It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Travellar
I'll throw in my 2 cents, I guess.
Pro:
Even in the last configuration, an Iowa class Battleship is far more than a match for any other class of ship in the world, and can provide NGFS up to (theoreticly) 50-60 miles with ERGM rounds.
Con: Large crew size, out dated technology, and less residual free space than most people believe. (trust me, warships are crowded inside!)
Rebuttle (pro):
Yes, the Iowa class Battleship over matches any other surface combatant in the world. So much so it's like using a nuclear plant on a private yacht to ensure you have plenty of power. Purpose built ships able to engage and defeat the most powerful warships practicle, instead of all out most powerful warships imaginable, can be run cheaper and in greater numbers.
Rebuttle (con)
A large crew size means plenty of extra bodies to go do VBSS work. Also, BAttleship crews are not larger than Aircraft carrier crews. The biggest supply of 'free space' available is in the magazines, which are precicely what most arguments lean towards updating anyhow.
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
So far most “arguments “ I have read for their retention have been emotional appeals to sentiment and tradition .
Naval Gunfire Support Through The 21st Century
CSC 1993
SUBJECT AREA - Artillery
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title: NAVAL GUNFIRE SUPPORT THROUGH THE 21ST CENTURY.
Author: Major Robert E. Hellar CG #2
Thesis: There remains a need for naval gunfire, and the Iowa
class battleships are ready and able to fill the need through the
21st century.
Background: As the soviet threat disappears, the United States
Navy has adopted a strategy called "FROM THE SEA. This strategy
calls for a shift in priorities from blue water to littoral
operations and amphibious support. However, the recent
decommissioning of the battleship fleet has left the navy without
adequate naval gunfire support. While air-power has proven to be
a formidable supporting arm, there still exist a need for naval
gunfire. Technological developements have greatly improved the
effectiveness of the battleships. Naval plans are to develope a
naval gunfire alternative to the battleship. The cost of these
programs is estimated at 1 billion dollars or more, and may not
be available until the turn of the century. World events may not
wait until the year 2000. The Iowa class battleships are ready
and able to to fill the naval gunfire support role through the
21st century.
Recommendation: Recommision the Iowa class battleships, to
provide naval gunfire support until a suitable replacement is
developed.
www.globalsecurity.org...
Originally posted by LCKob
...along with enhanced sonar and asw capabilities to help protect from below so to speak.
Originally posted by Travellar
Originally posted by LCKob
...along with enhanced sonar and asw capabilities to help protect from below so to speak.
well, gutting the whole thing just to use the hull and armor belt seems a bit odd. As for sonar and ASW capabilities, the hull design has a lot to do with that. (and isn't very well designed for it)
Pounding real estate flat is one of three things Battleships do well. The Second is blowing up other ships (As soon as a Battleship puts one round on target, no combatant on earth gets to keep playing. Cruisers and Destroyers will simply go away under the impact of one of those shells) The third thing Battleships do well is scaring the bejeebees out of any potential adversaries. Carriers and ARGS also do this very well.
Beginning in 2007–2010, 22 of the 24 88-inch (2.2 m) diameter Trident missile tubes will be modified to contain large vertical launch systems (VLS), one configuration of which will be a cluster of seven Tomahawk missiles. If the maximum of 154 Tomahawks were loaded, one Ohio-class SSGN would carry an entire Battle Group's equivalent of cruise missiles.
Originally posted by Travellar
There are other hulls which a proper refit can turn into effective missile platforms.
Beginning in 2007–2010, 22 of the 24 88-inch (2.2 m) diameter Trident missile tubes will be modified to contain large vertical launch systems (VLS), one configuration of which will be a cluster of seven Tomahawk missiles. If the maximum of 154 Tomahawks were loaded, one Ohio-class SSGN would carry an entire Battle Group's equivalent of cruise missiles.
and they're a little harder to find so you can try shooting at them. Heck, if you're a little despot island, doing "I hate the US" things, can you be sure there isn't one out there right now?
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Ahem. There are many things a battleship can do, but the thing it does do, it does better than anything that can be deployed ASAP and no, submarines cannot provide the kind of support required by the US Marine Corps. In fact, the only argument for keeping battleships in the fleet is to provide naval gunfire for Marines. If the nation finds that need unworthy of being filled, then forget it. They'll be tourist attractions. Everything else is just prattle.
In 1969, Captain Edward Snyder of the New Jersey was quoted as saying that the AP shell is capable of penetrating up to 32 feet of reinforced concrete. The HC round carries a high-explosive charge of 154 pounds. The maximum rang eis 41,622 yards when fired with the normal propelling charge of 660 pounds, with a muzzle velocity of 2,690 feet per second.
Typical armor penetration of the 2,700 pound Mk 7 AP projectile is 14.5 inches of horizontal armor at a range of 42,300 yards (angle of fall is 53.25 degrees and a striking velocity of 1,686 feet per second.) At "point blank" range, with a striking velocity of 2,500 feet per second, the vertical armor penetration is 32.62 inches.
www.battleship.org...