Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / Uss Iowa Go Into Service Again

Uss Iowa Go Into Service Again

Post a Comment

Contend over the effectiveness of naval gunfire support

The United States battleship retirement debate was a debate among the U.s. Navy, Marine Corps, Congress, and independent groups over the effectiveness of naval gunfire support (NGFS) provided past Iowa-form battleships, and whether or not an alternative should be implemented. The debate centered on the best way to provide fire support for amphibious assail and other troops virtually a shoreline.

The contend at big traced its roots dorsum to the end of World War II, but this round of the fence began in 1992 with the decommissioning of the last active battleship, USSMissouri(BB-63), and ended when the final of these ships was finally completely retired in 2011.[1] The Navy decommissioned Missouri after determining that her fire support function could be replaced past send and submarine-launched missiles and aircraft-launched precision guided munitions. Many notwithstanding viewed the battleships every bit essential for gunfire back up, and questioned the Navy'south determination. Congress required the Navy to retain at least ii of the four remaining battleships on the Naval Vessel Register (NVR) instead of disposing of them.

The argue played out across a wide spectrum of media, including newspapers, magazines, web blogs, and congressional enquiry arms including the Government Accountability Function. Each side presented dissimilar arguments on the best approach to the problem. Many participants favored the continuation of the Zumwalt class or the reinstatement of the Iowa-class battleships to the NVR. The Iowa-class battleships and the Arleigh Burke- and Zumwalt-grade destroyers all entered the debate as options put forward for naval gunfire support, while others advocated the utilise of specifically designed close air support planes and newer missile systems that can loiter in an area equally a replacement for naval gunfire.

The debate most memory of the battleships became completely academic in 2011 when the last battleship owned past the Navy, USSIowa, was donated to a non-turn a profit group to be used as a museum ship.

Background [edit]

USSWisconsin, shown moored in Norfolk, Virginia, is one of four Iowa-class battleships open to the public as museums, and was 1 of two maintained for potential reactivation until 2009.[1]

By 1947, the United States had deactivated all of its remaining battleships (bar Missouri) and placed them in the United States Navy reserve fleets. By 1964, all but the four Iowa-class battleships had been stricken from the Naval Vessel Registry (NVR), but on several occasions i or more of those four battleships were reactivated to provide naval gunfire support. The U.S. Navy retained the four Iowa-form battleships long afterwards other nations scrapped their large-gun fleets in favor of aircraft carriers and submarines.[2] Congress was largely responsible for keeping the 4 Iowa-class battleships in the Us Navy reserve fleets and on the NVR as long as they did. The lawmakers argued that the battleships' big-caliber guns had a useful destructive power that was lacking in the smaller, cheaper, and faster guns mounted by U.S. cruisers and destroyers.[3]

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan proposed creating a 600-ship navy as part of the overall defense force department build-up to counter the threat of the military of the Soviet Union; both the Soviet Ground forces and Navy had grown in the aftermath of the unification of Vietnam in 1975 and the loss of religion that Americans had in their armed services.[4] As function of this, all four Iowa-class battleships were modernized and reactivated.[ citation needed ] When the Soviet Union complanate in 1991, the 600-ship navy was seen as unnecessary, and the navy made plans to return to its traditional 313-ship armada.[5] [6] This led to the deactivation of many ships in the navy'due south fleet, including the iv reactivated battleships; all were removed from service between 1990 and 1992.[7] [8] [9] [x] The navy struck all four ships and had made plans to donate them, but Congress intervened with the passing of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996. Department 1011 required the The states Navy to reinstate to the Naval Vessel Register 2 of the Iowa-class battleships that had been struck by the navy in 1995; these ships were to be maintained in the United States Navy Reserve Fleets. The Navy was to ensure that both of the reinstated battleships were in adept condition and could exist reactivated for use in Marine Corps' amphibious operations. Both battleships were to be maintained with the reserve fleet until such a time equally the navy could certify that it had within its armada the operational capacity to meet or exceed the gunfire support that both battleships could provide.[11] To comply with this requirement, the navy selected the battleships New Jersey and Wisconsin for reinstatement to the Naval Vessel Register.

