Amazing those battleships are just breath taking!

Amazing those battleships are just breath taking!

With the new rocket-propelled shells that the marines wanted to test out, the 16"
guns would be updated in terms of range, allowing their awesome firepower to be
used at modern combat ranges. But short of that, no.

As it currently stands, a Ticonderoga has the same firepower (unless the enemy
fleet is foolish enough to get within 30 miles), and does the job with 360 crew
instead of 1600 crew. That's a hard statistic to overcome, right there...

And just for you, here's another gratuitous USS Wisconsin pic...

Yeah I know the Marines are the ones that want a ship that can shell a coastline.
They've been looking for alternatives but right now the Iowas are what they
consider the best choice. I totally understand why too.

And Storm I'm sorry for my poor choice of words. "Messing it up" made perfect sense
to me but I guess it's not an accurate enough description.

I have to ask you guys: Do you personally think an Iowa's 16" guns are useful in
this day and age? I don't mean in an emergency situation where we'd need all the
firepower we can get (which is why they're preserved). Do you think large guns
have a use at all? Do you think the Marines can find a viable alternative to shelling a
coastline, given the vast technological advances made since 1991?

Because I do. As much as I love the fact that the Iowas can still be reactivated in an
emergency, I don't think we really need their shells anymore. They're cheap to fire
compared to using missiles but I wonder if using more modern ordnance to bombard
an enemy coastline is overall more cost-effective?

This is an awesome thread btw :) Between fantastic pictures and fantastic
information it's easily one of my favorites so far. And no rudeness or flaming! How
about that?

You know, Burkes are perfectly capable of turning radar off.

One of the tactics used for those destroyers is to turn radar
off, sneak into close range with the enemy air/surface attack
group, turn on radar and spam 90 missiles on the spot.
(missile trap)

It is designed so that a ambushing Burke would be able to defeat
an entire soviet heavy bomber attack group by spamming them
full of missiles before they can react.

This is the reason why future destroyers are designed to be stealthy,
to aid them in ambushing if needed.

The Iowa's lack of AEGIS and sheer size means it can't do this
role. It is more oversized, over expensive, over crewed missile battery
than anything else.

As for command ship, it really doesn't need any special characteristics.
A ship with poor combat ability, such as USS Blue Ridge, can do the
job perfectly fine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Blue_Ridge_%28LCC-19%29

Well yeah, the blast of the 16" guns prevented the inclusion of an Aegis radar
system, but that's hardly the same thing as "messing it up". Instead, since the
iowas were still meant to operate in conjunction with a carrier group, it was FAR
more effective to integrate them to airborne radar instead. This also allowed them
to operate as effective command ships, since they had a whole picture of the
engagement and emitted little or no radar signature themselves (which actually
AIDS the enemy in targetting a Burke or a Ticonderoga!).

Actually Holycan the only reason most of those BB's are still on the reserve list is
because the USMC requires them to be. Back in the mid 70s when the mission of the Marine
Corps was reset, we requested that any and all USN BB's be kept in reserve, main reason is
that the newer ships do not possess the amount of shore bombardment that we want. The
Miss. saw A LOT of action in Vietnam for off shore bombardment because the CV's couldn't
do it enough for us when we needed it, so guess who pulled the slack?

For the record, back in 1999, Commandant General Jones of the USMC, along with 2 Fleet
Adm, and the Sec of the Navy went over the idea of "Modernizing" or developing a new
system for the Missouri. At the time the technology was only being played with, where as
today it is ready and could be used. That is Electromagnetic Rocket Assisted and Fin
Guided Munitions. Meaning the 16'' guns would have their range and acc. increased
dramatially. The last test that was done testing them with a standard 155mm put the shell
well over 116 miles, they gave an estimate they could put a 16'' shell around 220-40 miles
with enough MWz into the system. The only part they had issues with was the idea of it
"magnetically" shifting the ship, and the fact that the system had to be insulated
dramatically as not to cause Ionized atmospheres near the weapons. They set the idea aside
and put it back on the list for 2010. Main reason is that the Sec of the Navy guaranteed
that asap they would get us ships designed for our primary goal...amph. landings and
securing of beach heads. If this was not possible with that, they would design a ship from
scratch for the job. Also the reason it was put aside is it would require another source
of power to produce the needed MWz, so you're also looking at replacing all those steam
boilers with nuclear reactors, something the Navy wasn't looking forward too, as they
would have to remove sections of the super structure just to fit that in, not to mention
having to replace the cores every 25-30 years.

