Most powerful warship in the world?

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
No I have not, but that doesn't make you the only qualified person in this world. Like I said, you can show me how awesome your military is, but ALL IT TAKES is one bullet, one casualty, one thing to go wrong, and guess what? We love the US media don't we. I think it takes a little more intelligence than simply sizing up the military stats to show you how powerful something is. Yes, a USS Cole will cause hell. Powerful? Sure. Battleships have the armor, etc, but when you can only hit 40 miles in with your shells, what good is that? Is Baghdad 40 miles in? Please. We drove into Iraq for a good 50 miles before hitting major resistance. Get a grip. Anti-missile? Sure. We have those, but all these defense systems are easily overwhelmed. Fire off 80 missiles at a battlegroup, and your AEGIS cruisers will be quite confused. Sure 80 90% of those threats will be taken out, but 1 can easily slip through.

Where in the world do you get this insane idea that there are no strategic targets or no need to soften the soil within 40 miles of shoreline!? You must have missed the fact that Iowa's carry 32 Tomahawks and 16 Harpoons along with those 5 and 16" guns, not to mention a full fledged floating medical center, food store, troop transport and re-fueling rig. A BB doesn't just lob shells for goodnesss sake.

Care to bring a relevant argument to the table? There are some; you're just not bracketing your shots where you can find center.

 

[maddogchen]

I don't think the positives of having a battleship outweigh the cost of personnel to run it. It had a crew of....err..around 1500 which is way too much in this day and age with people like Rummy in charge. I don't know exactly how to say it but the philosophy of the Armed Forces has changed. Now its kinda like getting things done with less people. The Navy wants to go in the direction of say a destroyer with a complement of 140 personnel.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Get a grip. Anti-missile? Sure. We have those, but all these defense systems are easily overwhelmed. Fire off 80 missiles at a battlegroup, and your AEGIS cruisers will be quite confused. Sure 80 90% of those threats will be taken out, but 1 can easily slip through.

80 missiles at a battlegroup eh? And I'd imagine we'd just sit around waiting for 80 birds to take flight before we did anything about that? Just what kind of army land or sea and what kind of missile are you going to purposefully marshal get one missile to penetrate an Aegis group and render an Iowa class inoperable? Sure, there's always the far reaching scenario that will allow any result; but given the option I'd prefer to be on an Iowa class than any other ship in US Naval History if taking heat from a missile, gunfire or mine strike. It isn't about what's perfect; it's about what gives you the best chances.

 

[Aimster]

Sum of All Fears

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
I don't think the positives of having a battleship outweigh the cost of personnel to run it. It had a crew of....err..around 1500 which is way too much in this day and age with people like Rummy in charge. I don't know exactly how to say it but the philosophy of the Armed Forces has changed. Now its kinda like getting things done with less people. The Navy wants to go in the direction of say a destroyer with a complement of 140 personnel.

Finally some reasonable discussion. The "Cost" issue is partially what Pacfanweb refers to when he say's it was a "Political" decision to retire the Iowa class. You can't just add up 1400 staff and say that costs more than a destroyer to operate. A destroyer can't accomplish what an Iowa class can. No other ship in the fleet at any time in history can accomplish what the Iowa class can at any cost. Use Carrier sorties to drop bombs on coastal targets? One flight and smart bomb delivery cost more than a whole payload of 16". Can you take a tanker into theater or do you need to park that thing out of the way and send your battlegroup out for a refueling trip? Why not just re-fuel and re-arm from a BB? Take on a Stallion (Helo)? Nothing short of a carrier or BB can land one of those.

Even the '99 GAO NSFS report narrowly focuses on operational costs of particular activity rather than as a whole support structure of naval warfare and it acknowledges that there is no effective Marine Naval Surface Fire Support until the DD-21's are delivered in what would be about 10 years from now; even then they're logistically intended to be operated in conjunction with aircraft carrier support - not as a stand alone fire or command center. An Iowa can be updated within 2 years of start and be fully operational. If I were a Marine on the beach needing continuous gunfire support I don't think the idea of the new ships due out in 10 years would give me a warm fuzzy.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
i would say the US is going to have it. for example, our new destroyers will be fitted with a GPS guided cannon that fires 5'' shells accurately up to 54 miles:Q

either those or a US aircraft carrier. mind you that our carriers can hold 100+ planes

oh, and 1 of our warships will probably cost more than that entire fleet (3 B2 spirit bombers and we're already there )

subs are still better, but i must stresss......bigger doesnt always equal better.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
I believe they were looking for firepower, and limiting them to surface ships with nonnuclear payloads. Aircarft carriers themselves are quite benign, and are only the bad mothas they are because of the ships they crusie around with and the air force that they haul around.

