USS Iowa

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Whoha
we can pull it out of mothball if we need it.

I believe it's been struck from even the inactive list. The USN is just keeping it for the possibility of musuems.

[Patroklos]

I thought her and the Wisconson were staying on the inactive list.

I have two battleship sailors in my division, and they love talking about these ships. Alot of good stories.

The thing could take 20 exocet hits and all you would have to do is paint over the black spot. Modern anti ship missiles are not designed to penetrate armor since modern ships don't use armor. And with an Aegis defender their would be no chance of getting a penetrating bomb on it, they are way too slow.

It is pretty much invincible except for torpedoes.

[BlackCat]

What about small tactical nukes ? I guess that that will take more than a little paint to repair.

[Q Classic]

So, hold on... San Francisco says no, big whoop...

Why don't they just move the boat somewhere else?

If they can, I fail to see why this should actually trigger my give-a-****.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by BlackCat
What about small tactical nukes ? I guess that that will take more than a little paint to repair.

If people are throwing nukes around we've got bigger problems.

[Dr Strangelove]

Though it was many years ago, when I was last in Wilmington N.C. they were giving below decks tours of the USS North Carolina. Do they only give the above deck tour of the Wisconsin because they have hopes of one day taking it out of mothballs?

They could ask New Orleans if they'd like to have her.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Was that the one that had the gun explode a couple of decades ago?? At first, the Navy tried to claim a gay sailor sabatoged the gun in order to commit suicide. Later, it apologized to the sailor's family.

A gay sailor? That's hardly narrowing the field of suspects, is it?

[Patroklos]

Though it was many years ago, when I was last in Wilmington N.C. they were giving below decks tours of the USS North Carolina. Do they only give the above deck tour of the Wisconsin because they have hopes of one day taking it out of mothballs?

Exactly.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I thought her and the Wisconson were staying on the inactive list.

I have two battleship sailors in my division, and they love talking about these ships. Alot of good stories.

The thing could take 20 exocet hits and all you would have to do is paint over the black spot. Modern anti ship missiles are not designed to penetrate armor since modern ships don't use armor. And with an Aegis defender their would be no chance of getting a penetrating bomb on it, they are way too slow.

It is pretty much invincible except for torpedoes.

IIRC, correctly, some senator wanted to have the Iowa be on the inactive list and the Wisconsin struck, for some odd reason. We went with the Iowa for obvious reasons.


Our old CTA1 *pre-commed* the Missouri as his first duty station. He'd never stop talking about it. Well, that and him serving on General Wesley Clark's staff.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


If people are throwing nukes around we've got bigger problems.

Not nessecarily - there are a difference between tactical nukes and stratetic. Last one will be "bigger problems", but the other - even US may decide to use them first.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


A gay sailor? That's hardly narrowing the field of suspects, is it?

[Dis]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Not nessecarily - there are a difference between tactical nukes and stratetic. Last one will be "bigger problems", but the other - even US may decide to use them first.

It's still not a good idea to start throwing tactical nukes around. Even if they are measured in kilotons. Hiroshima was measured in kilotons, and look how much damage that caused. It basically lets the genies out of the bottle for all out war.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I thought her and the Wisconson were staying on the inactive list.

I have two battleship sailors in my division, and they love talking about these ships. Alot of good stories.

The thing could take 20 exocet hits and all you would have to do is paint over the black spot. Modern anti ship missiles are not designed to penetrate armor since modern ships don't use armor. And with an Aegis defender their would be no chance of getting a penetrating bomb on it, they are way too slow.

It is pretty much invincible except for torpedoes.

I'm calling BS, and this is why reactivating the ships isn't worth it.

While the anti-ship missiles may not be able to entirely penetrate the deck armor, the various missiles can shred the ship's superstructure, severely compromising the ship's capabillites and causing enourmous casualties in the process.

Furthermore the ship would have to deal with the fuel fires set by the anti-ship misssiles which can do enourmous damage. The fuel used to power these missiles is not your typical car gasoline and is extremely volitile stuff. These fuel fires can get hot enough to melt steel and can damage various electronic and mechnical elements of the ship with their heat. They can also warp portions of the ship's hull with localized heating causing further damage. An Iowa that takes 20 Exocut hits might not sink, but it would be in extremely bad shape.

Aegis technology doesn't do much good unless the ship also has a bunch of missiles to intercept incoming weaponry with. However if you put those missiles in the ship's hull like typical US VLS cells, you've just cut a couple nice square holes in the ship's armor for enemy anti-ship missiles to go through.

Furthermore, while it would take quite awhile and be extremely expensive to bring even one of the battleships back in service, it would be relatively easy for most of the US's potential adversaries which the Iowa could be justifiably needed against to research new warheads for their existing anti-ship weapons. There are already existing designs to penetrate tank armor, and with the existing supersonic anti-ship missiles it would merely be a matter of adding a hardened tip to the missile along with a delayed fuse to create an effective battleship killer.

[Sikander]

Aegis typically uses automatic cannon to shred incoming missles, not anti-missle missles. These weapons are typically set up on deck where they only present an opportunity for warheads coming in from above.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Sikander
Aegis typically uses automatic cannon to shred incoming missles, not anti-missle missles. These weapons are typically set up on deck where they only present an opportunity for warheads coming in from above.

Simply almost entirely false, and this suggests you don't really understand the point of Aegis. Aegis is about detecting the missiles and or aircraft at long range and therefore being able to take them out with missiles from a distance. It does have the ability to track alot of targets at once even at close range, but this is a rather minimal aspect of the overall system. In fact, the current Phalanx Close in Support Weapon which is used in the various US ships utilizing the Aegis system, presumably the automatic cannon you were refering to, actually operates independantly and doesn't really take advantage of the Aegis capability at all.

The Phalanx is meant merely to catch any "leaker" missiles that get through the primary defenses. It can only deal with so many at once, and it also fires its weapon so quickly that the weapon can quickly run out of ammo and become useless if enough missiles get close enough to the ship even if anti-ship missiles are not effectively coordinated. Actually the current US line of though is that the Phalanx is becoming of increasingly limited value and the better option for the moment is to equip new ships with the RAM Missile for the in close point defense work.