Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

USS Iowa: that will teach the Iranians a lesson

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
At least... according to the following article the US should deploy the USS Iowa in the Gulf.
Will these beautiful ships are the ultimate reflection of strength and power, would it make sense to send it to the Gulf?

It might be very powerful, but would it be possible to prevent it from getting destroyed by air raids? I've seen pictures of Iranian stealth planes, but I am sure there are other people on here knowing better what the chance is such a ship would be destroyed, which would be a major psychological victory for Iran (a la Pearl Harbor).





We're Gonna Need A Bigger Boat

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 9/22/2006

World War III: At a time when Iran is threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz in any conflict, Congress and the U.S. Navy want to scuttle our secret weapon against the ayatollahs — the battleship.

In an age of predator drones, cruise missiles and precision-guided munitions, you wouldn't think that what many Americans visit on display at a museum would be a strategic weapon in the event of a conflict with Iran. But the 45,000-ton armored behemoth known as an Iowa-class battleship may be just what we need.

Source



Offtopic:

This warship does definitely looks promising and futuristic:

img244.imageshack.us...

[edit on 23-9-2006 by Mdv2]




posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   
They (the Iranians) wouldn't even get close enough to the Iowa, or the others of it's class, to even inflict a scratch on the side of the ship. Remember, it's armed with Tomahawk cruise missles..... they have a 1700NM range. Even if they got close enough with a sub, by the time they fired a few torpedoes, which they'd need quite a few of just to disable the ship, they'd get blown out of the water.

Anyway, a ship like that is going to be part of a taskforce, so it'll be surrounded by a screen of cruisers and destroyers on the surface and attack subs looking for targets. Even if it went in alone, it'd just standoff and take out all the necessary targets it had to. Way out of range of the Iranians......and if the Iranians used nukes, you can be certain those Tomahawks will have nuke warheads on them. 2-4 missiles.....goodbye Iranian navy. As a matter of fact, all 21 Tomahawks in their canisters onboard.....goodbye Iran.

Problem solved.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
And Why would the Iranians be wanting to get closer to the war ship, they are not at war with anybody.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
The Iowa class BB were built to slug it out with the Bismark and the Yamato so it's not a trivial matter sinking one. Additionally, Iran wouldn't be able to get an aircraft within a 100 miles of.

But the BB days have past, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a re-fit.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
And Why would the Iranians be wanting to get closer to the war ship, they are not at war with anybody.




It's a "what if".....if the Iranians shutdown the Straits of Hormuz and we had to go in and open them up again. They'd start a war, for sure.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhostITM
Anyway, a ship like that is going to be part of a taskforce, so it'll be surrounded by a screen of cruisers and destroyers on the surface and attack subs looking for targets.


But would they be able to prevent the USS Iowa from getting attacked by an air raid of Iranian stealth planes.


Originally posted by marg6043
And Why would the Iranians be wanting to get closer to the war ship, they are not at war with anybody.




It's a fictive scenario, if they deploy and if war breaks out. Don't take everything too serious Marg



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
YEAH!!

That'll teach them to... to... to...

To... er... what exactly? Create nuclear reactor fuel?

Say nasty things about the Israelis? (Not about the Jews, funnily enough, because it seems that there are quite a few living in Iran according to this BBC article.)

Oh, well, whatever they've already done or might do in the future of someone's fevered imagination, I'm sure it'll teach them a lesson.

Btw, does anyone really believe the US is looking for a peaceful diplomatic solution?

[edit on 23-9-2006 by rich23]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   


But would they be able to prevent the USS Iowa from getting attacked by an air raid of Iranian stealth planes.


I'd be a bit leary about these "stealth" planes. It's more than likely just propaganda, and even if it wasn't just how effective would they be considering the Iranians have no prior history with stealth technology. It would be primitive at best, and more than likely woefully inadequate.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhostITM
They (the Iranians) wouldn't even get close enough to the Iowa, or the others of it's class, to even inflict a scratch on the side of the ship.


Well, in the first Gulf War HMS Gloucester shot down a silkworm missile en route to the USS Missouri. However, the Missouri was damaged by four rounds from the phalanx CIWS of the USS Jarrett which was activated when chaff was deployed by Missouri!

So, with a bit of luck in any future war (however unlikely) against Iran with a US battleship deployed, the Iranians may get lucky and cause some damage however indirectly! The US just need to make sure the Royal Navy is around to help them out!!!


Regards



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I think some of you people watch to many movies and think this is some kind of reality show.

Down just south of me in Norfolk, Virginia is the battle ship Wisconsin tied up at the public museum Nauticus. This Battleship is still carried on the registers as a ship of the line. It is still in service with the US Navy but serving as a tourist attraction.

