Page 34 of 40 FirstFirst ... 25262728293031323334353637383940 LastLast
Results 496 to 510 of 586

Thread: Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

  1. #496
    Patron
    Join Date
    30 Jul 08
    Posts
    294
    I understand the desire to keep the museum ships in their natural habitat but it is not sustainable. If the US wants these ships to last they need to be taken out of the dam water. Look at the condition of the Texas and the economic problems of saving her. I may not be American or a navy man but I can guarantee this scenario is destined for the Iowa's.

    In my lifetime (next 50 years), if the Iowas are kept in the water, I will see the deterioration and eventual scrapping of these ships. Instead of drydocking and repairing repairs DRY BIRTH AT LEAST ONE OF THE BLOODY THINGS!!!! Take away the water and these things will be around long enough that people will forget what they were for.

    Whilst in the US I visited the New Jersey and the Massachusetts. I remember driving the hire car listening to Master Yoda direct us to the New Jersey via GPS. I'd always loved the battleship but when I first caught a glimpse of the upper works all the hairs on my body stood on end. Finally parking the car and walking around to the Museum and seeing a full blooded battleship was just awe inspiring.

    This huge solid steel vessel put together by the best minds in the business to wreak havoc. A collection of machinery formed to bring nothing but destruction. Nothing else says Navy and War like a battleship. I saw a Nimitz for the first time at NewPort News and that is good but mainly because it was the first time that close to an power generating Nuke. They're big but so are container ships. A battleship just looks like it's ready to cause destruction even though a Nimitz could cause quite a deal more.

    This public service announcement was brought to you by new years festivities and of course alcohol. Happy New Years. And America, don't forget to dry birth a battleship for me - cheers.

  2. #497
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    How much would it cost to build a BB from scratch using the latest naval technological advances and gunnery advancements? Would tonnage increase or decrease? Would we need to get 12 guns for 3 guns per turret? Do we need to get armor belt?
    That all depends on the mission requirements. Do you want just those very large caliber sea-going guns?
    The electronics, fire control etc, would need to be shock-hardened against the blast of the guns.

    The number of guns is entirely up to the perceived mission requirements.

    In order to have a "true" battleship, you would need the armor belt.

    But...you'd also have to reestablish the industrial infrastructure to manufacture the guns (and the armor, if so desired).

    Probably easier and cheaper in the long run to simply return the Iowas to service...although as pointed out, you're going to empty your wallet to pay for the operational costs.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  3. #498
    Contributor 85 gt kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Sep 13
    Location
    Roanoke Va
    Posts
    439
    Well the good thing with the Iowa's is they all have water under their keels unlike most that are sunk into the mud and the New Jersey will last a long time since she's in fresh water (she'll need a new coat of paint every so often though). Out of the other 3 Missouri is the better off as she brings in more money I'd think so there's no reason why she won't get her scheduled maintenance. Wisky and Iowa are in pretty good locations so chances are they'll be safe. But the older museums do need to change something if they want them to survive.
    Last edited by 85 gt kid; 31 Dec 14, at 18:40.
    RIP Charles "Bob" Spence. 1936-2014.

  4. #499
    Contributor 85 gt kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Sep 13
    Location
    Roanoke Va
    Posts
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    That all depends on the mission requirements. Do you want just those very large caliber sea-going guns?
    The electronics, fire control etc, would need to be shock-hardened against the blast of the guns.

    The number of guns is entirely up to the perceived mission requirements.

    In order to have a "true" battleship, you would need the armor belt.

    But...you'd also have to reestablish the industrial infrastructure to manufacture the guns (and the armor, if so desired).

    Probably easier and cheaper in the long run to simply return the Iowas to service...although as pointed out, you're going to empty your wallet to pay for the operational costs.
    Is the industrial base really a big deal? From what Rusty had mentioned somewhere and what I've read we wouldn't go back to the armor practices of before (face hardening) we would use newer methods that are currently in production. I'd say you'd have to expand on that but that's better than staying from scratch? As for the guns it's the same principal you could use a loose liner system (easier correct?) or a one piece unit. With the advances in propellants and the fact that you'd have more accurate rounds meaning less shots fired then a one piece barrel could last awhile.

    Agghh who knows I'm at work and haven't eaten so spaceships made out of popsicle sticks and fireworks sounds feasible
    RIP Charles "Bob" Spence. 1936-2014.

  5. #500
    Senior Contributor DonBelt's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Oct 08
    Location
    Taxachusetts, somewhere between Boston and Wista
    Posts
    1,070
    The battleships were originally meant for surface warfare against other battleships and large surface combatants. Before WW2 was over that changed to AAW and shore bombardment. In latter years only shore bombardment. If you want to build new ones from scratch for that purpose, don't bother with guns. Have it armed with hundreds of tomahawks, atacms, basic artillery rockets. That will give it the ability to strike land targets from 26 mi to 1500 mi away. Adapt the M270 system into launchers and VLS for the tomahawks. If you want more anti surface capability add harpoon. Self defense can be RAM, ESSMS, the ESSMS can be loaded in vls cannisters. You can have CIWS if you like. Small arms- .50 cal, 20mm, 37mm guns for small close in surface targets, but being armored would provide a great deal of defense. Or just build more B-52's.