Replacing the battleships [edit]

The Navy saw the battleships as prohibitively expensive,[12] and worked to persuade Congress to allow it to remove Iowa and Wisconsin from the Naval Vessel Register by developing extended-range guided munitions and a new ship to fulfill Marine Corps requirements for naval gunfire back up (NGFS).

5-inch (127 mm) gun on an Arleigh Shush-class DDG

The navy program originally called for the extension of the range of the 5-inch (127 mm) gun on the Flying I Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers with Extended Range Guided Munitions (ERGMs) that would enable the ships to burn down precision guided projectiles nigh 40 nautical miles (70 km) inland. The ERGM program was initiated in 1996, but cancelled in 2008 due to rising cost and disappointing results. The similar Ballistic Trajectory Extended Range Munition (BTERM) plan was also cancelled in 2008 for the aforementioned reasons.[thirteen] [14] These weapons were not intended or expected to satisfy the full range of the marine corps requirements.[xv]

The Navy initiated the SC-21 program in 1994 to design and build a send that could provide effective burn down support. This evolved into the DD(10) program and eventually resulted in the Zumwalt-course destroyer program. The ship was to mountain a pair of Advanced Gun Systems capable of firing specially designed Long Range Land Attack Projectiles some 60 miles (100 km) inland. Originally, the navy had planned to build a total of 32 of these destroyers, only the increasing price of the program led the navy to reduce the overall number of destroyers from 32 to 24.[16] In 2007 the total procurement of Zumwalt-course destroyers was further reduced to seven, before being discontinued at a total of three destroyers in July 2008 as a result of the high per-ship cost.[17] [18]

The discontinuation of the class was due in part to concerns that the Zumwalt-form ships would deprive other projects of needed funding, a concern that was raised past the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Congressional Inquiry Service (CRS), and the Authorities Accountability Office, all of which issued reports that suggested that total cost of each ship would exist as high every bit $5 billion or more.[17] [19] In add-on to the high cost, naval officials discussing the cancellation of the DD(X) program cited the disability of the DD(10) to fire the Standard missile or provide adequate air defense coverage, and a "classified threat" which the navy thought could be amend handled by existing or new Arleigh Burke-class destroyers than by the Zumwalt-form destroyers.[20] The article likewise reported that the Marine Corps no longer needed the long-range burn down support from the Zumwalts' 155 mm Avant-garde Gun System because such burn down support can be provided past much longer-ranged Tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles and precision airstrikes.[twenty]

Hit the Iowa-class battleships [edit]

"DDG grand Zumwalt is [...] being adult by the Navy to serve as the backbone of tomorrow's surface fleet. DDG thousand Zumwalt provides a broad range of capabilities that are vital both to supporting the Global State of war on Terror and to fighting and winning major combatant operations. Zumwalt's multi-mission warfighting capabilities are designed to counter not only the threats of today, but threats projected over the next decade besides."

Statement of the DD(X) programme on the United states of america Navy's Program Executive Office, Ships [21]

On 17 March 2006, while the ERGM and DD(X) programs were under development, the Secretarial assistant of the Navy exercised his dominance to strike Iowa and Wisconsin from the Naval Vessel Register, which cleared the manner for both ships to be donated for use as museum ships. The U.s.a. Navy and the U.s.a. Marine Corps had both certified that battleships would non be needed in any hereafter state of war, and had turned their attention to completion of the next generation Zumwalt-class destroyers.

