Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

Praxus · 08-27-2003, 00:15 AM

I think we should bring back our Battleships.

Back in the 1960's they made an 11" discarding sabot round with a range over 50nm, in the 1980's DARPA made one with a range of 200nm!

It cost two billion to bring both of them back, which is cheaper then the low rate production cost of a single B2 Bomber.

So what you have is a ship that can deliver up to 1500 shells to a range of 200nm and hit them acuratly. Not only this but you could put in 120 cell VLS and ESSM

New Barrel linings last for thousands of rounds.

Also do you think it is possible to put AEGIS on it, because I heard that it can't withstand the Guns firing?

The USMC NSFS Requirment is 96nm for Gun Fire and the AGS is unlikely to have this range with a deadly payload. Where as an 11" DARPA round could go out to that range and cause some serioues damage to the target. Hell if you felt like it you could knock out ships:-)

Anon · 08-27-2003, 03:12 AM

AEGIS was concept proven for use on BB's in the 80's.

It was to be installed on one by 1992, but they were taken out of service before it could be fitted.

There is also a new 5" round that has a range of 90 nautical miles(Not ERGM), and a flight velocity of Mach 4+.

I agree....the BB's should come back.

Horrido · 08-27-2003, 05:00 AM

Something tells me that Snipe and Praxus are going to get along REALLY well...

I still say nuclear new-build Montanas... :N :G big grin :G :N

bigross86 · 08-27-2003, 07:35 AM

I say as long as the guns are big and fire true, it's all good...

Praxus · 08-27-2003, 18:38 PM

Quote:

AEGIS was concept proven for use on BB's in the 80's.

It was to be installed on one by 1992, but they were taken out of service before it could be fitted.

There is also a new 5" round that has a range of 90 nautical miles(Not ERGM), and a flight velocity of Mach 4+.

I agree....the BB's should come back.

There is nothing else besides a Battleship that can provide effective NSFS.

Anon · 08-28-2003, 01:22 AM

Man, you sound like me.

The BB's in modernized form would be the most powerful non carrier warships in history(One Iowa would have about 10x the firepower of a Ticonderoga CG)....and yet we let them sit in cat B reserve.

The USN is run by idiots.

bigross86 · 08-28-2003, 04:09 AM

Well, the first step is releasing your anger. The second is getting a shitgun...

Stinger · 08-28-2003, 08:31 AM

Its a byproduct of the American all or nothing attitude... the Carrier Admirals felt they won the day in WWII.... no more BB.

bigross86 · 08-28-2003, 08:47 AM

Well, back then there were hundreds of light and heavy carriers (anywhere from 25-over 75 ships), and some of the carriers also had guns on them, so it was the best of both worlds...

ChrisF202 · 08-28-2003, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigross86

Well, back then there were hundreds of light and heavy carriers (anywhere from 25-over 75 ships), and some of the carriers also had guns on them, so it was the best of both worlds...

AA and MGs? Or like 14 inch guns from the BB's?

Praxus · 08-28-2003, 12:05 PM

Just think about this, you can run a ship for 75 million a year(about half as much as Carrier, not including aircraft maintance, aircrew cost, and refueling of U235) that can deliver 1500 Shells on target before it has to reload and it can deliver an additional 12,000 5" shells on target.

It can deliver well over twice as much firepower on a target within it's range as all the fighters on the Aircraft Carrier can in one sorty(they only did one sorty in the second Gulf War the second one was when they landed on an Airforce base to refeul and rearm)

No modern Anti-Shipping missile can sink her because she has armor over 15 inches thick, and on top of this you would have active protection such as ESSM and SM-2 Missiles.

Stinger · 08-28-2003, 12:16 PM

I didn't mean to infer I was against bringing the BB's back. Trust me the only one I know who wants 'em back more than me is probly Snipe here. I just know how the bastards that are in charge think... If it isn't high tech very new and expensive as hell they don't want it.

Praxus · 08-29-2003, 14:52 PM

I think the best possible sollution to the lack of NSFS would be a new platform, but this couldn't be available for at least another 20 years. So we have to

But this is what it should be like in my opinion...

Evolved Aegis Radar(whatever the newest kind will be in 20 years)
420 PVLS Cells around the ship
12 Advanced Gun System loaded with LRLAPS
6, 16 inch 62 caliber guns and automatic loader(each gun about 3-4 rounds per minute)

Atleast a 1200 round magizine for the 16 inch guns and a 8,000 round magizine for the AGS's. Each system should be able to be reloaded at sea for long deployments.

There should also be a couple helicopter pads that can hold ASW aircraft.

It should also have a few UAV's to spot targets over the horizen.

This would be the most deadly ship to ever be put to Sea.

bigross86 · 08-30-2003, 16:37 PM

Yeah, but how would the shock of firing the 16" affect the AEGIS computers?

Praxus · 08-30-2003, 17:04 PM

I dunno I heard that somewhere but it doesn't effect it.