Overall, no most missiles used today cannot completely pen. the armor on the Missouri, yes
some of our own can but most nations of the world cannot. Most Anti Ship missiles used
today are multi directional warheads designed to punch the hull and detonate near the
waterline to flood it, downside is most aren't armored well enough to go though near 16
inches of 2 belt layers, that and the armor would take a 500lbs detonation without a
problem, even with a HEAT warhead. Tomahawks could do it, but as stated before her
extremely strong bulkheads would absorb the first few hits and let it float fine. But if
they were to completely modernize it they would remove the dual 5's and put in the newer
sparrow anti missile systems in place, along with the phal vulcan 20mm systems, or as most
I know call them...the million dollar abandon ship alarms. But it all came down to one
issue for the Navy...logistically it costs too much in fuel to keep it up.

"The Iowa never actually received the AEGIS radar system
as it is not shock proof enough to survive 16" firings as the
system is extremely sensitive to just about anything to allow
its massive range. The missiles on the Iowa needs other ships
or aircraft to spot for it to be effective."

So other people have read this huh? I swore I read something somewhere that
firing the 16" guns messed up the electronics. This could be what I read. My memory
is a bit foggy. But I swear I read it!

The thing is, Iowas could be upgraded with all the latest equipment. It would cost
upwards of $2 billion or more each ship though. And then what you have is just a
giant version of a destroyer, that can also shell the coast if need be. The guns aren't
necessary otherwise.

I really have to get my pics of my brother's destroyer and my trip to the USS
Wisconsin off my 2nd brother's camera. Some of them are impressive! I even have a
picture of a submarine about 2 miles off our starport (or is it bow?) when we were
on the 1-day family cruise.

Amateur naval warfare nut toss in his .2cents

I wouldn't say the Iowa matches up with current day
destroyers in combat power. From from it as it lacks
the most critical system in those destroyers.

The most important part of a ship is the sensor (radar)
and communication systems that is necessary for the
combat effectiveness of the ship. An Burke is designed
to track targets at 200+km (more than 100 miles) and
engage them at from 150+km with standard missiles.

The heart of the system is this massive phased array
radar, the AN/SPY-1 that is shaped like a big flat plate
and can not be armored.

Without the radar, the ship is effectively blind.
---------------------
The Iowa never actually received the AEGIS radar system
as it is not shock proof enough to survive 16" firings as the
system is extremely sensitive to just about anything to allow
its massive range. The missiles on the Iowa needs other ships
or aircraft to spot for it to be effective.
------------------------

The reason why armor is pointless is because your enemy can
just shoot out your radar and you'd be effectively blind which
makes you as good as dead. (as in see often enough in NF)

Some one must carry the radar and the enemy will just shoot
that radar and protecting it is decisive.

A blind ship limping at 33knots will never get into sight range
of the enemy that knows exactly where you are even if it
is damned tough to sink.
-------------------------
Of course, it is even better to fit the radar on a plane like an
AWAC like E-2. With it, your scouting radius increases to ~500km+
and you can see the enemy fleet and spam it full of missiles before
it sees you. To counter it, you need fighters to shoot down
planes to hide your fleet......

>I guess what it boils down to is efficiency. Can a battleship perform it's
> job as efficiently as a modern destroyer? The answer is a rather
> obvious "no".

Yup. The modern navy isn't about the Iowas as much as it's about the Benjamins,
baby! $$$ They're forced to work with whatever budget they can pry out of
Congress each year. =)