Most dominating Battleship

[Wraith]

--"Argh! You beat me to it!"



--"From First Contact:"

That explains it. Generations was such a craptacular outing that I haven't bothered to actually watch any of the later movies. I've had them running on cable in the background, but the bits I paid attention to weren't good enough to get me to watch.

--"I may be mistaken, but wasn't that a prototype ship, and not one actually in service?"

I'm fairly sure they entered service, but I'm not finding much canonical info on them, so it's hard to say.

--"*adds Star Trek geeks to my block list*"

Woo-hoo! Block puzzle! It's pushin' time!

Wraith
I don't work here. I'm a consultant.

[Saint Marcus]

That explains it. Generations was such a craptacular outing that I haven't bothered to actually watch any of the later movies. I've had them running on cable in the background, but the bits I paid attention to weren't good enough to get me to watch.

Generations did suck, but First Contact was a very good movie, even for non star trek fans. The new Enterprise (NCC 1701-E) is a Sovereign class starship, and in the battle with the Borg you can also see Akira and Steamrunner (among others) class starships in action, as well as the USS Defiant (captained by Worf).

I'm fairly sure they entered service, but I'm not finding much canonical info on them, so it's hard to say.

As of yet, I can only find fan-made stuff about it. Startrek.com also doesn't list it. The picture attached here is suposedly of the Excalibur class, though it seems very unfamiliar to me.

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Case
*adds Star Trek geeks to my block list*

Serb, you've definetly got a point this time. While this poll is centred on WW2 era ships, there's no doubt that the Kirov class ships were the best battleships built. I'd definetly back a Kirov, with it's heavy defences and long ranged missiles against a modified Iowa

Kirov class was quite a good ship. However, it was a missile cruiser, most definitely not a battleship. They are designated as RKR - Raketny Kreysers. Ditto the Salva (Moskva) Class ROCKET CRUISERS.
Not a battleship. If we were to call "battleships" all surface combatants, then we would be including cruisers, destroyers, frigates, corvettes and carriers. This is clearly not what the topic is about.

Outside of the battleships, the Kirov class is "...the largest non-aviation surface warships in service in the world. Once thought of as the world's most powerful, this thinking has changed somewhat with recent problems with their propulsion plants and needed redundancy in the electronics because of numerous failures."

They do have the advantage over the battleship in that they are nuclear powered, and thus their range is unlimited if resupplied.

And I wouldn't like their chances up against a US carrier battlegroup with a couple of the later Nimitz class carriers, an Iowa, several Ticonderega class guided missile cruisers, several Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers, several Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates, and a couple of Seawolf and Los Angeles Class fast attack submarines.
They are just outnumbered and outgunned, regardless of how blinded you want to be by national pride.

[Khan Singh]

I think it is permissable to regard the Kirovs as being basically the same thing as Battle Cruisers. They seem to have been built with the same basic role in mind----to kill enemy cruisers/carriers with long range weapons. How the Soviets expected to get within range of American carrier groups is beyond me. But that seems to have been their designed role.

You seem to missed the real point to my post. The accident was not the point. It was the old powder. It decreased the ships accuracy. I mentioned the rest to show that the powder was old.
The Navy had repacked the bags with extra pellets tossed in on top as was shown in the second accident investigation.

Yes, you're right. This is the primary reason for the Iowas' lousy accuracy off Vieques and in Lebanon. But the Iowa still did not have the capability to correct the fall of shot using radar measurement in real time in the 1940's.

But.

After considering this, I should state it is true that Iowa did not have to correct it's aim by observation. Iowas did have some degree of blind fire capability and if you are willing to to simply fire on radar solution without correction, then you can indeed fire at full speed at long range.

But high speed fire at long range simply would not be much of an advantage. At 35,000 yards any hit is a good hit. Iowa could quite literally run through her entire supply of shells without hitting once. Even if she does hit, then does it really matter if she hits after 20 minutes instead of 30?

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Khan Singh
I think it is permissable to regard the Kirovs as being basically the same thing as Battle Cruisers. They seem to have been built with the same basic role in mind----to kill enemy cruisers/carriers with long range weapons. How the Soviets expected to get within range of American carrier groups is beyond me. But that seems to have been their designed role.

Indeed, and like the battlecruisers themselves, a flawed concept that was never properly put to practice.

[Khan Singh]

I agree. They were of no naval value.

