Page 9 of 40 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 586

Thread: Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

  1. #121
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    09 Aug 03
    Posts
    1,317
    On Saturday, May 14, 2005, at approximately 11:30 am EDT, a solemn moment of silence was held as the USS AMERICA slipped beneath the waves. She may be gone, but will never be forgotten.
    GOD BLESS AMERICA


    http://www.ussamerica.org/

  2. #122
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,742
    Quote Originally Posted by rickusn
    On Saturday, May 14, 2005, at approximately 11:30 am EDT, a solemn moment of silence was held as the USS AMERICA slipped beneath the waves. She may be gone, but will never be forgotten.
    GOD BLESS AMERICA


    http://www.ussamerica.org/
    Damn...
    “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. #123
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    30 Sep 04
    Posts
    778
    I think its great. I know it was confidential, but if any new pictures on the sinking or results of the telemetry come out, please post.

  4. #124
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,742
    Quote Originally Posted by Franco Lolan
    I think its great. I know it was confidential, but if any new pictures on the sinking or results of the telemetry come out, please post.
    I myself was and am in favor of the America SINKEX. I think it's important to know just what kind of damage a carrier's hull can shrug off, regardless of her fuel and ammuntion stores.
    The people designing smaller surface warfare ships are probably still poring over the Cole damage reports. In addition, they have the Samuel B Roberts, Stark, Princeton and Tripoli reports to learn from.
    But they've never had something as big as a supercarrier take damage to her hull from enemy or operational action. Look at what the Forrestal, Enterprise and Oriskany fires did for naval firefighting. I daresay that ships and crews that might have otherwise perished, owe their lives to the men who learned those lessons at a fatal cost.

    That having been said, I don't take joy or like what happened to the America.
    “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

  5. #125
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    30 Sep 04
    Posts
    778
    Ah, ok. I understand. Thank you for ellaborating.

  6. #126
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Hey that picture on the link is very close to home..lol Dam shame i couldnt get off of work to really get some good images of her but i did get to see her escort. Shame to waste a such good ship and name on an exercise. I bet she would have made a great museum like the Intrepid in New York City. I hope they give her name to a new radical super carrier. One that dwarfs all others including the Ronald Reagan and Bush.

  7. #127
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728

    Post

    I'm just glad that congress intervened and made them keep two as active in the first place. I just cant see letting them go (our battleships). Maybe one day before most of us guys are gone we will see them again at sea. But hopefully it wont be because of a war. Sorry guys i love all kinds of ships carriers, destoyers and subs alike but the battleship remains a favorite in my heart and always will even after they are gone. Nothing compares to the iron fist of the fleet !

  8. #128
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    "AEGIS"

    Aint Ever Gonna Intercept Spit.

  9. #129
    Patron Beaugeste93's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Feb 05
    Posts
    200
    This months Marine Corps Gazette has a pretty good article by one of the USNFSA guys about reactivating the BBs. No new information but it reiterates the USMC position that 5 inch guns are completely inadequate for NSFS needs in range, lethality, and volume of fire. He points out the the USMC has publically supported the reactivation cause for the first time since the early 90's and that that the BBs are the only weapons system in existence or planned that meets the USMC's requirements for NSFS. (Actually vastly exceeds them). With DDX's down to 6 units planned with (at best) 2x 155mm guns, something will have to be done. Anyway, it gets the cause out to the Marine Corps and every little bit helps.

    There is also a scenario involving an NK invasion of the ROK. In the No-BB scenario, B52 strikes and PGMs are unable to keep the US landing craft (amtracs and LCACs) from being taken out. DDs attempting 5" NSFS are hit by 170mm counterbattery and have to withdraw.
    Then in the with-BB scenario, massive 16" strikes with and without submunitions pound the NKs to dust allowing an almost unopposed landing.
    Realistic? Maybe not. But it illustrates the point.
    Rule 303

  10. #130
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    It may be more realistic than you think.

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

    There was an incident during the first Korean war where an Iowa(i believe it was the Jersey), got into a dueling match with several battalions of DPRK heavy guns, and despite taking multiple hits(that resulted in zero serious casualties or damage), the Iowa was able to systematically anhillate all DPRK guns that 'wanted to play'.

