Obama to Kill Tomahawk, Hellfire Missile Programs

[Ventanni]

but they also need room for all those jets

remember reading it somewhere on some military site

might have been a battleship proponet

still any one ship class is not better than any other

a battleship would still serve a useful role in a navy

You're right. Battleships do serve a useful role in the Navy. When it comes to shore bombardment and firepower, nothing can touch the Iowa class battleships. The problem is, the Iowa's are over 70 years old. Their role and platform are extremely limited, and they're very expensive to operate given their behemoth size. These are not small ships, but capital class ships that require a huge amount of manpower to run. They're not nuclear or gas-turbine powered, either, so their propulsion systems are a little more on the unusual side from a supply standpoint.

I'll outline the limitations of the battleships for clarity's sake, and this will help you understand why we don't actively use them in the US Navy anymore.

1. They're very costly to operate given their role. They're huge, require a lot of fuel, and have enormous crew requirements even despite the massive crew overhaul of the 1980's. You have to pay, feed, and support sailors, and this is one area the Zumwalt has an enormous advantage; 140 crewmen vs 1800. Big difference!

2. Very limited platform, and I'm not talking from a gun standpoint. The Iowa's were made back in the 1940's, and unfortunately were not designed for the electricity generation capability's needed for today's equipment. As a result, you can't just simply add advanced radar and weapon systems to the Iowa's, because there just isn't enough electricity to power them. That, and you can't just add the equipment to generate more juice, because it'd be way too expensive to cut through all that armor. The Zumwalts rectify this problem significantly, and as a result are a significantly more versatile platform.

***Power generation is also a big limitation for Nimitz class carriers; something the new supercarriers correct as well.

3. The Zumwalt artillery platform isn't as big as the Iowa, but it makes up for it in significantly greater range and precision. Now, I won't deny, the Iowa shells are truly terrifying. Even the Iraqi's got a taste of them during the First Gulf War, but the Zumwalt can rain destruction where the Iowa simply can't (~70 miles vs 25 mile range), and no matter the sheer ferocity difference, that's something you can't compete with.

With that said, I share you love of the battleship. It's one of America's finest weapons of war ever created. But it just doesn't fit in today's battlefield. What you're proposing is to design a brand new class of battleship; one that fixes the power generation limitations, aligns itself with the same fuel used on other ships of the US Navy, has greater firepower and range capabilities, and doesn't need so many men to operate. But designing capital class ships of this caliber are abso-freaking-lutely, ho-lee crap expensive that it's just not worth spending all that money for something like 2-4 ships. You can argue the expense of the supercarriers, and yes they are tremendously expensive, but they're enormously valuable political tools; something the battleship is not.

The new Zumwalts are the "battleship" you're looking for. They have their own share of criticism, but if you give them the chance, they'll impress you too.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I agree Battle ships are bad ass & cool but no longer realistic in today's world. Honestly a big barge that we could assemble off shore could effectively achieve the same bombardment.

 

[norseamd]

I agree Battle ships are bad ass & cool but no longer realistic in today's world. Honestly a big barge that we could assemble off shore could effectively achieve the same bombardment.

with guns?

the arsenal ship had a lot of missiles but that was a huge money sink that could not provide any fire support cheaply

more or less it was monetized

 

[velillen]

but they also need room for all those jets

remember reading it somewhere on some military site

might have been a battleship proponet

still any one ship class is not better than any other

a battleship would still serve a useful role in a navy

There is actually a decent amount of space that you could call non-combat related on board. They have a couple classrooms that are good sized that could be converted to other uses. But as much as the Navy is a warfighting force....they seemed ot have learned sometimes more training is better than just more equipment. But yeah i think most people would be amazed at how much "dead" space there is onboard as well.



As for the missile programs....my only issue is the fact nothing new is cheaper than what it replaces. Seems like everytime an upgrade comes out it ends up costing more rather than being cheaper. Sure it *might* be better but when a tomahawk is still working just fine is it really needed

 

[Vic]

Battleships have been obsolete since Midway.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

with guns?

the arsenal ship had a lot of missiles but that was a huge money sink that could not provide any fire support cheaply

more or less it was monetized

Yes an enormous barge that just has a crap load of artillery on it. Which to my knowledge the US needs improvement on anyways (artillery)

Related Battle ship question. I remember watching something on history channel about a battle that almost happened. There was a storm and US carriers were separated from their battle groups with planes grounded. The US fleet was essentially battleships and cruisers. This group passed a Japanese fleet of heavy cruisers and destroyers. Neither side knew they were so close because of the poor weather. They claimed if they were a bit closer it would have been the most epic naval battle in history because it was only heavy ships and no air power. Can anyone enlighten me more about this?