This move drew fire from sources familiar with the discipline; among them were dissenting members of the Usa Marine Corps. These dissenters argued that battleships were however a viable solution to naval gunfire support,[22] [23] including members of Congress who remained "deeply concerned" over the loss of naval surface gunfire back up that the battleships provided,[13] and a number of independent groups such as the United States' Naval Fire Support Association (USNFSA) whose ranks included former members of the armed service and fans of the battleships.[24] [25] Although the arguments presented from each group differed, they all agreed that the U.s. Navy had not in good faith considered the potential of reactivated battleships for employ in the field, a position that was supported by a 1999 Regime Accountability Office written report regarding the United states of america Navy's gunfire back up program.[xv]

"In summary, the committee is concerned that the Navy has foregone the long-range fire support capability of the battleship, has given little cause for optimism with respect to meeting near-term developmental objectives, and appears unrealistic in planning to support expeditionary warfare in the mid-term. The commission views the Navy's strategy for providing naval surface burn down support as 'high risk,' and will continue to monitor progress appropriately."

Evaluation of the United states Navy's naval surface fire back up program in the National Defense Authorisation Act of 2007 [thirteen]

In response, the Navy pointed to the price of reactivating the two Iowa-class battleships to their decommissioned adequacy. The Navy estimated costs in excess of $500 one thousand thousand,[26] [27] but this did not include an boosted $110 1000000 needed to replenish the gunpowder for the 16-inch (406 mm) guns, needed considering a survey found the powder to be unsafe. In terms of schedule, the Navy's program direction office estimated that reactivation would accept 20 to 40 months, given the loss of corporate retentivity and the shipyard industrial base.[3]

Reactivating the battleships would have required a broad range of battleship modernization improvements, according to the navy's programme management part. At a minimum, these modernization improvements included command and control, communications, computers, and intelligence equipment; environmental protection (including ozone-depleting substances); a plastic-waste product processor; pulper/shredder and wastewater alterations; firefighting/fire prophylactic and women-at-body of water alterations; a modernized sensor suite (air and surface search radar); and new combat and self-defense systems.[3] The navy's program management office besides identified other issues that would strongly discourage the Navy from reactivating and modernizing the battleships. For example, personnel needed to operate the battleships would have been extensive, and the skills needed might not accept been bachelor or easily reconstituted.[28] Other issues included the age and unreliability of the battleships' propulsion systems and the fact that the navy no longer maintained the capability to manufacture their 16-inch gun system components and ordnance.[3]

Although the navy firmly believed in the capabilities of the DD(10) destroyer program, members of the The states Congress remained skeptical most the efficiency of the new destroyers when compared to the battleships.[15] Partially as a consequence, Congress passed Pub. L. 109-364, the National Defense Authorization Deed 2007, requiring the battleships be kept and maintained in a country of readiness should they ever accept been needed once more.[29] Congress ordered that the following measures be implemented to ensure that, if need exist, Iowa and Wisconsin could be returned to agile duty:

  1. Iowa and Wisconsin must not exist contradistinct in whatever way that would impair their military utility;
  2. The battleships must exist preserved in their present status through the continued use of cathodic protection, dehumidification systems, and whatever other preservation methods every bit needed;
  3. Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16-inch gun barrels and projectiles be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa and Wisconsin, if reactivated;
  4. The navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Iowa and Wisconsin should they be returned to the navy in the outcome of a national emergency.[29]

These four conditions closely mirrored the original iii weather condition that the Nation Defense Authorization Human activity of 1996 laid out for the maintenance of Iowa and Wisconsin while they were in the Mothball Armada.[5] [11]

Alternatives to battleship gunfire [edit]

During the period of time in which the battleships were out of commission in the United states, several technological updates and breakthroughs enabled naval ships, submarines, and aircraft to recoup for the absenteeism of big guns within the armada.