... And this is a pretty easy prize to claim now that the Iowas are all gone

wouldnt this new ship be able to blow it out the water before it gets there though? that gun that can shoot down a cricket ball @ mach 3 from a considerable distance, should be easily able to shoot a much slower torpeado.....providing its relatively near the surface.

and anyway when are the brits gonna have a fight with the yanks?

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Link.

That's the new class of Royal Navy destroyer, the article claims it is the most powerful warship in the world, but how could it be? Surely any old nuclear submarine would be much more deadly... or one of those massive American aircraft carriers... It does mention

... Principal Anti-Air Missile System, which can trace and destroy hostile objects as small a cricket ball travelling at three times the speed of sound. Its range is effective over a radius of several hundred miles.

so maybe they're not worried about aircraft...

not even close..... US AEGIS class guided missle destroyer is way more advanced...and way more powerful..
and for sheer brute force a Nimitz class Carrier packs the most firepower in the world..
and yes that includes over subs... becasue having served on one for many years i know for a fact they carry more "special weps" than any sub in the world

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
All you battleship defenders are extremely idiotic. Do you thinkw e park our carriers 20 miles off the coast of Iraq?
Of course we don't. The carriers stay well out of range because they are vunerable to most everything. A battleship doesn't have that concern
Do you think any country will let us sail a battleship within 20 miles of their shores? I think not. All you need is 1 hit on the battleship and watch. 10 people will die, and while the ship may be afloat still, the media will go crazy.
They wouldn't have a choice. Ever heard of Korea, Vietnam, or the Pacific in WW2? Battleships did just that...sailed within sight of enemy shores, kicked their asses, and basically did what they wanted to.

Do you honestly think all that armor means anything? You just need 1 hit, 1 hole, 1 thing damaged, and that's gonna cost you several million to repair, several days, several lives... That's the cost of fighting a war as America.

Again, a BB can survive these kinds of things. When is the last time a BB was hit? Korea, I believe, by a shore battery. Plus, do you think we'd just send the BB by itself? It would have AA escorts, plus the BB's have CIWS if a missile leaks through. It's not very easy to hit one of our ships...if it was, our enemies would do it more frequently.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Anti-missile? Sure. We have those, but all these defense systems are easily overwhelmed. Fire off 80 missiles at a battlegroup, and your AEGIS cruisers will be quite confused. Sure 80 90% of those threats will be taken out, but 1 can easily slip through.

Name all the times our missile defenses have been "easily overwhelmed".
Give me a break. Nobody today has enough missiles left to overwhelm a couple of AEGIS ships.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
First: I don't think a submarine is classified under warship. submarines are not ships

Second: "Navy launches deadliest and most expensive warship" Its a UK article so its saying the UK Navy launches its deadliest and most expensive warship. Not of the world, of the UK.

"With a price tag of £605 million, the 150-metre long vessels will be the most powerful, advanced and deadly warships in the world when they come into service in 2009."

States pretty much, 'in the world'.

 

[sindows]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Kilgor
Imagine the damage an Iowa Class Battleship could do if it was parked off the coast of a major city.

BB armor
Main Side Belt 12.1 inches inclined 19 degrees (307mm)
Main Deck Armor 1.5 inches (38mm)
Second Deck Armor 4.75 + 1.25 inches (121mm + 32mm)
Splinter Deck Armor .625 inches (16mm)
Barbette 17.3 to 11.6 inches (439-295 mm)
Turret Face Plate 17.0 + 2.7 inches (432mm + 63mm)
Turret Side 9.5 inches (241mm)
Conning Tower 17.5 inches (444mm

Armament
9 16-inch/50 caliber Guns (Mark 7) (406mm)
12 5-inch/38 caliber DP Guns (Mark 12) (127mm)
4 20mm/76 CIWS Anti-Aircraft/Missile
32 BGM-109 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles
16 RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles

They don't build them like that anymore.

And now imagine the damage a nuclear sub could do with one missle 500 miles away from a city

Now how many millions of dollars would that cost? Now I don't know what the price per shell of an Iowa costs but considering its just a steel casing with explsives inside, I can't imagaine they cost very much....

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: sindows

Now how many millions of dollars would that cost? Now I don't know what the price per shell of an Iowa costs but considering its just a steel casing with explsives inside, I can't imagaine they cost very much....

Less than $500 per, but that's not an ongoing cost considering that there are over 20,000 rounds of varying 16" ammunition currently in stock. Even manufacturing updated rounds and re-fitting the guns for 100+mile effectiveness it's a negligible cost considering what it'd take from any number of firepower sources to effect the same capability.

The following link has some excellent info. a lot of answers to questions.

Updated Feb 01, 2006
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

Excellent Flagship and Command coverage here:
http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm

 

[Pacfanweb]

Great links there, Sketcher. Lots of rebuttal in there for inaccuracies posted here. :thumbsup: