe it's time it returned to that tradition. And if the powers that be read these boards and are upset by what they see, perhaps they'll take action.
Until then, this taxpayer at least, will continue to hold the United States Navy to the standards it has already set for itself.
To its credit then, at least INS Tabar fired the thing for effect against the enemy!
I understand the sailors don't have much say in most matters. It's up to the CNO and above to give our sailers the tools they need to secure the 7 Seas. I think it's time to take the actions we've all talked about in previous posts. Give our sailors the proper "tools" to do their jobs effectively and efficiently.