Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Iowa-class battleship
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Gunfire support role == {{Main|United States battleship retirement debate}} Following the 1991 Gulf War and the subsequent [[dissolution of the Soviet Union]], the United States Navy began to decommission and mothball many of the ships it had brought out of its reserve fleet in the drive to attain a 600-ship Navy. At the height of Navy Secretary John F. Lehman's 600-ship Navy plan, nearly 600 ships of all types were active within the Navy. This included fifteen aircraft carriers, four battleships, and over 100 submarines, along with various other types of ships the overall plan specified. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the Navy sought to return to its traditional, 313-ship composition.{{sfn|Holland|2004|p=183–184}} While reducing the fleet created under the 600-ship Navy program, the decision was made to deactivate the four recommissioned ''Iowa''-class battleships and return them to the reserve fleet.{{refn|"As stated in our testimony, there is current pressure to greatly reduce the defense budget, which led to the decision to retire two battleships. Because the battleships are costly to maintain (about $58 million to operate annually, according to the Navy) and difficult to man, and because of the unanswered safety and missions-related questions, the two remaining battleships seem to be top candidates for decommissioning as the United States looks for ways to scale back its forces. If the Navy also decommissions the remaining two battleships, the Navy's entire $33 million request for 16-inch ammunition could be denied, and the $4.4 million request for 5-inch/38 caliber gun ammunition could reduced by $3.6 million."<ref name="GAO_Potential_Reductions">{{cite web |url=http://archive.gao.gov/d23t8/142247.pdf |title=Defense Budget: Potential Reductions to DOD's Ammunition Budgets |publisher=U.S. [[Government Accountability Office|General Accounting Office]] |date=17 September 1990 |page=29 |access-date=8 August 2009}}</ref>|group=N}} [[File:USS New Jersey BB-62 salvo Jan 1953.jpeg|thumb|left|''New Jersey'' fires a nine gun salvo of 16-inch shells into an enemy troop concentration near [[Kaesong]], Korea (1953)|alt=A black-and-white photograph of a large caliber gunship on the left side of the picture with the main guns pointed to the top right side of the image. Smoke and flames can be seen from the barrels of the guns as they have just been discharged. A disturbance on the water generated from the pressure of the gun's firing can be seen on the bottom right of the image.]] In 1995, the decommissioned battleships were removed from the ''Naval Vessel Register'' after it was determined by ranking US Navy officials that there was no place for a battleship in the modern navy.{{sfn|Polmar|2001|p=127}} In response to the striking of the battleships from the ''Naval Vessel Register'' a movement began to reinstate the battleships, on the grounds that these vessels had superior firepower over the 5-inch guns found on the ''Spruance'', ''Kidd'' and ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers and ''Ticonderoga''-class cruisers.<ref name="GAO 1">Government Accountability Office. ''Information on Options for Naval Surface Fire Support'' (GAO-05-39R).</ref> Citing concern over the lack of available gunfire to support amphibious operations, Congress required the Navy to reinstate two battleships to the ''Naval Vessel Register''{{sfn|Polmar|2001|p=127}} and maintain them with the mothball fleet, until the Navy could certify it had gunfire support within the current fleet that would meet or exceed the battleship's capability.<ref name="Congress 104">{{cite web |url= http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/olc/docs/1996NDAA.pdf |title= National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 |access-date= 15 March 2007 |archive-date= 21 December 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20161221050746/http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/olc/docs/1996NDAA.pdf }} {{small|(1.68 MB)}}. 104th Congress, House of Representatives. p. 237. Retrieved on 17 December 2006.</ref> The debate over battleships in the modern navy continued until 2006, when the two reinstated battleships were stricken after naval officials submitted a two-part plan that called for the near-term goal of increasing the range of the guns in use on the ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers with new [[Extended Range Guided Munition]] (ERGM) ammunition intended to allow a 5-inch projectile fired from these guns to travel an estimated {{convert|40|nmi|km mi}} inland.<ref name="NDAA II">"[https://web.archive.org/web/20080923200449/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/hr109-452/title2.pdf National Defense Authorization Act of 2007]" (pdf) 109th Congress, United States Senate and House of Representatives. Section: Naval Surface Fire Support. pp. 193–94. Retrieved on 13 March 2017.</ref><ref name="ERGM">{{cite news |url= https://news.usni.org/2014/06/03/navy-taking-second-look-five-inch-guided-round |title= Navy Taking a Second Look at A Five-Inch Guided Round |access-date =13 March 2017 |last= LaGrone |first= Sam |date= 4 June 2014 |work= USNI News }}</ref> The long-term goal called for the replacement of the two battleships with 32 vessels of the {{sclass|Zumwalt|destroyer|4}} of [[guided-missile destroyer]]s. Cost overruns caused the class to be reduced to three ships. These ships are outfitted with an [[Advanced Gun System]] (AGS) that was to fire specially developed 6-inch [[Long Range Land Attack Projectile]]s for shore bombardment.<ref name="BAE AGS">{{cite web |url=http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/advanced-gun-system-ags# |title= Advanced Gun System (AGS) |publisher=BAe Systems |access-date= 1 November 2017}}</ref> LRLAP procurement was canceled in 2017 and the AGS is unusable. The long-term goal for the ''Zumwalt'' class is to have the ships mount [[railgun]]s<ref>{{cite journal |last=Sanchez |first=Lucia |title=Electromagnetic Railgun – A "Navy After Next" Game Changer |url=https://www.doncio.navy.mil/chips/ArticleDetails.aspx?ID=2984 |journal=CHIPS – the Department of the Navy Information Technology Magazine |date=January–March 2007 |access-date=13 March 2017 |archive-date=11 November 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131111060230/http://www.doncio.navy.mil/chips/ArticleDetails.aspx?ID=2984 }}</ref> or [[free-electron laser]]s.<ref>{{cite web |title=Boeing: Raygun dreadnoughts will rule the oceans by 2019 |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/17/boeing_raygun_dreadnought/ |date=17 April 2009 |work=The Register |access-date=13 March 2017}}</ref>{{refn|The expected performance of the current rail gun design is a [[muzzle velocity]] over {{cvt|5800|m/s}}, accurate enough to hit a {{cvt|5|m}} target over {{cvt|200|nmi|km mi}} away while firing at 10 shots per minute.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=34718 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120629080342/http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=34718 |url-status=dead |archive-date=29 June 2012 |title=U.S. Navy Demonstrates World's Most Powerful EMRG at 10 Megajoules |last=Office of Naval Research Public Affairs |date=1 February 2008 |publisher=United States Navy}}</ref>|group=N}}
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)