wilsonjl@hsdp2.brooks.af.mil (Jonathan L Wilson) (01/12/90)
From: "Jonathan L Wilson" <wilsonjl@hsdp2.brooks.af.mil> > From: Randy Appleton <randy@ms.uky.edu> (in sci.military Vol 3 No 85) > > 1) All the Battleships, and whatever support ships I can toss with them. > They did LOUSY in Lebanon, don't seem very cost-effective in a real *naval* > war, and there function (delivering 1000lb warheads, etc) can be taken over > by other systems (CV's and subs carrying SLCM's, etc..) > ..... > 6) Maybe 10 of the Posiden SSBN's. Let's convert then to SSN's. The Navy > says we need more SSN's, and for that matter ASW ships, and most people > (at least most right-thinking people |-) feel we have AT LEAST ENOUGH > strategic nuclear warheads. Historically, this was done in the past, by > pouring concrete into Polaris missile tubes and some serious paperwork. > The savings here is the need to build fewer new SSN's. Just a bit of comment. The battleships' virtues include not only heavy gunfire support but also survivability. I contend that the battleships' guns are still needed, even though in some situations they are not appropriate (shelling one house without damaging another, probably without experienced spotters.) Witness the failure of several U.S. warships to inflict more than superficial damage on an Iranian oil platform, despite several hours' continuous shelling with 5 inch 54's. On a side note, I really wish the Navy had seen fit to continue the MCLWG (medium caliber lightweight gun) project. This would have put a compact 8 inch gun on each Spruance-class destroyer, at least, and would have considerably improved naval gunfire capabilities. At the expense of the antiaircraft capability of the 5 inch, but that must be minimal anyway. The battleships' other special virtue, survivability, is of course a questionable one. Like any warship, they are vulnerable beneath the waterline. But heavy armor topside is also effective against the warship's current nemesis, the cruise missile. The battleships are probably the ONLY warship in current U.S. inventory that could take several missile hits and still remain at least partially effective. (Note that although carriers are larger, they are more fragile, with several exposed critical points. If you damage a carrier's catapults or elevators, you have severely curtailed its effectiveness without affecting its seaworthiness.) The recent turret explosion incident with the Iowa only reinforces this. As for conversion of Poseidon missile subs to SSNs, this has been tried before. I think that several of the former Polaris subs are still in inventory after having been converted. However, they would not be very effective in that role. An SSBN's sensor and armament fit is aimed at avoiding detection, not attacking other submarines/surface warships. The modern SSN is a very sophisticated and specialized tool. Jonathan L Wilson TRW Systems Integration Group MILNET: WILSONJL@HQHSD.BROOKS.AF.MIL (military@hqhsd.brooks.af.mil) Phone: (512) 536 2236