  11. #131
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Beaugeste93
    This months Marine Corps Gazette has a pretty good article by one of the USNFSA guys about reactivating the BBs. No new information but it reiterates the USMC position that 5 inch guns are completely inadequate for NSFS needs in range, lethality, and volume of fire. He points out the the USMC has publically supported the reactivation cause for the first time since the early 90's and that that the BBs are the only weapons system in existence or planned that meets the USMC's requirements for NSFS. (Actually vastly exceeds them). With DDX's down to 6 units planned with (at best) 2x 155mm guns, something will have to be done. Anyway, it gets the cause out to the Marine Corps and every little bit helps.

    There is also a scenario involving an NK invasion of the ROK. In the No-BB scenario, B52 strikes and PGMs are unable to keep the US landing craft (amtracs and LCACs) from being taken out. DDs attempting 5" NSFS are hit by 170mm counterbattery and have to withdraw.
    Then in the with-BB scenario, massive 16" strikes with and without submunitions pound the NKs to dust allowing an almost unopposed landing.
    Realistic? Maybe not. But it illustrates the point.

    Really. what else would you expect from Steerman? Puts forth alot of the BS they are known for. Gives no new info. He has alienated anyone that could help with in the BB fight.

    Lets scrap them. My razor needs new blades, stop wasting the money to keep a ship we will never use in cat b storage. They have no ammo, no powder, nothing but old outdated systems. After the turret explosion, no one in congress will vote to bring them back. Chop them up or make tourist attractions out of them.

  12. #132
    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
    It may be more realistic than you think.

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

    There was an incident during the first Korean war where an Iowa(i believe it was the Jersey), got into a dueling match with several battalions of DPRK heavy guns, and despite taking multiple hits(that resulted in zero serious casualties or damage), the Iowa was able to systematically anhillate all DPRK guns that 'wanted to play'.

    Wow, except many of those targets will be terrain masked and not shootable.

    Those targets are also within range of JSOW or JDAM. Which now has a CEP of about 3 meters. Whats the CEP of 16" at long range?

    They can be dropped by P-3, S-3, F-18, AV-8Bs that will be there and already paid for. As well as B-1, B-2, B-52, F-16, F-15Es.

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

  13. #133
    Contributor hello's Avatar
    Join Date
    31 May 05
    Posts
    697
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    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.
    Ah, another stupid idea by USN.

  14. #134
    Contributor hello's Avatar
    Join Date
    31 May 05
    Posts
    697
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    With Scramjet projectiles the range of the 16" rifles can be increased to 4-600 miles.

    While we are waiting for the technology for those to mature, the 11" DARPA rounds from the 1980's will strike up to 100 miles inland.

    With simple laser guidance and onboard RPV's, the BB so equipped would be a potent ASuW and STRIKE asset, without equal in that 100 mile exclusion zone.
    Wow, that would be better than the 350-mile ranged bugs on the carriers thus making the BBs better than even CVNs.

    What would happen if the immmensely powerful totally updated and heavily armed BBGs with AEGIS, scramjet 16"s, RAM, SearamPhalanx, Goalkeepers for defense, cruise missiles, SMs, 11"s and/or 5"s being talked about in this thread and "F-14E"+F-35 armed CVNs combined into Carrier+Updated Battleship battle groups. This is a silly and totally unrealistic idea and probably will never happen but would definately be an awesome strike force.

    PS: Can jump jets (Harrier/F-35B) land on battleships or cruisers?
    Last edited by hello; 12 Jun 05, at 08:29.

  15. #135
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    " Wow, except many of those targets will be terrain masked and not shootable."

    Their aint many targets that a high deflection artillery round can't get to.

    "Those targets are also within range of JSOW or JDAM. Which now has a CEP of about 3 meters."

    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...

    "Whats the CEP of 16" at long range?"

    Less than it's lethal radius.

    "They can be dropped by P-3, S-3, F-18, AV-8Bs that will be there and already paid for. As well as B-1, B-2, B-52, F-16, F-15Es."

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

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

    The Iowas have 16" DPICM munitions already existing.

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

    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.
    Last edited by Bill; 12 Jun 05, at 19:07.

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
  •