Page 10 of 40 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 586

Thread: Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

  1. #136
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    "PS: Can jump jets (Harrier/F-35B) land on battleships or cruisers?"

    A harrier can land on an Iowa. Two of them in fact.

  2. #137
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    09 Aug 03
    Posts
    1,317
    Sniper:

    "A harrier can land on an Iowa. Two of them in fact."


    Has this ever been done? If so it escapes my memory.

    A little hard on the battleships decks I would think?

    But there is enough room I think as there is enough for four helos.

    I know you must have some info on this. Gotta link? Thanks

  3. #138
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    As far as i know Rick, it's never been actually attempted, but just going by the amount of physical flight deck space of an Iowa is what i'm basing my judgement on.

    I am sure it would not be good for the deck, as you stated, but it's better than letting a shot-up or low on fuel Harrier crash into the drink.

    If it was to be a regular occurance i'm sure they'd want to strengthen the flight deck, and add high temperature coatings to it.

    There was a USN plan to convert the Iowas into Harrier carriers, deleting the aft gun and replacing it with a 12 plane harrier and flight deck.

    Here are the details:

    "BB-61 Iowa-class Aviation Conversion


    In late 1961 it was proposed to convert these ships by removing the aft 16-inch turret and adding a hanger for 30 helicopters (20 in the hanger and 10 on deck), 14 LCM-6 landing craft and accommodations for 1,800 marines. A study was conducted and it was determined to be a feasible conversion but the expense involved ended this proposal.

    In 1979 the Navy proposed reactivating the Iowa Class under a two-phase program. Under Phase I the battleships would be brought back into service quickly with a minimum of new modifications. This was doen, and all four ships rejoined the fleet. The initial plan also envisioned a Phase II, under which the aft turrent was to be deleted and a hanger and flight deck added in its place. The hanger would accomodate 12 AV-8B Harrier STOVL jumpjets. The Martin Marietta version for Phase II had a V-shaped flight deck with two ski jumps on the forward edges, on either side of the main superstructure. The flight decks would measure 330 feet by 150 feet. However, by 1984 the plans for these "Battlecarriers" had been dropped."

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...p/bb-61-av.htm

    There's also a BBG-21 conversion on the net out there, that has the Iowas being converted to semi-JSF carriers, while actually retaining their full 16" armament.

    Here's a pic of that one:

    Last edited by Bill; 12 Jun 05, at 20:41.

  4. #139
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    09 Aug 03
    Posts
    1,317
    Yep thats what I thought I knew and remembered.

    Thanks for the clarification.

  5. #140
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    26 Aug 03
    Posts
    3,169
    So not only could it have supplied NSFS, but CAS as well

    It would have been god like.

  6. #141
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    In Iowa would need fairly extensive modifications to be an effective CAS/FOB. It would cost far less to modify it to act as a FOB for USMC AH-1Zs.

    Since the Iowa operates at a much closer proximity to the shore than the assault ships, it would offer much better turn around times until land bases were secured...if properly modified. Would probably cost a couple hundred mil to optimize it for the FOB role. As currently configured the Iowa flight deck could fit six cobras, but there's no hangar, so they can only be temporarily embarked.

  7. #142
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,009
    (m21 Sniper)
    Their aint many targets that a high deflection artillery round can't get to.

    (Gun Grape)
    As a artilleryman, I know that. You are aware that 16”/50 DOESN’T SHOOT HIGH ANGLE. So terrain masking does play an important role in what targets a battleship couldn’t engage. Iowa’s mounts have a mechanical limit of 45 deg/800 mills. A gun by definition is a low angle, high velocity shooter.

    FYI I’m also sure you meant quadrant not deflection.

    Deflection is the horizontal clockwise angle measured from the line of fire or rearward extension of the line of fire to the line of sight of a designated aiming point with the vertex of the angle at the sight

    Quadrant being a verticle angle measured from the horizon at sea level.