You have to think that they existed solely to show the flag in exotic overseas ports. The Soviets knew that they couldn't build a bigger carrier than the US, so they built the world's most powerful cruiser as cheaper way to impress the natives.

[steelehc]

Beware, Russians are coming!!!

The largest and the most powerfull battleship of all times....... the flagman of Russian Northern fleet. Here it comes.... Petr Velikiy!!!




VITAL STATISTICS
DISPLACEMENT: 24,300 tons, 28,300 tons (full load)

ARMAMENT: 20 x SS-N-19 Shipwreck (Granit) SSM (range 300 nm); 1 x 2 SS- N- 14 Silex (Rastub) ASW missile (range 30 nm); 12 x SA-N-6 (96 total) Grumble (Fort) SAM (range 60 nm, up to 90,000 feet in altitude); 12 x SA-N-4 (40 total) Gecko (Osa-M) SAM (range 6 nm, up to 80,000 feet); 2 x 1 3.9 inch (100 mm) DP guns (range 4.8 km); 8 x 1 AK-630M gatling gun AA CIWS (range 4-5 km); 2 x 5 533 mm torpedo tubes (20 torpedoes; 1 RBU-6000 (Smerch-2) ASW position (96 rockets); 2 RBU-1000 (Smerch-3) ASW positions (72 rockets); 2 KA-27 PL Helix ASW helicopters; 1 KA-25RT Hormone-B SSM guidance helicopter;

PERFORMANCE: 140,000 shp, 2 nuclear reactors, 2 steam plants, 32 kts (17 kts steam only); 14,000 nm range


Beware of Russian Carrier Killer.

The Kirov, Gorshkov, Kiev, Petr Velikiy, and the other Russian capital ships are mere cruisers. They are all smaller then the Iowas, and indeed, not much bigger then the Virginia Class nuclear powered missile cruisers, (CGNs). In fact, the Petr Velikiy is not even finished, it is still in Severomorsk awaiting completion.

Steele

[Khan Singh]

Nice looking ships, though.

And I have to admit that they could probably cripple an Iowa, if they happened to get into range. Russian missile technology should not be under-rated, even given their current economic problems.

[steelehc]

Nice looking ships, though.

That they are. Especially so with the nuclear reactors.

But don't be so sure about them taking down an Iowa. An Iowa would likely have an AEGIS (at least one) for escort, and could itself shoot down any cruise missiles which got through the cruiser. In addition, whats to stop the Iowa from firing its own missiles and cannons?

Steele

[Zkribbler]

I'm voting for the Bismarck. Even though she was outclassed by later-built ships, she was unequalled in her day. Her domination is evidenced by the fact that it took a beefed-up Home Fleet to track her down and sink her. I know of no other battleship which became the target of an entire fleet.

[MORON]

Stupid Trekking Battleships......

Give me 40K tech....

[Khan Singh]

Bismark did a very effective job against Hood and Prince of Wales.

On the other hand she was crippled by an open-cockpit biplane which couldn't keep up with the traffic on today's autobahn.

An Iowa would likely have an AEGIS (at least one) for escort, and could itself shoot down any cruise missiles which got through the cruiser. In addition, whats to stop the Iowa from firing its own missiles and cannons?

Mmm, well, Aegis is not invincible, especially against sea skimming targets. The Kirov has long range and the Russians actually have warheads and targeting that could defeat Iowa's armor. But maybe you're right. I'm not really sure. I guess I'd rather be on Iowa than on any other ship with incoming missiles.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Khan Singh

Which ship is it at Suisun Bay?

It is the USS Iowa BB-61, I have the newpaper in my hand. It came through the Carquinez Strait (where Mare Island Naval Shipyard is) Saturday April 21, 2001.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by steelehc


That they are. Especially so with the nuclear reactors.

But don't be so sure about them taking down an Iowa. An Iowa would likely have an AEGIS (at least one) for escort, and could itself shoot down any cruise missiles which got through the cruiser. In addition, whats to stop the Iowa from firing its own missiles and cannons?

Steele

Actually the US could build a BBGN-??. A guided Missile Battlewagon with maybe one gun forward and aft. Look at how many missile it would hold.

[steelehc]

BBGN

A Battleship with guided missiles, and a nuclear plant? Thats what the "N" would mean.

Not that it would be entirely useless, but the CGs, CGNs and DDGNs already do that job, and can carry a few missiles themselvs, and are (relatively) cheap.

Steele