Page 21 of 33 FirstFirst ... 12131415161718192021222324252627282930 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 315 of 490
Like Tree9Likes

Thread: Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

  1. #301
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    22,784
    Quote Originally Posted by georgeky View Post
    The fact that they can rain down upon them if need be. I have been deployed to several places around the world right after their last activation, and everywhere I went folks would talk about the battleships. My brother served on the USS Saratogo during the trouble with Lybia. His battle group relieved the Missouri in the Med, and even our own sailors stood in awl of the Mighty Mo as she steamed past them. I seen her and the Wisconsin in port and heard many speak of the shear firepower that could wipe them from them this world. It is easy not to fear them when you are an allie, but not so easy for those who are not. I come from a long line of military folks going back to the Revelutionary War, I myself served in the US Army( to include combat in Grenada) and am aware of the psycological aspects of being outgunned. Just the presence of a battleship of the coast of a potential enemy will play with their mind, and sends a strong message.
    You are right. We don't have anything in our inventory right now that can do what the Iowas do.

    Here's the question: what exactly do they do that is needed right now?

    Shore bombardment? Sure, but none of our enemies live on the coast. They learned to stay far away from the shorelines. If they didn't, there'll be marines kicking down their doors at night.

    Withstand shell fire/missile fire? Anything that can launch something like that would have been identified and destroyed long before the 16" guns get within range.

    I love the battleships. I would like to see them return. But we have to be realistic here. Money doesn't grow on trees. We have to spend what we have on what we need. Frankly we don't need the battleships now. They bring nothing to the table that can't be done faster and cheaper by other means.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  2. #302
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    09 Aug 07
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    907
    IMO, the symbol of the US military for me is the Nimitz class.

  3. #303
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    5,660
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Here's the question: what exactly do they do that is needed right now?

    Shore bombardment? Sure, but none of our enemies live on the coast. They learned to stay far away from the shorelines. If they didn't, there'll be marines kicking down their doors at night.
    In a nutshell, almost any country that can pose a hazard to our health has a coastline. Anywhere from 25% to 50% of that country's economy is within 5 or 10 miles of the beach. Warehousing, shipping, factories, distribution centers shipyards and military bases.

    Think about it.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  4. #304
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,723
    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    In a nutshell, almost any country that can pose a hazard to our health has a coastline. Anywhere from 25% to 50% of that country's economy is within 5 or 10 miles of the beach. Warehousing, shipping, factories, distribution centers shipyards and military bases.

    Think about it.
    And railroads and airfields which we all know are used by almost every county out there.

    Ah, A reasoning voice. Just watching in the backgroud guys.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 21 Dec 07, at 19:07.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  5. #305
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    22,784
    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    In a nutshell, almost any country that can pose a hazard to our health has a coastline. Anywhere from 25% to 50% of that country's economy is within 5 or 10 miles of the beach. Warehousing, shipping, factories, distribution centers shipyards and military bases.

    Think about it.
    But we're not fighting nation-states now. No nation-state wants to oppose us militarity because we've bombed every single one of them to dust. Also with today's PC climate, we can't lob shells at anything other than very specific targets with pin point accuracy.

    I love the battleships. I would love to see them lob 16" shells at some shore installations. But the political climate is just not practical.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  6. #306
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    7,574
    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    In a nutshell, almost any country that can pose a hazard to our health has a coastline. Anywhere from 25% to 50% of that country's economy is within 5 or 10 miles of the beach. Warehousing, shipping, factories, distribution centers shipyards and military bases.

    Think about it.
    And all those Tom tubes we have on Burkes, Ticos and SSGNs can hit them more times, more accurately,at a greater standoff distance, with less crew and operating cost.

    For the Burkes and Ticos, they can do it while providing ASW, AAW and C4I
    at the same time.

  7. #307
    Military Professional dundonrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Mar 07
    Posts
    635
    the problem with a Tomahawk.. is cost... even the new TacTom's cost 500,000 dollars.. compared with what, 25,000 dollars for a 16" shell that can do more damage..

