Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:06, 28 May 2006

Littoral Combat Ship is capitalized; see . Bbpen 15:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything on that page saying "Misplaced Pages must make an exception to their naming standards for this specific ship type." We don't capitalize "guided-missile frigate" or "air-cushion landing craft" or "aircraft carrier".... ➥the Epopt 16:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair point. On the other hand, nothing on the page says "Wikipedians should look silly by being the only ones not to capitalize LCS." Perhaps a distinction might be drawn between the Littoral Combat Ship program and its products, the littoral combat ships -- though this would still leave Misplaced Pages standing alone. Bbpen 17:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The class name

Earlier it was reported here that the name Zumwalt had been struck from the official records as the name for this ship. Did something change? TomStar81 08:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's really a change, but see this press release. Jinian 12:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Role section is full of errors

1) The Marines are not opposed to the DD(X) program. The upper ranks are actually strong supporters of the DD(X) program because it should provide the gunfire support they have required. CNN in this case is simply talking out it's ass and have confused opposition to retiring the two Iowas held in reserve, until DD(X) is launched, with out right hostility to the destroyer. They have only a small and inaccurate part of the picture in the article sighted.

The closest possible objection is some grumbling among the rank and file at losing the psychological presence of the battleship's 16 in guns. That's mostly emotional and based not any objective assesment of whether the DD(X) program delivers the required firepower for the practical requirements.

2) The DD(X) is not designed or planned to have a 5 inch gun, it is in fact designed in no small measure around a pair of 155 mm AGS. This will meet the requirements as defined by the USMC and the various laws passed for Naval Surface Gunfire Support. The author of the present article seems to be confused the DD(X)'s gun armament with that of the present Arleigh Burkes, which do indeed mount the inadequate 5 in gun. It should further be noted that the USMC was consulted fairly extensively in forumlating the requirements for the guns aboard the Zumwalts. As such, they absolutely meet official Marine Corps requirements for Naval Surface Gunfire Support.

3) Regarding the Iowa class battleships, the cost figure of $250,000 covers the costs of maintaining them in Class B reserve. They are not in position where they could be readily recalled to service at this point; at best they would require the modernization before effective use could be made of them. As such the numbers provided are deceptive indeed.

In addition to the aforementioned fact that the battleships are not ready to sorty at a moments notice, is the fact that both of the Iowas run on technology which was phased out of service in the 1940s and 50s. They require a crew of at least 1500, more than 3 times that of most vessels the Navy runs today, as well as specialists which the Navy has not had since the mid 1970s at least (during their 1980s activation they depended heavily in recalled and retrained personel). Needless to say, that is even less an option today.

Furthermore, the 16 in shells ceased production in the 1940s; there have been no new shells since then. There is also no longer the technology necessary to produce new ones. This means that the Navy has store 60 year old shells, as well as other necessary items, which is non-replaceable. Needless to say, maintaining all these supplies adds considerably to the cost incurred for preserving the ships them selves.

Riight. So General Hagee is just "rank and file" when he says that loss of naval surface fire support from battleships would place his troops "at considerable risk." http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2005/12/05/177720.html --Mmx1 02:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I would point out that the tiny snippet provided is NOT opposition to the DD program, as Novak and the wikipedian claim. General Hagee objects to the withdrawing of the Iowa-class battleships before any of the DD vessels actually hit the water. The official Marine Corps position, which the Commandant of the Marines would no doubt have a great deal of influence over, is that the pair of 155 mm AGS aboard the DD will indeed meet the requirements for NSGS. So the quote in question is nothing more than an out of context fragment. - AM2783 11:12, 28 April 2006

His rank does not mean he was speaking authoritatively. Some of those numbers in the article are hopelessly optimistic. And the talk about battleships is useless at this point - all the battleships are now stricken from the Navy list and will never go in harms way again. I agree that the Role section should be seriously edited. Spejic 07:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• I will point out that the role section adress concerns from the marines, it does not in any way present the marine stance on either the DDX destroyer or the Iowa-class battleships. In addition, most of the points you have raised under the number heading "3" are discussed at length in the Reactivation Potential in the article Iowa class battleship. TomStar81 03:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please go ahead and fix it as you see fit - or at least suggest a change here to be discussed. Spejic 06:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Will do. The overhaul may take a day or two get up. TomStar81 02:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Last Battleships Retired in 1992

The last of the Iowa-Class battleships, USS Missouri, retired in May of 1992. While there is plenty to argue about regarding fire-support for ground forces, the battleships are out of the picture. Few experts believe the mothballed ships could be affordably restored to active duty status.

I know. Its so...DEPRESSING. I curse this day and age, as I am: 1,000 years to late for the sword, 300 years to late for the US Revolutionary War, 200 years too late for the US Civil War, 65 Years to late for WWII, 15 years to late for the Cold War, and now I am officially 14 years to late to serve on a battleship. Its not fair. As per your question, I guess accu-ammo fired from the DDX will work; alternatively, the US could look at the feesablility of maybe redesigning one of there battleship classes with todays weaponry requirements. Consider what a Montana-class battleship could do with VLS cells and a nuclear reactor... TomStar81 03:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

DD(X) program not reduced to two ships yet.

"In April 2006, the DD(X) was cut back two 2 ships, effectively ending the DD(X) program as the Navy's future surface combatant and ending the future of the CG(X)."

Wrong on all parts.

Even the chairman of the House committee wants to see the CG(X) program continue and his move to cut the DD(X) program down to two ships is a long ways from becoming law.

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/060505biw.shtml Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine, said the House action should make little difference to BIW because the panel still endorsed designing the new ship and the Navy hadn't expected to start construction on the second ship until 2008.

-HJC