Air superiority [edit]

During World War II, shipping were used with devastating effect for both strategic bombing and for close support of ground troops, by all combatants. State-based aircraft were effective when the airfields were in range of the targets and when a degree of air superiority could be established. Carrier-based aircraft were originally intended for utilize confronting enemy ships. In addition to this role, several aircraft like the P-47 Thunderbolt were employed for close air support for ground based troops in Europe and in the Pacific.[30]

Past the time of the Korean War, air power had been supplemented by the introduction of the jet engine, which allowed fighter and bomber aircraft to wing faster. As with their Earth War II predecessors, the newer jet shipping proved capable of providing close air support for ground based troops, and were instrumental in aiding United nations footing forces during the Battle of Chosin Reservoir.[31] [32]

The Vietnam War saw the introduction of helicopter gunships which could be employed to support ground based forces, and the feel gained in Vietnam would spawn the creation of several aircraft during and after the war designed specifically to aid ground forces, including the Air conditioning-47 Spooky, Fairchild AC-119, Lockheed AC-130, and A-10 Thunderbolt Two, all of which are operated by the Air Force, and the F/A-18 Hornet which is operated by the Navy. In addition, the Army and Marine Corps operate UH-one Iroquois, AH-1 Cobra, and AH-64 Apache helicopters for shut air support, and these helicopters can be stationed onboard amphibious assail ships to provide transport-to-shore air support for army. These aircraft would afterward bear witness instrumental in aiding ground forces from the 1980s onwards, and would exist involved in the 1991 Gulf War, the 2001 invasion of Transitional islamic state of afghanistan, and the 2003 invasion of Republic of iraq.

Starting after the invasion of Republic of iraq, the air force began arming unmanned drone aircraft to perform strike missions. Originally designed for prolonged surveillance (and ironically to act equally spotters for naval arms), these aircraft typically have greater endurance than manned strike aircraft and some degree of automation to permit them to patrol for activity without requiring the constant attention of a pilot. This permitted the fielding of a less expensive aerial force which could maintain abiding surveillance for enemy targets and conduct strikes on whatsoever targets encountered.

Missiles [edit]

The rise of precision strike munitions in the 1970s and 1980s reduced the need for a massive naval bombardment against an enemy force, as missiles could now be used against such targets to support footing forces and to destroy targets in accelerate of the arrival of troops. Guided missiles could besides fire much further than any naval gun, allowing for strikes deep into the middle of enemy territory without risking the lives of pilots or airplanes. This led to a major shift in naval thinking, and every bit a upshot ships became more dependent on missile magazines than on their guns for offensive and defensive capabilities. This was demonstrated in the 1980s, when all four recommissioned battleships were outfitted with missile magazines, and again in the 1991 Gulf State of war, when both Missouri and Wisconsin launched missile volleys against targets in Iraq before using their guns against Iraqi targets on the coast. The same conflict saw the first employ of submarine-launched cruise missiles when the Los Angeles-form attack submarine Louisville fired Tomahawk State Assault Missiles into Iraq from the Red Bounding main.[ citation needed ]

Between 2002 and 2008, iv of the Ohio-class submarines were converted to SSGNs carrying prowl missiles instead of SSBNs carrying ballistic missiles. Each SSGN carries 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Gun support from other ships [edit]

Test firing a railgun at the Naval Surface Warfare Eye, January 2008

The Iowa-class battleships were maintained and used because their sixteen" Mark 7 guns were considered more effective than the smaller 5" Marking 45 guns found on modern frigates, cruisers, and destroyers. Each battleship had a main battery of nine xvi" guns and a secondary battery of 20 five" guns, while the smaller mod ships accept a single 5" gun. The 5" gun was the largest gun remaining in active Navy service later on the battleships were decommissioned.

In the 1960s, following a requirement established past Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) for a new gun capable of firing semi-agile laser guided projectiles (SAL GP), the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division worked on the Major Quotient Lightweight Gun (MCLWG) program, testing capability of destroyer-sized ships to provide shore battery back up with the range previously available from decommissioned cruisers. The 8"/55 caliber Mark 71 gun, a single gun version of the 8"/55 Marking 16 caliber gun was mounted aboard the USSHull(DD-945). After at-body of water technical evaluation in 1975 and operational testing that followed through 1976, The Operational Test and Evaluation Forcefulness adamant inaccuracy made the gun operationally unsuitable. The lightweight eight"/55 was concluded to exist no more effective than the v"/54 with Rocket Assisted Projectiles. Program funding was terminated in 1978.[33]

