Yeru - of course that was my opinion - no "facts" necessary - I was just answering Minimus' question! (get the application for that bingo hall yet?) You truly are one of my favorite right wings!
How Do You Feel About President Bush?
by minimus 64 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
-
Crazy151drinker
Xandar,
The costs of modernizing the 4 Iowa Class BB was cheaper than building a new tin can destroyer. If you looked at the firepower, protection, and intimidation provided by a Battleship you will see it was a wise military AND economic decision. A new carrier costs about $5 Billion and it cant take a hit. Look at the Billion dollar U.S. Cole. YOu see the hole that little boat put in it??? That blast would have chipped the paint on an Iowa, thats it. Another consideration is the fact that the U.S. Navy has no real Gun Support for Marine Troop Landings. If you look at the Gulf War the Navy used the BB to soften up the shore. 16" guns put a lot bigger dent in things than puny the single 5" guns on most naval ships. Sadly, the Navy has turned 2 of the Iowas into mussems and the other 2 I believe are still mothballed. Basicly the Navy doesnt have the crew to man them.
Good luck Marines!
-
back2dafront
He's smart in the sense that he knows how to manipulate the country into giving him support.
So many people trust these guys, just like so many people trust the borg. You think the borg REALLY cares about people? You've seen how many lives they've wrecked by means of their stupid, uncaring rules and regulations, yet people still think they actually care about people. All they do is paint a pretty picture in order to gain members, and thus aid in pushing their REAL agenda forward.
"By their fruits you will recognize them...."
One only has to do a little research into the family history of the Bush's to realize these guys are nothing short of crooks.
Your insecure need to trust and believe in someone is the only thing that must blind you to these numerous signs.
The government is stripping all of us of our rights right beneath our noses - some see it for what it's worth, others see it and refuse to believe it. They quickly and quietly pass laws and we find out after the fact. They're setting us up for a drastic, major change in how things are run in America. See the signs now and recognize, or choose not to. When their plot comes to light, you'll finally believe, but it'll be too late.
Why any of you think you can trust a man that sent 154 people to death row in 5 years is beyond me. He obviously has no problem sending anyone he deems evil to his/her death.
Keep putting your trust in man - you'll find out sooner or later it's to no avail.
-
Xander
The Navy spent about $1.7 billion to modernize and reactivate the four Iowa class battleships
Congress appropriated $3.6 billion for construction of 4 new destroyers in fiscal year 1997
So, at .9 billion a destroyer, the Navy could have had two brand-spanking new Arleigh Burkes for the cost of modernizing the Iowas - and that's just out the gate costs. Maintenance on the Iowas was a nightmare (nobody MAKES any of those parts any more) - estimated at 68.3 million dollars a year. Also, the crew costs were higher, as well.
Compare:
Arleigh Burke Iowa 23 officers 65 officers 300 enlisted 1,450 enlisted 0 marines 58 marines You'll note nearly 3-4x the crew.
A new carrier costs about $5 Billion and it cant take a hit
Actually, a carrier can take quite a FEW hits. And carriers are FAR more versatile than battleships. Sure, the Iowas were used in Desert Storm to 'soften up the defense'. They would have been REAL useful in our Afghanistan campaign, wouldn't they? Carriers sure were! A carrier can hit any target on the planet. A battleship cannot.
blast would have chipped the paint on an Iowa, thats it
Really? The torpedo that crippled the Bismark carried roughly as much explosive. I think you'll find that where the attack hits is more important that the payload. A carrier could survive such an attack just as easily as the Iowa, but the point is irrelevant, as we certainly cannot replace every destroyer and frigate in our fleet with a carrier or battleship - we will always need the smaller craft, and they will always be a more tempting target to terrorist attacks (because they can be damaged meaningfully).
(Naval history is something of a favorite topic of mine)
Edited by - Xander on 24 January 2003 14:51:6
-
Crazy151drinker
As a Naval Historian would you rather be on a Battleship when taking a torpedo hit or on a Destroyer?? How long did it take for all of those Battleships and Torpedo planes to destroy the Bismark??? Also, Torpedo's are below the waterline whereas an exploding boat is above the water line.