The consideration missing from many of your posts on this subject is that this type of ship is very very expensive considering the real actual benifit it will bring to this country. Furthermore ..where are you going to get the sailors trained to run and fight on a ship like this?? You dont just punch up computer numbers and a program and spit them out of a printer. REmember ..this is a boiler fired ship...olde school. Most of todays surface fighting navy is trained in diesels, gas turbines...not boilers. How about people to operate these big guns that so enamour the public.?? YOu dont just spit them out of a computer too.
This means a tremendous lead lag time before you can even put to sea..as all these people have to be qualified for thier respective positions on board and under way. Also the systems which havent been run in like forever ..must be checked out and certified. YOu dont just start up one of these ships like your car or pick up truck and just go.

Something else for some of you to think about...to consider. When you watch the photos and news releases of the first and second gulf wars...and even Afganistan...one thing becomes obvious to those even remotely awake.

With GPS and laser targeting....laser for example. In several video clips ..it becomes obvious that they can send two to three bombs down the same beam to the target....with great accuracy. This accuracy is now reflected in the downsizing of the bomb sizes carried. The sizes have been reduced to 500lb and in many cases they are actually carrying 250 lb bombs. They have found that with the exception of very hardened targets they dont even need the big bombs anymore. The difference being made up with accurate delivery.
My point is that with this in mind..for what do you need a battle ship?? As to the Tomahawk delivery systems. I remind you that these weapons can be carried by aircraft as well as other surface ships ..even submarines.

What sealed the fate of this type of ship is expenses...they are prohibitively expensive to operate.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
It would be a big mistake for several reasons.

1) It is a VERY big boat-huge radar signature.
2) It is VERY slow by today’s standards.
3) Just remember about the British losing large warships do to French made Exocet missiles in their little South American mini-war
4) The main guns are good for about 30-40 miles. This means to hit 20 miles inland, they need to be within 20 miles of land-a very dangerous place to be considering fighters/missiles/sub's.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

I think some of you people watch to many movies and think this is some kind of reality show.


Now I would like you to read more carefully (again).

If you read the first sentence of the topic start you'll see it's not my opinion.
''At least, according to the article''.




posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Whereas I understand the near-continual call for retaining the BBs, the unfortunate fact is that as pointed out above, their cost outweighs their benefits. Lets address both:

Benefits would include the obvious morale builder just seeing one of these warships induces, as well as the fear inducing power of being on the receiving end. 16" shells raining down on you 9 at a time would be definitely in the 'bad' category. Also, considering today's aresenal of weaponry, which as rightly pointed out above has tended towards smaller and more accurate, any country would have a seriously hard time doing significant damage to the vessel. Could a mission kill be achieved, probably, mainly due to taking out all of the 'new' gear topside like antennae, etc. OF course damage from a heavy torpedo could reduce or completely remove the BBs mobility, but even so, the ship would take a lot more damage to actually sink.

Downsides would as rightly pointed out above would be cost. I have heard the claim that operating a BB costs as much as operating a squadron of Destroyers. Not ever seen the math but Ok. Also, whereas the USN still does have ships using oil-fired boilers (haven't totally discarded them yet), the types that are on a WWII era BB are an older type that would then be one of a kind, and we would be hard pressed to find someone under the age of 60 who even remembers operating them.

So, would it be 'cool' to see, of course. Does it make any fiscal sense, not at all.

Oh and btw, someone mentioned how slow the BBs were; nothing further from the truth. IOWA class BBs were designed to keep up with the 30+ knot speeds of the fast fleet carriers in WWII. That would put them capable of keeping up with any conventionally designed ship out there in any fleet.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

The consideration missing from many of your posts on this subject is that this type of ship is very very expensive considering the real actual benifit it will bring to this country.


Do you really think money does matter? I don't. If the Bush Administrations wants these ships to be actively used again, so be it, no general that could prevent them from doing it.

Read the following:


A new unpublished House report contends that "a show of force" by the battleships could be "ultimately crucial in maintaining control of the strategically critical Persian Gulf" while "significantly bolstering our clout in dealindfg with increasingly troublesome Iran." Retired senior Foreign Service Officer William Stearman, a former naval officer and longtime National Security Council aide who has been fighting to save the Iowa and Wisconsin, points to "vulnerability of U.S. 5th Fleet ships." He contends "the very large Iranian inventory of deadly anti-ship missiles" offers Iran an opportunity to dominate the Gulf. Stearman told me that an answer to this menace would be dispatching the two battleships to the Gulf. Indeed, the Iowa's presence was leveraged against Iran in the 1988 "Tanker War."

