Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!indri!unmvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!czwicky@ub.d.umn.edu
From: czwicky@ub.d.umn.edu (craig zwicky)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: USS Iowa
Keywords: battleships, Iowa
Message-ID: <5837@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 22 Apr 89 04:31:13 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: U of Minnesota-Duluth, Information Services
Lines: 58
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: czwicky@ub.d.umn.edu (craig zwicky)


A few thoughts on the Iowa 'situation':

I have heard some talk on the relevance of battleships in todays
world, but much of it misses some points I consider relevant.  I
think that the ships do have a purpose of 'showing the flag'.  Yes,
they do look impressive.  I think they will impress a 3rd world leader
who takes a tour of one.  No, I don't think they are going to make
them behave.  I think they have more effect on one's friends than 
they do on one's adversaries.

I, personally, think that the recommisioning of the ships was a good
move, but not from the diplomatic perspective.  As far as I know, they
are just about as unsinkable as any ship afloat (save for something like
the Nimitz).  In the past, this was a bragging point of admirals and these
same admirals were proved wrong with airpower.  Yes, they are sinkable,
but they are more survivable than most everything else.  They are
vulnerable to armor-piercing bombs (as all ships are), but I don't 
believe that an Exocet will cause severe damage.

There is also the issue of economics:  The first of these ships was
brought back into service for $326 million.  If one looks at the 
price of other ships, like the Ticonderoga class, 326 meg. starts to
look cost effective.  Yes, a great deal of the cost is in the 
electronics, but the battleship is a much more survivable platform
in which to place those electronics and will be around longer in
a serious conflict.


On the issue of the effectiveness of the guns:  I have doubts concerning
the relevance of the guns in the modern world.  I'm not sure how much
they are going to really do.  However, when they are used, they are an
effective bombardment tool.  The inaccuracies when they were used in
Lebanon were partly as a result of spotting problems when one starts.
And also, from what I read, that it takes experience to use them
properly, and the crews have not had as much chance to train as they
would, say, in 1944.

As to the accident:  Yes, accidents happen and they are unfortunate.  One
must learn from the mistakes that occur, even if they are painful as this
on has been (and is).


Does anyone think that the Navy sold Reagan on the idea of the ships from
the perspective of 'showing the flag' while having some of the points I
have mentioned in the background, a hidden agenda, if you may (though let
us not discount the Navy feeling some of pride of having such neat ships
as their new toys).

Questions, thoughts, comments?

c. zwicky
czwicky@ub.d.umn.edu
Duluth, Minn