08-27-2003, 00:15 AM	#1 (permalink)
Praxus *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-26-03 Posts: 3,237	Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate I think we should bring back our Battleships. Back in the 1960's they made an 11" discarding sabot round with a range over 50nm, in the 1980's DARPA made one with a range of 200nm! It cost two billion to bring both of them back, which is cheaper then the low rate production cost of a single B2 Bomber. So what you have is a ship that can deliver up to 1500 shells to a range of 200nm and hit them acuratly. Not only this but you could put in 120 cell VLS and ESSM New Barrel linings last for thousands of rounds. Also do you think it is possible to put AEGIS on it, because I heard that it can't withstand the Guns firing? The USMC NSFS Requirment is 96nm for Gun Fire and the AGS is unlikely to have this range with a deadly payload. Where as an 11" DARPA round could go out to that range and cause some serioues damage to the target. Hell if you felt like it you could knock out ships:-)

08-27-2003, 05:00 AM	#3 (permalink)
Horrido Staff Emeritus Chief Subversive Join Date: 08-04-03 Location: Secure, and undisclosed. Posts: 979	Something tells me that Snipe and Praxus are going to get along REALLY well... I still say nuclear new-build Montanas... :N :G big grin :G :N __________________ The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out. I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

08-27-2003, 07:35 AM	#4 (permalink)
bigross86 401 Ikvot Habarzel *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-07-03 Location: Ra'anana, Israel Posts: 3,148	I say as long as the guns are big and fire true, it's all good... __________________ You're a naughty girl, go to my room!

08-28-2003, 08:31 AM	#8 (permalink)
Stinger Contributor Join Date: 08-08-03 Posts: 714	Its a byproduct of the American all or nothing attitude... the Carrier Admirals felt they won the day in WWII.... no more BB. __________________ Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

08-27-2003, 03:12 AM	#2 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 1	AEGIS was concept proven for use on BB's in the 80's. It was to be installed on one by 1992, but they were taken out of service before it could be fitted. There is also a new 5" round that has a range of 90 nautical miles(Not ERGM), and a flight velocity of Mach 4+. I agree....the BB's should come back.

08-28-2003, 01:22 AM	#6 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 1	Man, you sound like me. The BB's in modernized form would be the most powerful non carrier warships in history(One Iowa would have about 10x the firepower of a Ticonderoga CG)....and yet we let them sit in cat B reserve. The USN is run by idiots.

08-28-2003, 04:09 AM	#7 (permalink)
bigross86 401 Ikvot Habarzel *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-07-03 Location: Ra'anana, Israel Posts: 3,148	Well, the first step is releasing your anger. The second is getting a shitgun...

08-28-2003, 08:47 AM	#9 (permalink)
bigross86 401 Ikvot Habarzel *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-07-03 Location: Ra'anana, Israel Posts: 3,148	Well, back then there were hundreds of light and heavy carriers (anywhere from 25-over 75 ships), and some of the carriers also had guns on them, so it was the best of both worlds...

08-28-2003, 12:05 PM	#11 (permalink)
Praxus *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-26-03 Posts: 3,237	Just think about this, you can run a ship for 75 million a year(about half as much as Carrier, not including aircraft maintance, aircrew cost, and refueling of U235) that can deliver 1500 Shells on target before it has to reload and it can deliver an additional 12,000 5" shells on target. It can deliver well over twice as much firepower on a target within it's range as all the fighters on the Aircraft Carrier can in one sorty(they only did one sorty in the second Gulf War the second one was when they landed on an Airforce base to refeul and rearm) No modern Anti-Shipping missile can sink her because she has armor over 15 inches thick, and on top of this you would have active protection such as ESSM and SM-2 Missiles.

08-28-2003, 12:16 PM	#12 (permalink)
Stinger Contributor Join Date: 08-08-03 Posts: 714	I didn't mean to infer I was against bringing the BB's back. Trust me the only one I know who wants 'em back more than me is probly Snipe here. I just know how the bastards that are in charge think... If it isn't high tech very new and expensive as hell they don't want it.

08-29-2003, 14:52 PM	#13 (permalink)
Praxus *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-26-03 Posts: 3,237	I think the best possible sollution to the lack of NSFS would be a new platform, but this couldn't be available for at least another 20 years. So we have to But this is what it should be like in my opinion... Evolved Aegis Radar(whatever the newest kind will be in 20 years) 420 PVLS Cells around the ship 12 Advanced Gun System loaded with LRLAPS 6, 16 inch 62 caliber guns and automatic loader(each gun about 3-4 rounds per minute) Atleast a 1200 round magizine for the 16 inch guns and a 8,000 round magizine for the AGS's. Each system should be able to be reloaded at sea for long deployments. There should also be a couple helicopter pads that can hold ASW aircraft. It should also have a few UAV's to spot targets over the horizen. This would be the most deadly ship to ever be put to Sea.

08-30-2003, 16:37 PM	#14 (permalink)
bigross86 401 Ikvot Habarzel *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-07-03 Location: Ra'anana, Israel Posts: 3,148	Yeah, but how would the shock of firing the 16" affect the AEGIS computers?

08-30-2003, 17:04 PM	#15 (permalink)
Praxus *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-26-03 Posts: 3,237	I dunno I heard that somewhere but it doesn't effect it.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A Pakistani view of the US: By a retired Pakistani Officer	gamercube	International Defense Topics	14	12-21-2007 10:00 AM
The Littlest Terrorist Dies....we're Safe !	visioninthedark	Political Discussions	90	08-29-2007 14:20 PM
USA encourages israel's aggression.	abdulruff	International Defense Topics	6	07-30-2006 09:22 AM
American to Inaugurate its First Flight From USA to India Tonight	Neo	Political Discussions	0	11-16-2005 13:17 PM
Is the USA double-tongued Anti-Terrorist? or what?	Gazi	The War in Iraq	0	09-27-2005 18:50 PM