In the 1980s, conventional guns were used by US destroyers during the Lebanese Civil State of war to shell positions for the Multinational Strength in Lebanon operating on the ground. Guns were as well used by the Purple Navy in the Falklands War to support British forces during the operations to recapture the islands from the Argentinians. For example, the Type 42 destroyer HMSCardiff was required to burn at enemy positions on the islands with her 4.5-inch gun. In one date she fired 277 high-explosive rounds,[34] although later problems with the gun prevented continual use.[ citation needed ] Ship-based gunfire was also used during Performance Praying Mantis in 1988 to neutralize Iranian gun emplacements on oil platforms in the Persian Gulf.[35] Although the smaller caliber guns are effective in gainsay, larger caliber guns tin have a large psychological effect, as occurred during the bombardment of Iraqi shore defenses by the battleships Missouri and Wisconsin in the Gulf War.[36] When the latter battleship returned to resume shelling the island, the enemy troops surrendered to her Pioneer UAV launched to spot for the battleships' guns rather than confront another round of heavy naval artillery.[37] [38]

The navy looked into creating precision guided artillery rounds for use with the current fleet of cruisers and destroyers. The most recent attempt to change the guns for longer range came with the Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) munitions for the Advanced Gun System mounts installed aboard the Zumwalt-course destroyers. The navy was involved in the LRLAP and Ballistic Trajectory Extended Range Munition, both cancelled efforts to develop Extended Range Guided Munitions.[thirteen] [14]

In improver to funding enquiry into various extended range munitions, the navy is also working on developing railguns for use with the fleet at some signal in the time to come. The United states Naval Surface Warfare Middle Dahlgren Partition demonstrated an 8 MJ track gun firing 3.two kilogram (slightly more than 7 pounds) projectiles in October 2006 as a paradigm of a 64 MJ weapon to be deployed aboard navy warships. The main problem the navy has had with implementing a railgun cannon system is that the guns article of clothing out due to the immense rut produced by firing. Such weapons are expected to be powerful enough to do a footling more damage than a BGM-109 Tomahawk missile at a fraction of the projectile cost.[39] Since then, BAE Systems has delivered a 32 MJ epitome to the Navy.[40] On 31 Jan 2008, the Usa Navy tested a magnetic railgun; it fired a shell at 2520 1000/due south using 10.64 megajoules of free energy.[41] Its expected performance is over 5800 m/s muzzle velocity, accurate enough to hit a 5-meter target from 200 nmi (370 km) abroad while shooting at ten shots per minute. It is expected to be fix between 2020 and 2025.

Apart from railguns, 16 inch scramjet rounds with ranges of up to 400 nautical miles that accept a 9-minute fourth dimension of flight were proposed by Pratt and Whitney, working with Dr. Dennis Reilly, a plasma physicist with extensive experience with munitions, but the navy had no interested sponsor.[42]

Subsequent developments [edit]

New Jersey remained on the NVR until the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Deed of 1999 passed through Congress 18 October 1998. Department 1011 required the United States Secretary of the Navy to listing and maintain Iowa and Wisconsin on the Naval Vessel Register, while Section 1012 required the Secretarial assistant of the Navy to strike New Bailiwick of jersey from the Naval Vessel Annals and transfer the battleship to a not-for-turn a profit entity in accordance with section 7306 of Championship 10, Us Code. Section 1012 also required the transferee to locate the battleship in the Country of New Jersey.[ clarification needed ] [43] The navy fabricated the switch in January 1999.[11] Iowa and Wisconsin were finally stricken from the Naval Vessel Annals in 2006.