    (M21 Sniper)
    And to hit it with a plane you risk a pilot in one of the most heavily defended regions of airspace in the world. If a 16" target gets 'shot down', the CO doesn't have to write any letters to a grieving loved one, and the US gov't doesn't have to pay out a 250,000 life insurance policy nor replace a 100 million dollar aircraft. Nor do you have to expend a million dollar munition against a 50k dollar towed artillery gun...

    (Gun Grape)

    No JSOW high alt powered range is in excess of 120 nm (200km) at around $700 thous
    High alt glide mode range is 40nm(64km)

    JDAM is around 15 nm at $18 thous

    TacTom over 100nm at $500 thous

    All with less that 10 meter CEP.

    The CO may have to write letters for the next turret explosion. Since there will be poorly trained and probably undermanned like last time.

    (M21Sniper)
    "Whats the CEP of 16" at long range?"
    Less than it's lethal radius.

    (GunGrape)
    Only in Stearmans mind. Using the famous Pentagon overlaid shot group of great(?) shooting I see a 750 yd range dispersion at 25 thou yards and 8 of 16 having some effect on the 200 x 200 yd target. At 38 thous yds 3-4 have effect on the target area and there is a 900 yd range spread. And that’s an example of really great shooting.
    USNFSA says lethal area for ground burst is 145 yds

    Compare that to a 10 – 3 meter CEP for guided/smart projectiles already in inventory.

    No wonder the Danger Close distance for ADJUSTED 16” is 2 thous meters.

    (M21 Sniper)
    The S-3 is no longer armed. Putting a P-3 anywhere near the DPRK IADS would be idiocy.

    (Gun Grape)
    S-3 is armed. They fired one of the first shots in OIF. Navy Maverick, IIRC.
    But hey take out S and P 3s and we still have the AV-8s and F-18s , B-52s,ect

    "Now days those batteries would be found by aegis acting as CBR. Then targeted by TacTom or other DPICM round"

    (M21 Sniper)
    The Iowas have 16" DPICM munitions already existing.

    (Gun Grape)
    And how many Burkes and Ticos do we already have that, without mods already have DPICM and AEGIS. Not a reason to bring back BBs.

    (M21 Sniper)
    Wherever you got the notion that there are no 16" rounds/powder remaining, you were very poorly informed.

    (Gun Grape)

    I’m sure I was. I got the info from the USNFSA site. Its in the slides in the Congressman Bartlett PDF brief. Probably BS like the rest of the info at that site.

    Like those DARPA rounds that never got beyond the drawing board that will somehow be ready for use.

    (M21 Sniper)
    I'd disband the USMC(talk about a capability we DON'T need) before i retired the Iowas, but hey, that's just me. Just think of all the razorblades you could get for shaving if we junked all the obsolete garbage in the USMC inventory.

    (Gun Grape)
    What a “Sparks” Comment. But I can do those too..
    Like saying if the Army got some good s h o o t e r s they wouldn’t need Canadian snipers to be attached.

    Or a decent rifle like the M-40A3 for the long 1050 yd 7.62 shots.


    To be an unneeded capability Marines sure are used a lot.
    Last edited by Gun Grape; 12 Jun 05, at 23:09.

  8. #143
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    "As a artilleryman, I know that. You are aware that 16”/50 DOESN’T SHOOT HIGH ANGLE. So terrain masking does play an important role in what targets a battleship couldn’t engage. Iowa’s mounts have a mechanical limit of 45 deg/800 mills. A gun by definition is a low angle, high velocity shooter."

    I wasn't talking about the 16" guns.

    5" guns have a much higher elevation rate. Remember, the 5"/54 and 5"/62(and even the 5"/38) are dual role mounts, designed to have a secondary AAA role. They have plenty of elevation capacity for engaging reverse slopes and other such targets that are normally shielded from direct fire systems.
    However, i would also point out that a guided 16" munition can fly a non ballistic terminal attack profile that would almost completely mitigate the effects of the Mk7 16" guns inherently limited maximum elevation.

    Modern technology gives the Mk7 gun system the ability to engage targets that were previously out of the Iowa's reach.

    "FYI I’m also sure you meant quadrant not deflection."