  6. #501
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by DonBelt View Post
    The battleships were originally meant for surface warfare against other battleships and large surface combatants. Before WW2 was over that changed to AAW and shore bombardment. In latter years only shore bombardment. If you want to build new ones from scratch for that purpose, don't bother with guns. Have it armed with hundreds of tomahawks, atacms, basic artillery rockets. That will give it the ability to strike land targets from 26 mi to 1500 mi away. Adapt the M270 system into launchers and VLS for the tomahawks. If you want more anti surface capability add harpoon. Self defense can be RAM, ESSMS, the ESSMS can be loaded in vls cannisters. You can have CIWS if you like. Small arms- .50 cal, 20mm, 37mm guns for small close in surface targets, but being armored would provide a great deal of defense. Or just build more B-52's.
    There's a reason why we abandoned the battleships. Any armor can be cracked with bigger bombs. The trick to survival is to not get hit in the first place. All new surface combatants are built with low observability in mind. They all pack long range surface weapons (missiles). The dead weight of armor makes ships exponentially more expensive and less stealthy.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  7. #502
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Hitesh, you cannot be that far behind! A single flight of a B52 Squadron can deliver more accurate firepower than an Iowa can do ... and without a target on station.
    I am not that far behind. I am just wondering the utility of modern BBs for today's climate because I keep hearing arguments of how we need to bring back the BBs. After reading several of Captain's posts on how incredible expensive it would be to bring back the IOWAs back online considering the manpower and expertise required. My plan was to see what kind of BB can be constructed and whether this modern day BB design would be of utility considering other forms of advancement in other spheres of weaponry. Then armed with this kind of info we can engage in this debate whether a modern day BB is truly obsolete or has some form of utility.

    Can a modern day BB deliver what a single flight of B52 squadron can deliver cheaper and in greater numbers and be more battle survivable? I am not asking about an IOWA but the 21st century version of a BB.

  8. #503
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    That all depends on the mission requirements. Do you want just those very large caliber sea-going guns?
    It doesn't have to be those if small caliber can deliver the same or greater amount of damage. It can be rail gun or electro-magnetic powered guns.

    The electronics, fire control etc, would need to be shock-hardened against the blast of the guns.

    The number of guns is entirely up to the perceived mission requirements.
    Depends on the firing rate and reloading rate.

    In order to have a "true" battleship, you would need the armor belt.

    But...you'd also have to reestablish the industrial infrastructure to manufacture the guns (and the armor, if so desired).
    But we have made so much advancements in metallurgy in the last 60 years. Why would we want to go back to 40s technology?

    Probably easier and cheaper in the long run to simply return the Iowas to service...although as pointed out, you're going to empty your wallet to pay for the operational costs.
    Then you are still stuck with 40s technology. Even the ship design is still 40s technology and haven't kept pace with the hydrology advancements.

  9. #504
    Defense Professional
    Military Professional
    desertswo's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 May 13
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona USA
    Posts
    1,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    I am not that far behind. I am just wondering the utility of modern BBs for today's climate because I keep hearing arguments of how we need to bring back the BBs. After reading several of Captain's posts on how incredible expensive it would be to bring back the IOWAs back online considering the manpower and expertise required. My plan was to see what kind of BB can be constructed and whether this modern day BB design would be of utility considering other forms of advancement in other spheres of weaponry. Then armed with this kind of info we can engage in this debate whether a modern day BB is truly obsolete or has some form of utility.

    Can a modern day BB deliver what a single flight of B52 squadron can deliver cheaper and in greater numbers and be more battle survivable? I am not asking about an IOWA but the 21st century version of a BB.
    You are seeing it. It has a stupid name given its namesake's failure to see the need for ships with its sort of capability, but whatever, USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) is about as BB as one is likely to get. They ought to cut to the chase and call it what it is; at least a CG-1000 if not a BG or BBG-1000, because at 15K to 17K tons, it sure the hell isn't a destroyer. No, it is not armored like the Iowas and their predecessors, but as others have pointed out, the three ships of the class are set-up to make maximum use of the technology that it is available today, from the angle of the dangle, to reactive armor, to massive amounts of Kevlar, to the "citadel system" for CBR defense, to electronic means of "spoofing" the opponent's systems, to "shooting the archer and not the arrow," to "strategic speed," to, on, and on, and on, ad nauseam.

    To DonBelt though, you gotta give me something better for ASuW though, because Harpoon is a POS. Just sayin.'

  10. #505
    Patron
    Join Date
    30 Jul 08
    Posts
    294
    Ah-hem.

    The Zumwalt's have had their long range guided projectiles cancelled. That ability was what was supposed to give the marines their naval fire support wasn't it?

    Therefore Trump will have to bring back the BATTLESHIPS!!!!

    OHHHHHHHH YEEEAAAAAHHH!

    I recommend bringing all 4 back into service because it's not my money...

  11. #506
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,969
    Hmm, pry it right out of Rusty's hands???

  12. #507
    Patron
    Join Date
    30 Jul 08
    Posts
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Hmm, pry it right out of Rusty's hands???
    The navy would probably start throwing wads of cash at Rusty till he agreed to assist in the reactivation.

    Trump did elude to bringing the BBs back - I should send him an email.

    I could not think of anything more amazing then seeing those 4 ships sailing in formation, flat out, with rooster tails out the stern and 36 16" rifles firing in unison.

    I need to stop as I'm getting over excited.

  13. #508
    Senior Contributor blidgepump's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Jul 09
    Posts
    2,708

    600 Ship Navy returns .....

    Yes, the much vaunted 600 ship US Navy shall be returning to the seas after President Elect Donald Trump steps into office with Iowa Class - BB's leading the fleet.

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire 1765

  14. #509
    Regular
    Join Date
    07 Mar 15
    Location
    Pensacola
    Posts
    52
    Not renovating the Iowa's could buy a lot of 800K shells for the Zumwalt class and have more range.

  15. #510
    Patron
    Join Date
    22 May 09
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinytop View Post
    Not renovating the Iowa's could buy a lot of 800K shells for the Zumwalt class and have more range.
    Yes, but BATTLESHIPS.

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
  •