 

[dmcowen674]

What is obama doing to our military? The new miliatary budget cuts the funds for Tomahawk and Hellfire missiles to 0 by 2016.

The replacement missiles will not be battle ready for another decade.

http://freebeacon.com/obama-to-kill-tomahawk-hellfire-missile-programs/


Lets see:

Isolate Russia
Strain relations with Israel
Ease sanctions on Iran
Cut funding to Tomahawk and Hellfire missile programs

And people still have faith in obama?

We have to make cuts somewhere to pay for welfare. Can not raise taxes on fortune 500 or people like Warren Buffet. So lets just cut national defense.

What are you doing here?

Clearly you don't like it, leave immediately, Thank you.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Okay, this is insane. At the same time we're trying to present a credible threat to Russian aggression we're publicly gutting our ability to fight a sustained war.

There is no "gutting" going on, publicly or otherwise.

"The United States Navy has a stockpile of around 3,500 Tomahawk cruise missiles of all variants, with a combined worth of approximately US $2.6 billion."

and

"Since its introduction, about 6,000 Tomahawks have been manufactured, with 2,000 fired in combat. The Tomahawk is now facing anti-cruise missile surface-to-air missile threats. To counter this, the U.S. is developing a successor to the Tomahawk called the Cruise Missile XR (Extended Range). It will weigh 4,400 lbs, have a 2,000 km (1,200 mi) range, and a 2,000 lb warhead. It will be stealthier and use a combination of guidance and targeting systems. Each Cruise Missile XR is expected to cost $3 million.[30]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)#United_States_Navy

 

[OCGuy]

To counter this, the U.S. is developing a successor to the Tomahawk called the Cruise Missile XR (Extended Range). It will weigh 4,400 lbs, have a 2,000 km (1,200 mi) range, and a 2,000 lb warhead. It will be stealthier and use a combination of guidance and targeting

Gee, who woulda thunk it?

OP, let this be a lesson that you retain.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

In addition to the hilarity of the OP's core premise (that we are "gutting" our military by declining to continue fund redundant and outmoded missile systems of which we have a practically endless surplus), it's important to keep in mind that the US spends as much on its military as the next 11 countries with the largest military budgets (i.e., China, Russia, the UK, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy, Brazil, and South Korea), combined.

In my view we have long over-relied on military spending as a means of keeping our economy moving, to the detriment of other programs (including, ironically, veterans' support programs among many others), but regardless of where you come down on that, you can't reasonably argue that the Obama administration has underfunded its military.

 

[BUnit1701]

In the rush to judge the OP, we've overlooked the most important question: "What does God need with a starship?"

I never saw the movie. Why did God need a starship? Use spoiler tags in case there are folks still wanting to see the movie.

Isn't that what

Spoiler

Contact

was about? What a wretched let-down.

Star Trek V actually. 'God' needed a starship because he wasn't god, he was a powerful being trapped in a giant prison.

 

[JulesMaximus]

How many thousands do you think we need to have?

Among the fearmongerers you can never have enough missiles.

 

[zinfamous]

Star Trek V actually. 'God' needed a starship because he wasn't god, he was a powerful being trapped in a giant prison.

That's not how you spell Superman II or General Zod.

 

[Vic]

Star Trek V actually. 'God' needed a starship because he wasn't god, he was a powerful being trapped in a giant prison.

Really the worst Star Trek movie of them all. The Motion Picture is a masterpiece in comparison.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Star Trek V actually. 'God' needed a starship because he wasn't god, he was a powerful being trapped in a giant prison.

Great scene in a crappy movie

 

[Genx87]

Battleships have been obsolete since Midway.

I'd say before that. We just didnt want to admit it until Pearl Harbor.

 

[fskimospy]

Really the worst Star Trek movie of them all. The Motion Picture is a masterpiece in comparison.

Worst of the originals to be sure. I think I might have hated Insurrection more overall though.

