Marshall to Webb: Save the USS Iowa!
By Shaun Kenney | Monday, March 21st, 2011 | Policy
Delegate Bob Marshall sent the following letter to members of the Virginia congressional delegation regarding the pending scrapping of the U.S. Navy’s 16 inch guns, asking why the refurbishing of the USS Iowa at $250 million is not more preferable to the new Zumwalt-class destroyers being built at 24 times that cost ($6 billion):
Since the removal of the Iowa Class Battleships in 1992 from active operations, the Navy has little to no capacity to provide Naval Surface Fire Support for our soldiers and Marines. WW II and Korean era Marines told me that the sight of a Battleship firing nine 16-inch guns onshore is intimidating to any enemy, fixes the attention of hostile troops, and is a powerful statement to civilians. A Lebanese friend told me he could not aptly describe the devastating effect of the USS New Jersey’s 16 inch guns bombarding Druse and Syrian gun batteries in Lebanon in 1984.
…
In 2007, a War College Study concluded that Major Caliber Guns were a lower cost solution to providing fire support. It was awarded the National Defense University best thesis award for Academic Year 2007. Pratt and Whitney, in 2001, stated that using a Major Caliber Gun as a launching system for Scamjets (sic) was feasible and cost effective. This is outlined in the thesis mentioned above.
Regardless as to whether or not you believe this is an issue of interest, this is precisely the sort of insight that makes Bob Marshall such a formidable character, whether it is federal issues of the highest order and nuance, or state and local issues that hit home.
Worth printing off and reading. Given the current situation in Libya and the potential for U.S. Marines to be deployed on the shores of Tripoli once again, it would be comforting to know that the USS Iowa was out there lurking in the distance ready to protect our warfighters, should it be necessary…
DISCLAIMER: Beyond my Tom Clancy-ish background in all things military, I haven’t the foggiest clue as to whether or not these claims can be backed up. I proudly cede the comments section to those who know a hell of a lot better than myself…
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
27 Responses to "Marshall to Webb: Save the USS Iowa!"
http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=ADA481976
Link to the DOD Study / Thesis done by Col. Welch
This backs up Bob Marshall’s claims
Rock on! Much thanks, Ted.
I’ve always thought Bob Marshall was a bright guy, as long as the subject at hand did not touch in any way on human sexuality.
If only he would stop his crusade against gays…
Get off it guys. 16 inch guns are not effective when much smaller platforms can sit outside the range of the platform with the guns and sink her with missiles.
Why invest so much money in that which is obsolete when it is actually cheaper and more effective to invest the money in the new technology? Get in arms reach of the big brawny guy and you are toast. Keep out of his range with a .45 and he is toast.
It is not that we really need the 16 inch guns in Libya. Ships with missiles can sit further offshore and strike further inland.
It is time for the dinosaurs to hit the scrap heap and perhaps Bob Marshall belongs there too.
Well…the Zumwalt program’s been reduced to a test plaftorm, and only two will be built. Instead, the Arleigh Burke destroyers will be improved.
Not sure of the numbers on that, but I’ll run them down if anyone’s interested.
Battleships and the 2,700 pound rounds they fire may be crude but also very effective both in terms of physical destruction and the pyschological impact on those who might be a target. Knowing that you might have 2,700 pounds of explosive steel heading your way can be a very powerful impetus to get out of Dodge as quickly as possible.
Just ask the Iraqis who were within range of the USS Missouri’s guns back in 1991.
I agree 100% with Bob. There is no reason why the Iowa class ships shouldn’t be refurbished and upgraded. It annoys me that we have to fire million dollar a piece Tomahawk cruise missiles when a 16 inch shell is just as accurate and can hit the same targets.
Brian,
A volley of 16-inch shells fired at a range of 19 miles has a shot group of about 250 yards. That is about two and a half football fields stacked three deep. A Tomahawk cruise missile fired from several hundred miles away has an accuracy of about one meter. That is about the size of the dishwasher in your kitchen.
Battleship guns are hardly “just as accurate” as cruise missiles or other precision-guided munitions. They are about as obsolete and irrelevant as Bob Marshall.
There is a good reason that the Navy wants to retire the battleships, COL Welch’s treatise notwithstanding. They simply do not get the job done in today’s modern operational environment without enormous “collateral damage” and significant threats to friendly forces.
HisRoc, I’ll take your word for it. The battleships were still popular with folks back in my day, but that was 16 years ago.
Brian,
That’s okay. I retired from active duty as a Colonel almost 13 years ago. But I have been a card-carrying member of the Military-Industrial Complex ever since.