    I'm quite sure you are correct. I'm also quite sure that despite my erroneously using the incorrect terminology everyone knew what i meant...yourself included.

  9. #144
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,009
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    "
    I wasn't talking about the 16" guns.

    5" guns have a much higher elevation rate. Remember, the 5"/54 and 5"/62(and even the 5"/38) are dual role mounts, designed to have a secondary AAA role. They have plenty of elevation capacity for engaging reverse slopes and other such targets that are normally shielded from direct fire systems.
    However, i would also point out that a guided 16" munition can fly a non ballistic terminal attack profile that would almost completely mitigate the effects of the Mk7 16" guns inherently limited maximum elevation.

    Modern technology gives the Mk7 gun system the ability to engage targets that were previously out of the Iowa's reach.
    .

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

    "Fully 85% of all military and industrial targets in the DPRK are within range of the Iowa BB's existing 16" munitions."


    And my terrain masking post was in response to that. Stop trying to make the ships something they arn't.

    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.

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

  10. #145
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,009
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    "

    I'm quite sure you are correct. I'm also quite sure that despite my erroneously using the incorrect terminology everyone knew what i meant...yourself included.

    I use to be a instructor at the blockhouse. Call it a pet peeve. Nothing personal


    I see your using Sparks battleship/jsf carrier pics.

  11. #146
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    " No JSOW high alt powered range is in excess of 120 nm (200km) at around $700 thous
    High alt glide mode range is 40nm(64km)"

    Guess what. That's well within the engagement envelope of the S-300 and S-400 SAM systems.

    "JDAM is around 15 nm at $18 thous"

    That's in the engagement envelope of the Vietnam era SA-2, let alone modern systems.

    "TacTom over 100nm at $500 thous"

    Tactom is 1500nm.

    "All with less that 10 meter CEP."

    GPS is a wonderful thing. Exactly why we should incorporate it into the DARPA 13" and 11" sabot shells as tested in the 1980s.

    "The CO may have to write letters for the next turret explosion. Since there will be poorly trained and probably undermanned like last time."

    There are competing theories as to what happened, but the gunners mates manning the turrets were quite well trained, and manning levels have nothing to do with the explosion theories espoused by anyone.

    "Only in Stearmans mind."

    Seem to have a weed up your ass there Marine. Stearman cancel your shore leave on you once or something?

    "Using the famous Pentagon overlaid shot group of great(?) shooting I see a 750 yd range dispersion at 25 thou yards and 8 of 16 having some effect on the 200 x 200 yd target. At 38 thous yds 3-4 have effect on the target area and there is a 900 yd range spread. And that’s an example of really great shooting.
    USNFSA says lethal area for ground burst is 145 yds"

    The lethal zone of the 16 VVT projectile is 2778 sq yards. That's far beyond what is required to achieve an interlocking killing zone and complete target saturation with the 16" HC-VVT projectiles.

    The lethal zone for a QT fuzed 16" HC projectile is 1024sq yards.

    The 2700lb Mk8 AP round is a sub MOA projectile, and achieves significantly better point accuracy, as demonstrated during actual combat operations off the coast of Beirut in the 1980s.

    "Compare that to a 10 – 3 meter CEP for guided/smart projectiles already in inventory."

    Since when is comparing unguided projectiles with guided munitions an appropriate measurement of the effectiveness of the LAUNCH PLATFORM?

    Put a SALH seeker or GAINS package on a 16" shell, then we can talk about what has better accuracy, a guided shell, or a guided bomb.

    "No wonder the Danger Close distance for ADJUSTED 16” is 2 thous meters."

    That's because the lethal radius of the 16" HHC-VT projectile is so massive. The DCZ is entirely dependent on the projectiles fuzing- as you full well know. The DCZ is 750 meters for QT fuzed 16" HC shells.

    Of course, i've already told you that in three separate threads now.

    "S-3 is armed. They fired one of the first shots in OIF. Navy Maverick, IIRC."

    Not anymore they're not. Do you think i make this shiit up or something? All mission related electronics were removed/are being removed from the S-3, and regardless, it's slated for retirement.