  8. #308
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Banff, Alberta
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by dundonrl View Post
    the problem with a Tomahawk.. is cost... even the new TacTom's cost 500,000 dollars.. compared with what, 25,000 dollars for a 16" shell that can do more damage..
    The problems with 16'' shells...is accuracy...you're saying that you can buy 20 16'' shells for every TacTom. Well that is an acceptable ratio to me, given the extended range of the TacTom, the far enhanced targeting and profile capability, and the one-shot, one-kill capability.

    I know the Iowa's guns are fairly accurate, but your still going to expend multiple shells for every target. You have to admit, for close to shore bombardment, the Iowa's are the best platform, but you just can not justify the cost of putting these vessels back into service for that specific capability.

  9. #309
    New Member
    Join Date
    05 Aug 07
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by HKDan View Post
    Rain down on who? Are you advocating shelling the coast of some poor country with that massive firepower? Is that even mildly politically acceptable?
    Polical correctness has never won a war. We didn't learn anything in Nam. Now we are in another no win situation in Iraq. When your enemies are unwilling to surrendor, you must kill them all. My old granddaddy always said wars must be fought to the last man. Poor or rich does not factor into that. Many a poor fellow turns to thievery, should we not put him in jail simply because he was poor. If he ask me, I would feed him, but if he steals from me or worse, I will have no sympothy for him.

  10. #310
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    7,574
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    The problems with 16'' shells...is accuracy...you're saying that you can buy 20 16'' shells for every TacTom. Well that is an acceptable ratio to me, given the extended range of the TacTom, the far enhanced targeting and profile capability, and the one-shot, one-kill capability.
    Beat me to it. In addition, how big is the crew of that Burke/Tico that can conduct many more type operations than NGF support as compared to the crew of an Iowa that has one very limited mission.

    And which one can you get to shoot at a tank column 30 miles from shore?


    You have to admit, for close to shore bombardment, the Iowa's are the best platform, but you just can not justify the cost of putting these vessels back into service for that specific capability.
    No I don't have to admit that. They were the best. Before the age of precision guided munitions.

    1 500lb SDB can take out the same bunker that it will take 6-10 rounds of 16" to adjust on and hit.

    What does that mean for me, the Marine going ashore? If the 500lb bomb has taken out the area I only have to deal with the known obstacle belt that the enemy has laid down. If the 16" shot it, I also have to deal with BF craters that have become No-Go areas for all of my vehicles

  11. #311
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Banff, Alberta
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by georgeky View Post
    Polical correctness has never won a war. We didn't learn anything in Nam. Now we are in another no win situation in Iraq. When your enemies are unwilling to surrendor, you must kill them all.
    Wow...um, and do you have any ideas of how you might accomplish this task in the Iraqi war without massive civilian casualties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    No I don't have to admit that. They were the best. Before the age of precision guided munitions.
    Point taken

  12. #312
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,723
    The Iowas were also not disigned for shore bombardment as a primary mission or function from their builders. They did adjust to it very nicely though with alot of practice.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  13. #313
    Regular
    Join Date
    16 Jun 07
    Location
    Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    128

    Post Battleship successor: Fleet Action Warship?

    With the decommissioning of the battleships, I find that gap has been left in our modern navies. No modern navy currently deploys any warship (defining a 'warship' as any ship that directly engages an enemy with missiles and guns, i.e: not a carrier) that can withstand a hit by anything more than small arms. From what i've heard, and I may be wrong, the USN's Ticonderoga CGs have only limited kevlar splinter protection and only in vital areas. The world's largest warship, the Kirov class has only 76mm plating around it's reactor compartment. This is unacceptable for the kind of pounding capital ships will take in the 21st century. It may be all fine and peaceful(ish) on the seas right now, but don't get lured into any false sense of security, the USN won't rule the waves forever, just like Britain didn't and Spain didn't. Eventually there will be war and when there is I think the sailors will be hoping for a bit more than kevlar to protect them from shells and missiles that get through the CIWS.