My problem with COL Welch’s thesis, and I read it, is that it is written from the prospective of a bean-counter. He apparently is/was an AGR (Active Guard-Reserve) officer with an Army Corps of Engineers background and assignments in budget review shops like PA&E. These are not the folks with operational experience. His thesis does not support Bob Marshall’s case. His conclusions and recommendations favor refurbishing of the Iowa as a stop-gap measure until newer and better surface-warfare major gun ship construction can be brought on-line, mostly the DDG-21 class. And his entire case is based on a cost-benefit analysis of surface combatants versus aircraft carriers. This is inherently flawed logic. I remember reading an evaluation of the cost-benefit analysis of new Army air defense systems in the 1980s. The author pointed out that if cost is the deciding factor in warfare then we could bribe Soviet pilots not to fly cheaper than shooting them down.
War doesn’t work that way.
His Rock:
As a Marine I can tell you that your point makes our point. NGF’s main support to the landing force is suppressive fire not destructive fire which are performed better by missiles or aircraft. Hitting a washing machine is great for destructive fire, but that is not what is usually needed in support of an attack. Covering several “football fields” simultaneoulsy and CHEAPLY is excellent suppressive fire. In the combined arms environment, suppressive fires are what allows the offence to move.
I am not sure that BB’s are the solution to the NGF problem anymore as the analysis seems not to take into account the extremely high manning requirement which is more expensive than the procurement costs. Seems a fire support “monitor” type ship that is modern with small crew requirements and plenty of automated guns that can fire inexpensive rounds is a better solution. Zumwalts are not that.
HisRoc, Please point out examples of where Col. Welch’s thesis is incorrect? Many ret and active duty flag officers review that thesis which is why it was awarded NDU’s best thesis for 2007. What did you not understand in the wargame scenario contained in the thesis? It was the same wargame used for DDX. The battleship/ Capital Surface Warship gave the operational commanders a very useful tool and an ability to provide much more timely fires. It freed up CAS to do other missions. Your personal attack of Col. Welch to try and discredit his thesis is very transparent. Instead of trying to discredit the author why don’t you point to examples within the thesis where Col. Welch is wrong?
Also Welch makes it clear that new 16″ munitions would be made that have Guidance systems. That improves the 16″ gun accuracy. Also the Battleship has 5″ guns as well. So if you need a smaller shell you have it. The Iowa’s carry 12,000 5″ rounds DDX carries 300 in a magazine and MAYBE another 300 in a converted closet/ storage room. The Marines want VOLUME FIRES. That means lots of shells. Reading Col. Welch’s thesis you see that it was the Navy rigging its analysis and data to come to the answer or solution they wanted.
Ted,
I am not aware of any personal attack that I made on COL Welch or how I tried to discredit him. There is a reason that the author’s vita is included in a thesis. You need to know the author’s background and experience to understand his editorial prejudice. It is an academic matter and is in no way personal.
I never said that COL Welch’s thesis was incorrect. I pointed out that his conclusions and recommendations were solely based on an economic analysis and not on other factors. Additionally, he recommends extending the operational life of the BB only as a stop-gap until new construction can be commissioned and deployed. In my opinion, that does not fully justify Bob Marshall’s proposal to the Virginia delegation.
Finally, as a War College graduate myself, I can tell you that the selection of best thesis is not based on how much the reviewers agree with the recommendations. The selection is based on the thoroughness of the research, the logical presentation of the data, and the overall quality of the writing. It is similar to a debating club. It matters not if the judges agree with your position, but how well you defend it.
Dry Viking,
When is the last time the Marines needed suppressive fire the area of five football fields and where collateral damage was not a concern? In Lebanon, the reports I read indicated that the New Jersey killed more civilians than militiamen.
To those readers here who think that I am being too critical of COL Welch, battleships, or NSF, let me explain what the real source of my heartburn is. Exactly what background or expertise does Bob Marshall have in military affairs? To the best of my knowledge, the answer is zilch. So why is he creating this controversy over NSF? He is clearly attempting to burnish his credentials for his run for the US Senate. This is a despicable example of “waving the bloody shirt.” Let Bob run on his considerable record involving social issues, whether you agree with his positions or not. But don’t let him use the lives of our military members or the military readiness of our republic as pawns in a cheap political gimmick.
Anyone who has served our country in uniform should find this cynical ploy repulsive.
HiRoc, Bob states where NSFS was used that covered several football fields without regard to collateral damage. When the Australians and British used their warships with single 5″ and 4.5″ guns. Oh our Navy, who was asked to assist, said no to our allies.
Bob has identified a Major Combat Shortfall and is trying to bring attention to it. You may no like Bob, but what he does is bring awareness to an issue. He has a history of that and he is backing his position with what you just admitted is a well research and thorough thesis with precise data.
Ted,
The controversy over retiring the BB is at least ten years old, if not older. The thesis that Bob cites was published four years ago. Did Bob Marshall just “get religion” on national security or is he waving the bloody shirt?
I think that the answer to that question is pretty obvious. I also think that it is a sad commentary on the desperation of the battleship proponents that they will take their political support wherever they can find it, regardless of the ulterior and manipulative motives involved.