At issue in the conference to resolve Senate and House differences on the authorization bill (continuing to meet this week) is language in the House Armed Services Committee report. It would require that the battleships "must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility" and "must be preserved in their present condition."

Source


I think we may conclude that they are at least considering to start using them again.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Furthermore ..where are you going to get the sailors trained to run and fight on a ship like this?? You dont just punch up computer numbers and a program and spit them out of a printer. REmember ..this is a boiler fired ship...olde school. Most of todays surface fighting navy is trained in diesels, gas turbines...not boilers. How about people to operate these big guns that so enamour the public.?? YOu dont just spit them out of a computer too.


The US is not at war yet, in addition, these battleships had been in service till the late 80s (perhaps even in the early 90s), which means that the knowledge and experience on how to handle such a ship is still available. Besides, it doesn't take years to teach others these skills.

The reason to use these ships again, according to the article (In case you accuse me again of claiming that these ships should be used again.


One of the ships in the 5th Fleet task force was the USS Iowa. The ship's captain noted: "When we would sail the Iowa down the Strait of Hormuz, all southern Iran would go quiet. Iran's Revolutionary Guards were steaming around in boats with rockets, shooting at ships. When we arrived, all of that stuff stopped."




[edit on 23-9-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
But would they be able to prevent the USS Iowa from getting attacked by an air raid of Iranian stealth planes.
The fact that Iran doesn't have any stealth planes is what would prevent that.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Surface ships..including this battleship have many units including the main engines mounted in what we call..hard mounting...solidly mounted to the frame or solid structures with spacers and hard bolts.

One of the most telling and fascinating pieces of film I have ever seen...not a political commentary ..not a reality television show...was a film of what happens to huge equipment when it sufferes a torpedo hit or a large depth charge. Even very large diesel engines come completely off their mounts...the bolts often breaking and the nuts, washers and spacers/liners go flying in all kinds of directions. Also flying is anything ..and I mean anything not sufficiently tied down.
What you see in a film like this is a hull plate moving inward into the compartment by compression about two to three feet...flexing...and then flexing back ..not always to the same starting position. Quite remarkable.

A modern torpedo can do this easily...even if it is launched from a conventional diesel powered boat. A spread of four to six modern torpedos from a conventional boat would be disasterous.

For those of you who do not know....or havent a clue...a torpedo..a modern torpedo does not hit a ship directly in the armour plating..or armour belt. They are designed to travel underneath the ships and exploding under the keels...never actually hitting the ship. The explosion is so violent and powerful that the ship falls into a void space created by the explosion of the torpedo..and breaks its back. The water under the hull literally disappears in the explosion.
Of course ..once again ..anything not sufficiently mounted or tied down is sent flying through the air in the mean time.
Watch the movies of modern torpedo hits on the discovery or military channels to see if I am blowing hot air..on this. You will see many of these ships break in two ..usually amidships and sink.

This could be done with a modern battleship..too...just like these here discussed. Also a large nuclear aircraft carrier. And I dont care what they like to boast about in the patriotic flag waving press. This is known information in the trades..just not by most of the public. Many of the sailors themselves havent a clue ..as to how vulnurable they are to well trained submarine crews. 'Even well trained conventional submarine crews.
Why do you think they show you the surface fleet when they come back into harbor ..but seldome the submaries..or the submarine piers.
This is why even a conventional submarine causes huge pucker factors with skippers who know..the difference.

The very least a spread of modern torpedos will do is stop the battleship dead in the water...then aircraft and other vessels will pick it off at their leasure. One will have to send in lots of other ships to cover this battle ship. THe PR fiasco will be disasterous for the US Navy.

Remember something ...one single British submarine...sinking a heavy cruiser ..kept the whole Argentenian fleet in harbor for the rest of that conflict in the Falklands...One submarine.

Some of you watch to many movies and read to much Tom Clancy...wave flags etc..

Our military dollars are better spent in other ways...than these battleships.

As to the skills needed to run this type of olde ship...you would be surprised how quickly skills are lost if not used or trained upon...by any enterprise..buisness or military. Just plain lost..and quickly too.

Think I am kidding ...try to find many people in the military anymore who can do morse code...they are few and far between now days. Some can still do it ..but not as many...computers and high speed data burst and encryption have radically change this olde skill too. Automation.

You are talking about a ship here where much is still manually done.

Another thing you folks need to understand ...this battleship like deep draft tankers draws alot of water...under the keel. This means that going through the straights of Hormuz or the Persian Gulf they must transit known narrow waterways where the area for maneuvering is very limited. This is known information..including by hostile nations. In otherwords ...the routes necessary for a fleet to take are somewhat predictable. Not a good paramater for a fleet in which to have to operate. Look at a bottom sounding of the Persian Gulf..most of it is not that deep..for a ship like this or tankers. Check this out..I am sure this can be found on the web.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
It would be a big mistake for several reasons.