    What I propose is a sort of armoured missile cruiser (ACG for hull code) with a tonnage of around 20,000-26,000 tons. The hull would be about 200-220m long, with a beam of 28m and a draft of 9m, with a combination of longitudinal and lateral framing for strength (I apologize if that's impossible, I'm still learning about ship architecture) and a round transom. Bismarck-style internal watertight subdivisions would increase ship survivability. Looking at the example of the Kirovs, I think nuclear propulsion would be entirely possible. However, I believe the better choice would be maybe four Rolls Royce MERMAID electric engine pods. Moves silently, saves space 360 degree manueverability and enough power to propel the Queen Mary II. Now on to the topic of armour, the primary feature of this warship. I'm not sure what the modern standard of ship armour is, or if it has evolved past steel, but ten inches of steel plating at its thickest point, possibly reinforced with explosive reactive plates. Armament would consist primarily of 25 MK 57 VLS modules, a total of around 100 missiles including Block IV Tomahawks, Evolved Sea Sparrows, Block II SM-2s, and ASROC anti-sub rockets. A secondary battery of four 6.1" AGS mounts would back up the extensive missile barrage. CIWS would be covered by two RIM-116 RAM launchers and four Millennium 35mm CIWS. Radar systems would include an AEGIS weapons system for directing the missiles, along with AN/SPY-3, VSR and AN/SPQ-9 radar systems. 2 SH-60 SeaHawks would fulfill the anti-submarine warfare role, and a few UAVs would fill in the recon role. The whole would be, as the title has it, a Fleet Action Warship. This is a warship that deals out heavy punishment on land or sea, and can withstand heavy punishment in return. While it may not have the brute force of a ship mounting nine 16"/50 caliber naval rifles, it does have formidable missile capacity, combined with the un-interceptable shells of the AGS guns.

    So... thoughts? I've specifically thrown all the trends of battleships out the window. Big guns, excessively thick armour, i've done away with that and looked at it with fresh eyes and I think this ship could fill in the gap that the battleship left in the line of battle as a primary combat warship.
    Last edited by HoratioNelson; 12 Jan 08, at 02:40.

  14. #314
    Contributor ace16807's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Jan 08
    Posts
    725
    At this point of time, there isn't a demand for warships such as what you suggested. The only two navies I would even consider near matching would be the USN and VMF. In the chance that these two navies actually do engage, we are looking at a huge war on our hands, and possibly mutual destruction. Russia and the US both realize that, and chances are they won't go to war in the first place.

  15. #315
    Contributor Tin Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jun 07
    Location
    In the `shires.
    Posts
    658
    Quote Originally Posted by HoratioNelson View Post
    However, I believe the better choice would be maybe four Rolls Royce MERMAID electric engine pods. Moves silently, saves space 360 degree manueverability and enough power to propel the Queen Mary II. .
    Sorry to nitpick but podded propulsion is a bad idea for a warship. Explosive concussion can knock shafts out of alignment and as the pods are isolated there would be no way to repair them at sea....This propulsion set up was rejected for the RN CVF.

    Isn`t the USN proposing a super cruiser of some 25,000 T? The CG(X)
    25,000-ton cruiser under consideration - Navy News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Navy Times

    This would actually be a BMD warship, nuclear powered producing around 100 MW `s of power, along with a fleet of smaller Zumwalt based cruisers with Tumbledown hulls of around 14,000 T displacement.
    Last edited by Tin Man; 12 Jan 08, at 02:13.
    "Liberty is a thing beyond all price.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Littlest Terrorist Dies....we're Safe !
    By visioninthedark in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 29 Aug 07,, 20:20
  2. USA encourages israel's aggression.
    By abdulruff in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 30 Jul 06,, 15:22
  3. Is the USA double-tongued Anti-Terrorist? or what?
    By Gazi in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28 Sep 05,, 00:50

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •