World Affairs Board - View Single Post - Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

Anon · 06-12-2005, 18:50 PM

" No, You specificly said within range of the 16 inch guns"

And it is. Then you pointed out that many targets would be protected by natural terrain features. I countered by simply stating that those targets are within the engagement parameters of 5" guns, of which the Iowa has a large battery.

"Stop trying to make the ships something they arn't."

Pot, Kettle....black.

"And where are these termanally guided 16 in rounds at? You want to bring back a ship that has a limited role to begain with. Then design new rounds for it. There are NO SABOT, or ScramJet or Base bleed or Guided 16" rounds. They would have to be developed."

There were 13" sabot rounds developed and testfired in the 1980s, they achieved a range in excess of 75 miles. You act as if shell design is some arcane art. Designing new 16" guided munitions would actually be much easier than designing them for AGS or the Mk45 5" guns because the level of required miniturization is much less demanding.

Obviously if the BB's were to be modernized and returned to service, they would be doing so with modernized munitions as well. Just as was done in the 1960s(when the various DPICM munitions were introduced), and was planned in the 1980s when the Darpa 13" round was in testing.

"None of the battleships, if reactivated, has more than 12-15 years of remaining service life left."

Based on what exactly? The hulls themselves have 30yrs of life left according to the USN, and the same exact propulsion systems have been powering the Sacramento AOs for decades.

"You'll need to reactivate one just to do the test program on the projectiles which, following the example of ERGM, could run to 10 years. That's $220 million for reactivation plus $60m a year in operating costs just for the test platform for an experimental projectile."

ERGM is a radically ambitious effort to make a 5" gun perform a mission it is completely ill suited for. Mission being extreme long range precision engagements.

It's no wonder it's taken 10 years(and fallen far short of specs).

Designing a 16" ERGM would actually be much easier because there's so much more volume in the projectile casing.

"If the testing were successful and production commenced you'd still only have a round with a useful service life of barely a decade that can be shot from just 2 platforms."

For the moment, ignoring the fact that the USN says the Iowas have a 30yr hull life remaining, what we'd have is about 10 orders of magnitude more effective NGFS than we have now.

According to the USMC commandant, as of 2004, he supported activation of the two remaining Iowas, even if they were reactivated as is.

That speaks volumes as to your disconnect from reality wrt the capabilities of the Iowas, even now.

"After that there are no platforms capable of shooting it so it becomes obsolete. And that doesn't include the cost of the other upgrades."

I'll worry about that in 30 years, when rail guns may actually be feasible.

06-12-2005, 18:50 PM	#148 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	" No, You specificly said within range of the 16 inch guns" And it is. Then you pointed out that many targets would be protected by natural terrain features. I countered by simply stating that those targets are within the engagement parameters of 5" guns, of which the Iowa has a large battery. "Stop trying to make the ships something they arn't." Pot, Kettle....black. "And where are these termanally guided 16 in rounds at? You want to bring back a ship that has a limited role to begain with. Then design new rounds for it. There are NO SABOT, or ScramJet or Base bleed or Guided 16" rounds. They would have to be developed." There were 13" sabot rounds developed and testfired in the 1980s, they achieved a range in excess of 75 miles. You act as if shell design is some arcane art. Designing new 16" guided munitions would actually be much easier than designing them for AGS or the Mk45 5" guns because the level of required miniturization is much less demanding. Obviously if the BB's were to be modernized and returned to service, they would be doing so with modernized munitions as well. Just as was done in the 1960s(when the various DPICM munitions were introduced), and was planned in the 1980s when the Darpa 13" round was in testing. "None of the battleships, if reactivated, has more than 12-15 years of remaining service life left." Based on what exactly? The hulls themselves have 30yrs of life left according to the USN, and the same exact propulsion systems have been powering the Sacramento AOs for decades. "You'll need to reactivate one just to do the test program on the projectiles which, following the example of ERGM, could run to 10 years. That's $220 million for reactivation plus $60m a year in operating costs just for the test platform for an experimental projectile." ERGM is a radically ambitious effort to make a 5" gun perform a mission it is completely ill suited for. Mission being extreme long range precision engagements. It's no wonder it's taken 10 years(and fallen far short of specs). Designing a 16" ERGM would actually be much easier because there's so much more volume in the projectile casing. "If the testing were successful and production commenced you'd still only have a round with a useful service life of barely a decade that can be shot from just 2 platforms." For the moment, ignoring the fact that the USN says the Iowas have a 30yr hull life remaining, what we'd have is about 10 orders of magnitude more effective NGFS than we have now. According to the USMC commandant, as of 2004, he supported activation of the two remaining Iowas, even if they were reactivated as is. That speaks volumes as to your disconnect from reality wrt the capabilities of the Iowas, even now. "After that there are no platforms capable of shooting it so it becomes obsolete. And that doesn't include the cost of the other upgrades." I'll worry about that in 30 years, when rail guns may actually be feasible.