Prior to the reduction of ships in the Zumwalt program, it seemed unlikely that the above four weather condition would have impeded the program to turn Iowa and Wisconsin into museum ships because the navy had expected a sufficient number of Zumwalt destroyers to exist set to help fill the NGFS gap by 2018 at the earliest,[3] simply the July 2008 conclusion by the navy to abolish the Zumwalt program left the Navy without a send class capable of replacing the two battleships removed from the Naval Vessel Register in March 2006. James T. Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps has said that missiles fired from the littoral combat ship could fulfill the USMC needs for NGFS.[44] This would not be the current NLOS-LS program as the range of the PAM missile at 22 miles (35 km) falls brusk of the threshold requirement for NGFS of 41 miles (66 km) and the number of CLUs the current LCS designs can carry in a set to fire configuration is too short of the required volume of fire.[45] The Loitering Attack Missile could take matched the required range, but it was cancelled in 2011[46] and the LCS would still accept fallen brusque in terms of rounds ready to fire.[47]

On xv September 2015, and so Presidential candidate Donald Trump, while giving a spoken language on defense during the entrada for the 2016 presidential election on board the battleship Iowa in San Pedro, California, briefly remarked in having interest in recommissioning the Iowa-form battleships.[48]

Later on the completion of sea trials which began in 2014 Zumwalt was officially commissioned into the US Navy on xv October 2016 at Baltimore, Maryland. But in November 2016 the principal and only ammunition for Zumwalt's 2 155 mm Avant-garde Gun Systems, the Long Range Country Attack Projectile, was cancelled due to increased costs. Zumwalt is currently[ when? ] assigned to the US Pacific Fleet and is homeported in San Diego, California.

Notes [edit]