 

[norseamd]

I'd say before that. We just didnt want to admit it until Pearl Harbor.

they never have been obsolete

they are no more vulnerable to aircraft than other other ship

hte only reason battleshipps are no longer made is because military types are not really ever looking at what is really going on and more concerned with how they can monetize develpement and procurement

the battleship has a cost benefit analysis like any other ship

the vulnerability of any ship to aircraft was demonstrated early on and many did not pay enough attention to it. only later during the war did many start to relize the power of aviation

the fact is we do not even have a real cruiser

here are some examples of a more modern cruiser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_cruiser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov_class_battlecruiser

 

[norseamd]

so if the dd21 is so great then why is the navy canceling some dd21s and ordering more aleigh burke class destroyers to deal with more powerful missiles

 

[Ventanni]

The DD21 (SC-21 actually) program was cancelled, but was then stripped down and to become the Zumwalt Class Destroyers. The Zumwalt Destroyer program created an off-shoot CG(X) program to replace the Ticonderoga Cruisers, but this was cancelled.

Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers are being chosen because the CG(X) program was cancelled.

Confoozing!

 

[norseamd]

The DD21 (SC-21 actually) program was cancelled, but was then stripped down and to become the Zumwalt Class Destroyers. The Zumwalt Destroyer program created an off-shoot CG(X) program to replace the Ticonderoga Cruisers, but this was cancelled.

Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers are being chosen because the CG(X) program was cancelled.

Confoozing!

alright just read on wikipedia that the zumwalt will have aircraft facilities

at least they have aircraft

so is the zumwalt vulnerable to missiles?

 

[norseamd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleig...#Production_restarted_and_further_development

 

[norseamd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer#Controversy

 

[werepossum]

Alien entities claiming to be god were fairly common in TOS...

Wait - alien entities claiming to be G-d are fairly common in TOS?

Man, I have GOT to start reading those things before I check them off!

There is no "gutting" going on, publicly or otherwise.

"The United States Navy has a stockpile of around 3,500 Tomahawk cruise missiles of all variants, with a combined worth of approximately US $2.6 billion."

and

"Since its introduction, about 6,000 Tomahawks have been manufactured, with 2,000 fired in combat. The Tomahawk is now facing anti-cruise missile surface-to-air missile threats. To counter this, the U.S. is developing a successor to the Tomahawk called the Cruise Missile XR (Extended Range). It will weigh 4,400 lbs, have a 2,000 km (1,200 mi) range, and a 2,000 lb warhead. It will be stealthier and use a combination of guidance and targeting systems. Each Cruise Missile XR is expected to cost $3 million.[30]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)#United_States_Navy

Two things. First, it's not at all uncommon to fire off a couple hundred a day in a normal regional conflict. In a conflict with a power such as Russia, where targets are mobile or hardened and efficient air defenses can be expected to lower the normal ~85% effectiveness to a mere fraction and take much, much longer to degrade, we could run low very quickly. Remember that we cannot dedicate every Tomahawk to a Russian-Ukrainian battle; we still have to maintain a credible deterrent world round.

Second, "is developing a successor" is a far cry from "has a successor". Defense programs in general and missile programs in particular take many years and most never make it into production.

they never have been obsolete

they are no more vulnerable to aircraft than other other ship

hte only reason battleshipps are no longer made is because military types are not really ever looking at what is really going on and more concerned with how they can monetize develpement and procurement

the battleship has a cost benefit analysis like any other ship

the vulnerability of any ship to aircraft was demonstrated early on and many did not pay enough attention to it. only later during the war did many start to relize the power of aviation

the fact is we do not even have a real cruiser

here are some examples of a more modern cruiser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_cruiser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov_class_battlecruiser

I really wish we had some cruisers or battleships (or more likely, battle cruisers) for use as bombardment ships. Nothing delivers shot weight per dollar like naval guns. On the other hand, the ships cost out the ass to maintain, and it's a blessing that we aren't fighting enough to make them cost effective.

BTW, "baby raptor Jesus" is the funniest GIF I've seen in a long time.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Wait - alien entities claiming to be G-d are fairly common in TOS?

Man, I have GOT to start reading those things before I check them off!

Two things. First, it's not at all uncommon to fire off a couple hundred a day in a normal regional conflict. In a conflict with a power such as Russia, where targets are mobile or hardened and efficient air defenses can be expected to lower the normal ~85% effectiveness to a mere fraction and take much, much longer to degrade, we could run low very quickly. Remember that we cannot dedicate every Tomahawk to a Russian-Ukrainian battle; we still have to maintain a credible deterrent world round.

How can that assertion be squared with the fact that we as a nation have fired only 2,000 of them collectively, ever? From what I am reading, we fired a total of only 288 in the first Gulf war.