A state delegate in a land-locked district of bedroom communities discovers a single paper written over four years ago and suddenly he is giving advice to the Armed Services Committees in Congress? Pathetic.
http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/MCBQ%20PAO%20Press%20Releases/090430%20CDI%20Docs/CDI_AmphibOps21stCent.pdf
From LT. Gen Flynn USMC
Pg. 33
Amphibious Operations in the 21st Century
A 2007 study concluded that, by re-commissioning battleships with improved gun munitions and missile systems, the desired blend of capabilities could be achieved in a cost effective way because the need to fill the Navy’s current shortfall in aircraft carriers and aircraft would be eliminated.12 The recently initiated Joint Expeditionary Fires Analysis of Alternatives should give due consideration to such ideas in the quest for a comprehensive solution.
Ted,
The debate is not over whether or not re-commissioning BB is the best alternative. The debate is whether or not Bob Marshall is pimping the controversy to further his political ambitions.
His Rock:
We Marines needed it in 1991 in Kuwait. We had it fortunately for those of us there. Also would have been helpful in many offensive actions in Iraq, we haven’t been up against a military foe in Afghanistan with field units, or we would have needed it there. In conventional combat against a peer competitor it is essential.
You must not have served in combat arms, I had 31 years as an infantry officer and I too am a graduate of the War College. I also know that the biggest drawback of the BB’s is not their vulnerability but the huge manpower requirement. Cheaper to build a new platform that has modern guns and doesn’t need so many crewmen.
Regardless of how effective they are, they look way cool.
Dry Viking,
I was Army Infantry until I got a Master’s degree and moved into Logistics. Commanded a support battalion in a separate armored brigade in Germany on the border during the Cold War. Served in three armored and mechanized infantry divisions, so don’t give me that combat arms chauvinism bullshit. I served a tour in a corps headquarters war plans division where we plotted ADM missions to destroy autobahn interchanges to slow down the GSFG tanks. Yeah, I know a thing or two about suppressive fires.
How many Kawaiti and Iraqi civilians were you planning to vaporize with your “suppressive fire?”
Don’t bother to answer. I don’t want this to degenerate into an inter-service pissing contest.
Wow! Sounds like you already went there. . .good thing you only dribbled it on yourself. . .
Take a rest break and keep your powder dry for the real bad guys and nice waste it on friendlies.
Dry Viking,
“…we haven’t been up against a military foe in Afghanistan with field units, or we would have needed it there.”
Okay, wise guy. The closest ocean to Afghanistan is over 500 miles away. Don’t Marines know how to read a map or do you think that NSF has unlimited range?
Jeez His Rock, don’t be such a jerk, I am not the enemy. You must have really been popular for folks to talk to.
You know very well I was discussing suppressive fire which you well know doesn’t just come from ships. That is what the King of Battle is for.
chill a little. Everyone isn’t your enemy. You also might explore developing a sense of humor. Life is too short to be so angry at your own comrades.
I am not trying to stir anything up in this debate, but let me add this bit of objective interjection. Both sides of this argument are legitimate. There are better technologies out there, this is without a doubt. The technology of warfare (as well as everything else too) advances astronomically every day. There are cruise missiles that are extremely effective and accurate, but on the flip side, the technology for adjustable targeting projectiles has been proven effective and very accurate also (please forgive me for not having the data and statistical reports available). This “pissing match” comes down to the strategy that the government wants to follow up with in their concept of current warfare. I think we can all agree, without a doubt, missiles are accurate to within a “gnats ass” from a 100 miles out. But, the psychological repercussions of a 16 inch explosive projectile, that is a lot more accurate than 250 yards now, has an impact on the enemy that is second to none. I am sorry, even if they were as inaccurate as 250 yards, if I had a volley of these rounds rain down on my ass, I am not going to be concentrating on my enemies movements and keeping them suppressed, I am going to be hauling ass for cover!! This has been proven time and time again. Air combat is not part of the discussion here, so it is irrelevant. The carriers have their own agenda and the discussion here is about the battleship. The battleship never should have been retired due to its ability to instill fear based on her “bark”, no bite necessarily even needed. But, when it is needed, it is very effective. Omaha Beach, Normandy, Viet Nam, Iraq and Kuwait. Another note to take into consideration here is that other Navies around the world are building bigger, getting stronger and eventually, there is going to be ship to ship warfare again. The Iowa Class will be called back into service once again, I can guarantee it. On the subject of “civilian casualties”, it’s a bitch to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and if these people had done something to remedy the situation for themselves, they would not be in that situation. If they truly wanted our help, they would not have anything to do with the warring factions. They would leave, knowing it is going to be inevitable. If they are too head-strong to leave, I am sorry, but they are in the same S.O.L. boat that people that live directly beneath a volcano are in. Tough shit, this is what they chose.
Leave your response