  1. ^ a b "City to take ownership of USS Wisconsin". Associated Press. xiv Apr 2010. Archived from the original on sixteen April 2010. Retrieved xv April 2010.
  2. ^ Authorities Accountability Office (eleven June 1999). "Naval Surface Burn Support Program Plans and Costs (GAO/NSIAD-99-91)" (PDF). Authorities Accountability Part. Retrieved 12 March 2007.
  3. ^ a b c d eastward *Government Accountability Role (19 November 2004). "Information on Options for Naval Surface Burn down Support (GAO-05-39R)" (PDF). Regime Accountability Function. Retrieved 4 March 2018.
  4. ^ Holland, W. J. (2004). The Navy. China: Barnes & Noble, Inc., by arrangement with Hugh Lauter Levin Associates, Inc. p. 184. ISBN076076218X.
  5. ^ a b "BB-61 IOWA-class (Specifications)". Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 26 November 2006.
  6. ^ Johnston, Ian & McAuley, Rob (2002). The Battleships. London: Channel four Books (an imprint of Pan Macmillan, Ltd). p. 183. ISBN0-7522-6188-6.
  7. ^ Naval Historical Center. "Iowa". Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Navy Department, Naval History and Heritage Command. Retrieved 4 March 2018.
  8. ^ Naval Historical Center. "New Bailiwick of jersey". Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Navy Department, Naval History & Heritage Control. Retrieved 4 March 2018.
  9. ^ Naval Historical Middle. "Missouri". Lexicon of American Naval Fighting Ships. Navy Department, Naval History and Heritage Command. Retrieved 4 March 2018.
  10. ^ Naval Historical Middle. "Wisconsin". Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Navy Section, Naval History and Heritage Command. Retrieved 4 March 2018.
  11. ^ a b c 104th Congress, House of Representatives. National Defense Potency Act of 1996. p. 237. Retrieved 17 December 2006.
  12. ^ John Freeway. "BB-61 Iowa-course Reactivations". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved vi February 2010.
  13. ^ a b c d "National Defence Authority Act of 2007" (PDF). pp. 193–194. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 September 2008. Retrieved 12 March 2007.
  14. ^ a b Matthews, William (25 March 2007). "Navy ends ERGM funding". Navy Times . Retrieved 23 April 2008.
  15. ^ a b c Government Accountability Office (xiv September 1999). "Evaluation of the Navy'south 1999 Naval Surface Fire Support Assessment (GAO/NSIAD-99-225)" (PDF). Government Accountability Part. Retrieved 4 March 2018.
  16. ^ "National Defence Dominance Human activity of 2007 Archived September 23, 2008, at the Wayback Machine" (pdf) pp. 109th Congress, Usa Senate and House of Representatives. 69–70. Retrieved on 2008-08-01.
  17. ^ a b Cavas, Christopher P. (24 July 2008). "DDG m programme will end at two ships". Navy Times . Retrieved 27 July 2008.
  18. ^ "United states House, Senate Concur to Add third DDG 1000". Defense News. 24 September 2008. Retrieved vii Oct 2008. [ dead link ]
  19. ^ Labs, Eric J. (31 July 2008). "The Navy'southward Surface Combatant Programs" (PDF). Congressional Budget Office. pp. 3–nine. Retrieved 2 Baronial 2008.
  20. ^ a b Ewing, Philip; Bryan Mitchell (1 August 2008). "Navy:No Demand to Add DDG 1000s After All". defense news. Regular army Times Publishing Company. Retrieved half-dozen Baronial 2008. [ dead link ]
  21. ^ Program Executive Function, Ships (27 May 2007). "DDG yard (subsection: What is DDG 1000?)". Usa Navy. Archived from the original on 14 June 2007. Retrieved 24 June 2007.
  22. ^ Novak, Robert (half-dozen December 2005). "Losing the battleships". CNN.com . Retrieved 25 July 2008.
  23. ^ The Marine Corps supported the strategic purpose of reactivating two battleships in accordance with the National Defence Dominance Human action of 1996 and supported the Navy'due south modernization efforts to deliver a sufficient NGFS capability that would exceed that of the Iowa-grade battleships. Run across: Government Accountability Office. Information on Options for Naval Surface Burn down Support.
  24. ^ Blazar, Ernest (29 July 1996). "New contend resurrects old one; critics say cancel arsenal send, bring back battleships". Navy Times.
  25. ^ "Navy proposes destroyer with long-range guns". U.s. Today. 15 August 2005.
  26. ^ This number was based on a 1999 gauge with a 4% annual inflation charge per unit. See: Government Accountability Office. Information on Options for Naval Surface Burn Support.
  27. ^ The U.S. Navy reported in the April 1987 edition of All Easily that the original toll of bringing the battleships back in the 1980s was $110 million per send, simply the actual cost later on modernization and recommissioning was $455 one thousand thousand. See: Bureau of Naval Personnel, "Back on the battle line".
  28. ^ The U.S. Navy reported in the April 1987 edition of All Hands that while battleships had larger crews than other vessels the level of training required and the criticality of that training were less than that required of a coiffure aboard an Oliver Risk Perry-class frigate. Come across: Bureau of Naval Personnel, "Back on the boxing line".
  29. ^ a b 109th Congress, Business firm of Representatives. Report 109–452. National Defense Dominance Human activity of 2007. p. 68. Retrieved 26 November 2006.
  30. ^ "The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt". Greg Goebel. 1 June 2006. Retrieved seven October 2008.
  31. ^ National Museum of the USAF - Fact Sail Media (F-86A/E/F Sabre) Archived 7 Jan 2015 at the Wayback Machine
  32. ^ "American Military Aircraft (F-86 in Korea)". Home.att.net. Archived from the original on 24 July 2008. Retrieved six February 2010.
  33. ^ Miller, John C., Col USMC & Peterson, H.W., Major USMC "Guns vs. Butter - Without the Guns?" United States Naval Establish Proceedings January 1982 pp.33–34
  34. ^ "Report of Proceedings". HMS Cardiff—The 1982 Ship's Company. Archived from the original on 26 May 2008. Retrieved 12 Feb 2008.
  35. ^ "Performance Earnest Will". globalsecurity.org. 27 April 2005. Retrieved 7 October 2008.
  36. ^ The states. Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. (fifteen May 1991). "Five: "Thunder And Lightning"- The War With Republic of iraq". The The states Navy in "Desert Shield" / "Desert Tempest". Washington, D.C.: The states Navy. OCLC 25081170. Retrieved 26 Nov 2006.
  37. ^ Federation of American Scientists. Pioneer Curt Range (SR) UAV. Retrieved 26 November 2006.
  38. ^ National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution. Pioneer RQ-2A. 14 September 2001. Retrieved 26 Nov 2006.
  39. ^ Zitz, Michael (17 January 2007). "A missile punch at bullet prices". Fredericksburg.com. Archived from the original on 4 June 2012. Retrieved vii October 2008.
  40. ^ Sofge, Erik (14 November 2007). "World's Virtually Powerful Rail Gun Delivered to Navy". Popular Mechanics. Archived from the original on 16 Nov 2007. Retrieved 7 October 2008.
  41. ^ "U.S. Navy Demonstrates World'due south Most Powerful EMRG at 10 Megajoules".
  42. ^ Shawn Welch, Colonel, Corps of Engineers United States Army. Joint and Interdependent Requirements: A Case Study in Solving the Naval Surface Fire Support Capabilities Gap Archived 8 April 2013 at the Wayback Car. Joint Avant-garde Warfighting School Masters Thesis. Retrieved 2012-11-xix from Defense Technical Data Centre.
  43. ^ "Strom Thurmond National Defense Authority Act of 1999 (Subtitle B-Naval Vessels and Shipyards)" (PDF). 105th Congress, United States Senate and House of Representatives. pp. 200–201. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 June 2007. Retrieved 12 March 2007.
  44. ^ "Conway: Rockets on LCS Could Fill Naval Surface Fires Requirement". Archived from > the original on 13 July 2011. Retrieved 23 January 2009.
  45. ^ "Marines Pushing Alee On Corps-Specific Module Ideas For LCS Within THE NAVY 27 October 08". Archived from the original on 14 Dec 2009. Retrieved 24 January 2009.
  46. ^ "Gates Reveals Budget Efficiencies, Reinvestment Possibilities". Defense.gov. Archived from the original on 29 May 2011. Retrieved 27 May 2011.
  47. ^ "Commandant says Marines will field their own gunships". Govexec.com. Retrieved 6 Feb 2010.
  48. ^ Rogoway, Tyler. "Donald Trump'due south Crazy Idea To Bring Back Battleships Might Actually Be Possible". jalopnik.com.