So you have 4 Battleships for 1.7 Billion or 4 Destroyers for 3.6 Billion. Which has greater offensive capability???
In Vietnam, did the North Demand that the Carriers be removed off the Coast or the Battleship???
Which A: Carrier or B: Battleship can deliever more ordinance?? Which provides Superior Troop landing support??? Can you shoot down an incoming 16" shell?? I know we lost a lot of CARRIER based planes in vietnam.
Carriers are great for what they do but they are not designed for Marine Landings. Neither are the Destroyers. And the dinky 5" gun on the Destroyrs is a JOKE. And the new exteneded range munitions are CRAP. They cant even take out a tank!! Do you think we could have had a succesfull marine assault without BB gun support???
True, the torpedo that hit the bismarch crippled it because it hit the rudder. Now if that was a Destroyer it would have SANK.
Carriers can take hits because they are Big, but a couple of anti-ship missles and its on the bottom. The same could be said of Battleships, they were made in the 40's, however, I would take the Iowa armor over the 1" crap that carriers sling.
Yes, we need small ships as well as big ones, however, I think that the big ones give you more bang for the buck. I read that they even made Nuclear shells for the Iowas back in the 50's...now thats scary.............
-
Xander
rather be on a Battleship when taking a torpedo hit or on a Destroyer
As I tried to point out above, comparing a battleship to a destroyer is not a fair comparison. Compare it to a carrier, and yes, I'd rather be on the carrier.
4 Battleships for 1.7 Billion or 4 Destroyers for 3.6 Billion. Which has greater offensive capability?
Against what kind of target?
Aircraft? The destroyer
Submarines? The destroyer
Surface ships that fire missiles at you from beyond gun range? The destroyer
Targets further inland than gun range? The destroyer
Which A: Carrier or B: Battleship can deliever more ordinance
Again, choose your target. Against Kabul? The carrier can deliver infinately more ordnance, since the BB can get exactly 0 weapons there (well, the BB refits have a few tomahawk launchers, bet IIRC, all those missiles have been retired, so still 0)
Against Baghdad? Same thing - the BB can't even touch the target.
I know we lost a lot of CARRIER based planes in vietnam
Surely you realize that was because of the asinine political restrictions on the air war, not due to any defect of desine or usage.
Carriers are great for what they do but they are not designed for Marine Landings
Quite a good point, but irrelevant. US policy is to not to do 'opposed marine landings' again.
I read that they even made Nuclear shells for the Iowas back in the 50's
True, but they never left mainland USA. Their usage was....questionable. The BB just couldn't fire far enough to be outside of fallout range. It was kind of a 'fire a broadside, and leave the area REAL FAST'.
Our carriers regularly deployed with nukes up until fairly recently - and still, as aircraft hardpoints are essentially the same throughout the US military, any carrier can be outfitted to be nuclear capable during any UNREP. It goes without saying a carrier could puke that nuke down WELL outside of any potential danger range to the CVBG.
-
Crazy151drinker
Xander,
Not having Marine landing capability is insane! Having that capability enables us to invade from any naval location. It seems to me that they would rather change policy than deal with the problem.
-
Rado Vleugel
I think the world deserves a world leader who has also an eye for problems that don`t affect the US economy or safety like wars in Africa that kill millions of innocent people. Bush isnt that kind of president.
Rado Vleugel
the Netherlands
http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.orgBTW
My favorite US president was Bill Clinton.Edited by - Rado Vleugel on 24 January 2003 16:3:34
-
siegswife
And he will not regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women; nor regard any god: for he will magnify himself above all.
And in his place will he honour the god of fortresses; and a god whom his fathers knew not will he honour with gold and silver, and with precious stones and pleasant things.
And he will practise in the strongholds of fortresses with a strange god: whoso acknowledgeth him will he increase with glory; and he shall cause them to rule over the many, and shall divide the land [to them] for a reward.*ducks out of the room*
