USS Iowa

[Patroklos]

The USS Missouri was hit by Phalanx Gun rounds when it fired automatically after chaff rounds were fired, mistaking them for incoming cruise missiles

An equipment mishap/missfire.... still no fratricide...

So are you officially admitting you can't find them - because right now I would say that your google skills aren't as good as perhaps you'd like them to be...

Why would I be looking for your links?

Or I could just ignore you MOBIUS, which is the most logical answer.

Though I couldn't help but watch the trainwreck that is you trying to troll.

[MOBIUS]

And what compelled you to bend to my will when you insisted you had the advantage?

Originally posted by Patroklos
Of course I would challenge you you produce any proof or a silkworn attack on the BB.

Could it be that your skepticism was unfounded - could it be that I was right and you were wrong?

An equipment mishap/missfire.... still no fratricide...

Phalanx rounds hit a friendly ship!!!

It is that sort of casual attitude that makes the US forces a dangerous ally - I still remember the fact that more UK soldiers were killed by US friendly fire in GWI than by the enemy!

True no one died on this occasion but one of the links does indicate a sailor was injured by shrapnel so it could have been worse - especially if HMS Gloucester hadn't been around to intercept the missile...

Did I ever mention fratricide? No wonder you're having troubles with this thread if you're busily introducing concepts that weren't being discussed...

Though I couldn't help but watch the trainwreck that is you trying to troll.

You didn't believe me and were proved wrong, not to mention the fact that you backed down and looked for the links yourself.

Train, wreck and match to me I'd say...

[PLATO]

You would be the only one.

meh...was a decent thread for a while. oh well.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
And what compelled you to bend to my will when you insisted you had the advantage?



Could it be that your skepticism was unfounded - could it be that I was right and you were wrong?



Phalanx rounds hit a friendly ship!!!

It is that sort of casual attitude that makes the US forces a dangerous ally - I still remember the fact that more UK soldiers were killed by US friendly fire in GWI than by the enemy!

True no one died on this occasion but one of the links does indicate a sailor was injured by shrapnel so it could have been worse - especially if HMS Gloucester hadn't been around to intercept the missile...

Did I ever mention fratricide? No wonder you're having troubles with this thread if you're busily introducing concepts that weren't being discussed...



You didn't believe me and were proved wrong, not to mention the fact that you backed down and looked for the links yourself.

Train, wreck and match to me I'd say...

You've spent far more of your valuable time monitoring the thread and posting inane coy replies than it would take you to post a link. It's important that the person making the claim posts the links so as to avoid confusion as to exactly which information you were refering to.

For instance I found many references of the HMS GLOUCESTER, escorting USS MISSOURI in Arabian Gulf, destroying an incoming Iraqi Silkworm missile aimed at MISSOURI with two Sea Dart missiles. But I found no indication of the related friendly fire you were refering to.

At first blush my conclusion became that you were making it up. Why didn't you want to provide links to back your claims up if you truly believed they were easy to find? It makes no sense.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Geronimo

You've spent far more of your valuable time monitoring the thread and posting inane coy replies than it would take you to post a link. It's important that the person making the claim posts the links so as to avoid confusion as to exactly which information you were refering to.

Well I've been enjoying myself toying with the prey...

For instance I found many references of the HMS GLOUCESTER, escorting USS MISSOURI in Arabian Gulf, destroying an incoming Iraqi Silkworm missile aimed at MISSOURI with two Sea Dart missiles. But I found no indication of the related friendly fire you were refering to.

At first blush my conclusion became that you were making it up. Why didn't you want to provide links to back your claims up if you truly believed they were easy to find? It makes no sense.

Easy. Unlike many posters on this forum I don't need to post false or twisted information to suit my arguments consequently I couldn't give a monkey's if no one believes me or not because I knew they existed...

Seriously though, type 'Missouri Silkworm "Friendly Fire"' into Google and the top 3 hits give you everything you need - how hard is that!!?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by PLATO
meh...was a decent thread for a while. oh well.

Relax. Mobius is simply trying to demonstrate that the UK has a 45% as well.

[Patroklos]

Unlike many posters on this forum I don't need to post false or twisted information to suit my arguments consequently I couldn't give a monkey's if no one believes me or not because I knew they existed...

Odd, since you just spent two pages proving you give alot of monkeys.

Killing a good thread in the process.



Now, I want you to pay very good attention to what I am about to do, because 99% of what you say eventually will require you to do this...

I conceed defeat on the silkworm, though I see no shame brought to the US Navy becuase of the incident.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Dis
good call. I served on the Enterprise. And I believe there are still 2 conventional carriers older than the Enterprise.

The Enterprise is scheduled for decomissioning in 2013. I came aboard in 1993, and they told us then the major overhaul and refuelling would last 20 years.