References [edit]

  • Agency of Naval Personnel (April 1987). "Dorsum on the battle line" (PDF). All Hands. Washington, D.C.: The states Navy. 841: 28–29. ISSN 0002-5577. OCLC 2555618. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 April 2006. Retrieved 27 June 2008.
  • Coram, Robert. Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of State of war. Los Angeles: Back Bay Books, 2004. ISBN 0-316-79688-3.
  • DiGiulian, Tony (2 July 2008). "Us of America sixteen"/l (xl.half-dozen cm) Mark vii". NavWeaps.com. Retrieved xvi January 2007.
  • Major B. T. Kowalski; United States Marine Corps (1995). "Naval Surface Fire Support, Is It A Feasible Selection?".
  • Keegan, John (2000). World War Ii: A Visual Encyclopedia. London: PRC Publishing. ISBNane-85585-878-9. OCLC 45188820.
  • Miller, David; Chris Miller (1986). Modernistic Naval Combat. London: Salamander Books. ISBN0-86101-231-3. OCLC 17397400.
  • Muir, Malcolm, Jr. (1987). The Iowa-Class Battleships: Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, Wisconsin. Poole, Dorset: Blandford Press. ISBN0-7137-1732-seven. OCLC 17509226.
  • Sumrall, Robert F. (1988). Iowa Form Battleships: Their Design, Weapons & Equipment. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN0-87021-298-2. OCLC 19282922.

ledfordallontention.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_battleship_retirement_debate

You may like these posts

Post a Comment for "Uss Iowa Go Into Service Again"