    The B-52 Harpoon capability was removed in the 1990s. I've told you THAT three times now too.

    "And how many Burkes and Ticos do we already have that, without mods already have DPICM and AEGIS. Not a reason to bring back BBs."

    There is no 5" submunition round in service in the USN that i am aware of.

    "I’m sure I was. I got the info from the USNFSA site. Its in the slides in the Congressman Bartlett PDF brief. Probably BS like the rest of the info at that site."

    Yeah, but you got it all figured out, right Marine? You know what all the experts at USNFSA who have commited years of their life wrt the BBs don't. Odd that your own service branch's commandant completely disagrees, don't you think?

    LOL.

    "Like those DARPA rounds that never got beyond the drawing board that will somehow be ready for use."

    Sorry skippy, the 13" rounds were developed and test fired. The 11" rounds were the ones that never made it off paper..

    "What a “Sparks” Comment. But I can do those too..
    Like saying if the Army got some good s h o o t e r s they wouldn’t need Canadian snipers to be attached."

    Those snipers were assigned to CENTCOM. CENTCOM also enjoyed a large contingent of USMC snipers in it's command. I guess that means the jarhead snipers weren't good enough either.

    Or...it means that the more capabilities in one mission area of need you can get, the better.

    You decide.

    "Or a decent rifle like the M-40A3 for the long 1050 yd 7.62 shots."

    The M-24 is just fine to 1000 meters and beyond.

    "To be an unneeded capability Marines sure are used a lot. "

    Yeah, used to augment the Army, in traditionally army roles.

    The USMC has not been used for it's INTENDED role since Inchon.
    I say scrap it. Roll the airwing into the navy, junk the obsolete helos and build razors out of em, and give all the ground troops and equipment to the US Army....that of it which is actually useful that is. Most USMC combat vehicles are obsolete lightly armored junk too.

    But hey, you guys will be getting your 110 million a copy Osprey soon. Then everything will be just ducky...

    For the price of 20 Ospreys, we can have two modernized Iowas. But to you....20 Ospreys are more useful i guess.

    To me, we don't even need the USMC. Hell, the biggest and most dangerous amphibious operation in the history of man was entrusted to the US Army, a mission which my former service performed brilliantly.

    What is it we need the Marines for again?
    Last edited by Bill; 12 Jun 05, at 23:57.

  12. #147
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    " I see your using Sparks battleship/jsf carrier pics."

    Someone asked a question, i posted a picture of a proposed battleship upgrade, without either espousing it nor slandering it.

    So i don't exactly see how i 'used a mike sparks idea', i just posted a picture of one. I honestly had no idea Mike Sparks was even interested in this debate.

  13. #148
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    " 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.

  14. #149
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,009
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    " I see your using Sparks battleship/jsf carrier pics."

    Someone asked a question, i posted a picture of a proposed battleship upgrade, without either espousing it nor slandering it.

    So i don't exactly see how i 'used a mike sparks idea', i just posted a picture of one. I honestly had no idea Mike Sparks was even interested in this debate.


    Can you read? Where did I say you used a Sparks Idea?

    Actually there are pics of the model used for the late 70s aircraft conversion about half way down the page

    http://www.combatreform.com/battleships.htm
    Last edited by Gun Grape; 13 Jun 05, at 01:15.

  15. #150
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,009
    " 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.

    (Gun Grape)

    And they are not within the range of the 5/38s. So once again the 85% of tgts in range and engagable with a BB is a BS statement.

    But 100% are in range of Ticos and Burkes





    (M21sniper)
    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.


    (Gun Grape)

    No actually much harder. Its not the miniturization that would kick our butt but designing the electronics to withstand the shock of firing. Why we have had all kinds of cool LGM/GPS guided stuff for bombs and missiles but very few for arty rounds.

    The DPICM, and proposed sadarm round for 16 was easy. Already have a base ejecting carrier round. Simple to change payload.

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,, 19:20
  2. Is the USA double-tongued Anti-Terrorist? or what?
    By Gazi in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27 Sep 05,, 23:50

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
  •