Here's an interesting little tidbit (or maybe only interesting to nuclear fanatics like myself). The original reactor cores of the Enterprise only lasted 5 years. But the last refuelling is expected to last 20 years. This shows the innovation and upgrades to nuclear reactor phsysics over the year. Take note that the reactors aren't bigger. The fuel rods are still placed in the same size reactor. It's just better distribution of uranium and boron and all that good stuff inside a reactor (which is probably classified- but I can't remember anyways )

I worked on the Ship in 1976. We installed a new vent system in MMR 2.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Uh, shawn - the Iowa was decommissioned in 1990.

Perhaps you were referring to the Missouri which, if it weren't for a British ship would have been hit by an Iraq Silkworm, and we'd have been able to have seen just how unsinkable it was - IIRC the US anti-missile defences were too busy shooting up the Missouri to take it out and that is why you had to rely on us...

Which is another reason why the Missouri is a museum ship and the Iowa will be sold for scrap metal...

A retired Capt USN in a news letter that I received each month said, Stockton, Ca. may want the ship for a museum.

[Straybow]

Why concede anything? Mobius is being an ass. When he concedes to that, then we can get off his threadjack.

[:) Smiley]

Originally posted by Joseph
A retired Capt USN in a news letter that I received each month said, Stockton, Ca. may want the ship for a museum.

The San Joaquin is navigable that far up?

If that's the case the ship could have more military use than previously imagined... send it inland for sheer intimidation.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Smiley


The San Joaquin is navigable that far up?

If that's the case the ship could have more military use than previously imagined... send it inland for sheer intimidation.

Yes, there is a Port of Stockton. If it is not closed, there is a small Naval Station there. I once when there to get paid when I was in the Navy.
There are 3 rivers that are Navigable in CA. The Sac to Port of Sac., The San Joaquin to Stockton, and little old Napa River to the Third street bridge.

In the winter time, I think you can take a 20' all the way to Fresno.

I live about a 1 1/2 miles from the Napa river and I could get in a small boat and go to where I grew up and be just 2 1/2 miles away on the San Joaquin in the Patterson area.

[PLATO]

That's interesting that the rivers are navigable that far inland. The Core of Engineer's standard is a 9' channell to classify a river as navagable. The Iowa class ships draw 38'. It would be an amazing river to have a 38' channell very far inland.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Mordoch

I already covered how its going to hit the deck armor, so its going to at a minimum go through the initial 1.5 inch steel plate on the battleship's initial deck level, there is a noticable space between this layer of armor and the main one. At the time this was originally, this was a sensisble move because it could sucessfully detonate gravity bombs before they could reach the main level of armor, avoiding their sucessful penetration. However, against modern anti-ship missiles the scheme is flawed because it means the missile will explode inside the initial layer of armor, trapping most of its fuel in the relatively confined space. Since neither shells nor bombs had very volitile jet fuel inside. As shown in the case of the Stark, the fuel fire started by the missile would reach about 1500 degrees in one minute.

http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/mc/museum/STARK/Stark3.htm

This fire can eventually go further up in temperature to 2200 degrees, which is hot enough to melt steel. This means the fire can potentially melt all the deck armor in the area above it, and even melt the main armor belt and splinter belt armor. Any equipment or electronics in the area could also end up destroyed by the heat, including any connecting wires going through the ship. In other words an anti-ship missile can definately do a substancial amount of damage.

Its also worth noting that the deck armor can only take a 1600 pound armor piercing round in its "immune zone" portion of the deck, there is a substancial portion of the deck where it lacks such capability.

The excocet doesn't dive down to penetrate deck armor (or at least that wasn't how it was designed in the 1980s). The reason it pops up is to acquire its target before it makes its final run, not to dive downward through deck armor. While it's been skimming the sea it has been cruising toward a destination. It can't / doesn't actually see its target and if everything is going as planned its target can't see it. Not announcing its presence helps it approach stealthily and significantly reduces the size and weight of the missle. One it reaches a predetermined point close to the target the missle swoops into the air in order to give it the ability to look around with its own active terminal guidance system. Hopefully it will see a ship. If it does it calculates the geometric center of that ship and busts ass trying to drive itself into that geometric center before it is detected or destroyed. Note that this method results in hits to the sides of the ship, and not the decks.

[Mr. Harley]

One other item, reference the fuel issue on missiles. One of the reasons the Exocet was so devastating in the Falklands was that the Frigate it hit had an Alloy hull, not steel. Steel when subjected to those temperatures melts, warps, and looses it's structural strength. Many of the modern Super-alloys BURN. Once you start that kind of fire, it will burn in water, Nitrogen, in almost anything. That is why, even in the case of a diving penetrating strike between the splinter deck (stops shrapnel) and the armor deck on the Iowa, all you end up doing is some damage in areas that were designed to take that damage anyway. As Sikander shows, that's not even what happens. However, this shows why it is not some crisis that would endanger the ship. In fact a mine would do more damage, slowing the ship down slightly and possibly causing the loss of some fuel oil (carried in those outer compartments because you would rather lose that then crewmen).