Shipbucket

One other thing I'm going to bring up is this: What year are you trying to depict with this drawing. I ask because both Goalkeeper and Phalanx don't come online until about 1980.

One other issue with keeping a 14" gun in service is that you have to keep the entire logistical tail in service too. This includes the ability to not only make new shells or refurbish old ones, but also the barrels themselves. These are not cheap pieces of equipment, and the UK had serious budget issues in the 1950s and '60s when they would have been sold or scraped.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

But, but, but, you just sound like an accountant! Think of the troops!

Frankly, (thoughtful, well-explained) outright dismissal is the only appropriate response to something so inane as big guns on a 'phib. Might as well give it AEGIS, too.

The USN was finding spare 16" barrels and rounds tucked away in warehouses years after the last Iowa class was decommed.
Even today there are people (naval officers not "enthusiasts" like us) who avocate bringing back large caliber guns in the professional journals.
Marines especially like this idea.

It's not finding barrels and rounds, it's the machines that are used to check and fix them when they are found. The USN very very quietly got rid of that gear a few years back, and the stocks of un-rifled barrels withing the bast year. Also if the Battleship enthusiests were really dedicated they would have pushed for the engines and engineering equipment from the Sacramentos be saved - which it wasn't.

The large caliber guns are not coming back, and the sooner that people realize this the sooner the debate can move on to other more productive topics - like what the USN is going to keep as budgets shrink over the next couple of decades.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Anything older than a Flight IIA Burke is likely going to get scrapped/SINKEX'd (fat chance on exporting an AEGIS ship) and quite possibly the Ticos' days are numbered, especially since quite a few of the newer ships are coming back poor on readiness reports.

Date wise, in that configuration about 1983.

for modern fire support yes a 14 in gun is useful as long as you have HE rounds. Sea borne MLRS would be more useful espically with some of the more modern smart rounds.

_________________
"There was nothing wrong with Titanic when she left the Shipyard" Tim McGarry Belfast Comedian

Large caliber is a nice thing (a very, very nice thing) for artillery support. Large QUANTITY is a far, far better thing for a naval landing- especially in the face of the modern ability to use smart munitions for liquidating 'hardened targets.'

A modern fire-support ship should feature a large number of gun tubes in the 5-8" range, and a lot of rounds for them. It wouldn't necessarily have to be fast, or even expensive- just able to do the job. Anything that could provide continuous, long-duration fire support would suffice... it would just need more than the single gun tube that most naval designers seem to think is sufficient.

I guess that's why the Soviets went for MRLs one some of their landing vessels, weight of fire. One mass blow to clear the beach before you land and dislocate the enemy.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

That, and ship impact. Without complicated reloading facilities and magazines the MRLs are fairly easy to install and doesn't impact on the ships main mission.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.