1) It is a VERY big boat-huge radar signature.
2) It is VERY slow by today’s standards.
3) Just remember about the British losing large warships do to French made Exocet missiles in their little South American mini-war
4) The main guns are good for about 30-40 miles. This means to hit 20 miles inland, they need to be within 20 miles of land-a very dangerous place to be considering fighters/missiles/sub's.


I agree with every point, bar number 3. In 1982, the ships we lost were no bigger than the ships we have now. It wasn't the size that did them in, it was a complete lack of CIWS that doomed us to damge by those Frog missiles. We learned our lesson, but it had nothing to do with size



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Alright, so these monsters are old. And horrendously expensive.

So?

Fix them. What you can't fix, rebuild or upgrade. I'm sure there can be something done to bring these ships back to modernity. The engine problem, maybe not. However, battleships CAN be loaded with ECM of all types and varieties. That'll help.

Failing that, sell them to us. the Canadian Navy regularly does with castoffs. Hey, the World War II battleshisp will go great with our Cold-War era destroyers...all four of them! Yes, those are the entirety of our ships of the line. Twelve frigates for support, a little newer (minted in '92), but still..four!

OT, the USN is meant for fleet actions, instead of being used piecemeal like it is today and you know it. A fleet of sixty ships or so, comprised of five or six capital ships (I really don't know my naval expressions. Cap ships translate to first-rate ships, like the battleships- no, my naval education stopped at about 1770), escorted by a mass of smaller support ships and planes. The second-through sixth rate ships are there for one purpose- to make sure that the battleships and carriers arrive where they need to be unmolested. Hell, should be a little easier now with all those fancy doodads.

Yes, modern weapons can sink a battleship. The idea is not to let modern ordnance NEAR your battleships. That's why you have destroyers, corvettes, and frigates. And sloops. And gunships.

But hey...if you're SURE you don't want them, we'll take 'em off your hands real cheap, along with anything else you've got, ready for decommisioning. Those Tomcats look real good, compared to our grounded hunnert CF18s.

DE



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Orange,
True, a heavy torpedo has the potential to due catastrophic damage to any vessel, but I think to assume that a BB or CVN would automatically suffer heavy damage is a bit hasty. Yes we have all seen the MK48 tests with the Aussies where the small boy was broken in half. However, a BB or a CVN is quite a bit larger, and the fact that it was broken in half is precisely due to what you pointed out; the voiding of water underneath the ship's hull. Just due to simple size difference it would seem obvious that one can't leap to the conclusion that the damage would be similar.

True, shock damage to hard-mounted equipment could be dramatic. Having crawled underneath the MRGs on a CVN, force could be easily transmitted, however the physical size of the drive train as well as the fact that the force of the explosion would not only have to travel through the hull but also the various tanks/voids under the bilges, I think that a hit by a heavy is not necessarily a mission kill. I assume you are familiar with the shock trials performed on TR?

DeusEx, with the exception of multiple heavy torpedoes, there is nothing that could sink a BB. I am not being nationalistic, I am being realistic. As stated before (correctly), the nature of weapons now have generally gotten smaller because of increases in accuracy. Even the vaunted SS-N-22 with it's monstrous warhead, could do little more than significant topside damage. Those ships were just constructed to face a different type of adversary, namely 15+ inch armor-piercing shells. (Of course if a fire was allowed to advance to a magazine, everything above becomes moot.)

D



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Orangetom, fascinating post, thank you very much.

I have two points that some posters and readers might find interesting.

The first is that apparently, during the Falklands war, after the Sheffield got hit so badly by an Exocet, Thatcher went to Mitterrand and harangued him until he got the manufacturers of the Exocet to send the Royal Navy the disarm codes for the missiles. I loathed Thatcher for what she did to the country, but for that action I have to grudgingly give her some respect, especially when you consider that it must have been something of a blow for the manufacturers. Imagine their sales reps at an arms fair, saying how effective they are, and then a potential customer coming back with "Yeah, right, as long as no-one gives the disarm codes away! I think I'll be going with a government that can keep a secret, thanks!"

The second is that the consequences of sinking a ship this size in the Straits of Hormuz, say, should be taken into account. Presumably the Iranians want to control the straits, not block them permanently. I don't know how deep and wide they are at their narrowest point. Does anyone know if there would be a place that the Iranians would not want to sink the ship, as to do so would cause a permanent blockage?

Oh... and does anyone think the US is even interested in a diplomatic solution?





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join