Most powerful warship in the world?

[Zoblefu]

Even if it is just 1%, it's all the coast... and if we're going to land troops on shore, it's that 1% we would care about...

 

[Aquaman]

SSN-21 Seawolf

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[OutHouse]

Artist's impression of HMS Daring, the most powerful warship in history

In history? yea ok...

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: So

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 😛

They're not gone, just mothballed...at least, last I'd heard.

Heh, pulling those things out would be... A very difficult and costly task, and I can't see us doing it, barring WW3. It's just like saying that the planes sitting in the boneyard at Davis Monthan AFB aren't gone - because they could be reactivated in a time of extreme desperation.

We did it for Korea, Vietnam and the First Iraq War

 

[DanTMWTMP]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: coomar
For targets within range of the ships' cannons, it is cheaper to fire and harder to stop shells than either missiles or aircraft strikes. The 16-inch (406 mm) guns of the Iowa?if equipped with guided shells?would offer a cost-benefit ratio potentially rivaling an aircraft strike for targets along the coast, and even firing the older shells would have similar accuracy to many types of aircraft bombing strikes.[/b][/i]

And for the 1% of the land mass in the world that's within the range of a battleships guns that's a real selling point.

Some of that 1% is the most important real estate in the world. Commerce choke points like the Strait of Hormuz, Strait of Malacca, Suez, and others would require gunnery to effectively knock out a bunch of threats along them.

Battleships are also about the only ships in our inventory that can take hits from anti-ship missiles and still operate (thanks to their exceptionally thick steel armor relative to current naval constuction). Also, the Iowas are not slow. They can do 32+ knots on 1940's technology.

nuclear powered battleships ftw

Battleships are definitely not out of date... they can pound the fvck out of any coastal city, which is most defnitely over 1% of the population/landmass I do believe... they have the durability and are kind of like the standard bearer for the US Navy. Carriers themselves are relatively vulnerable to airstrikes and other ships, while the battleship is pretty much a friggin beast. Not to say the Carrier is a beast, and is probably the most versatile/powerful warship, but the battleship has its place in the Navy

if there are so many advantages, why aren't they in use anymore? 😕

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: coomar
For targets within range of the ships' cannons, it is cheaper to fire and harder to stop shells than either missiles or aircraft strikes. The 16-inch (406 mm) guns of the Iowa?if equipped with guided shells?would offer a cost-benefit ratio potentially rivaling an aircraft strike for targets along the coast, and even firing the older shells would have similar accuracy to many types of aircraft bombing strikes.[/b][/i]

And for the 1% of the land mass in the world that's within the range of a battleships guns that's a real selling point.

Some of that 1% is the most important real estate in the world. Commerce choke points like the Strait of Hormuz, Strait of Malacca, Suez, and others would require gunnery to effectively knock out a bunch of threats along them.

Battleships are also about the only ships in our inventory that can take hits from anti-ship missiles and still operate (thanks to their exceptionally thick steel armor relative to current naval constuction). Also, the Iowas are not slow. They can do 32+ knots on 1940's technology.

nuclear powered battleships ftw

Battleships are definitely not out of date... they can pound the fvck out of any coastal city, which is most defnitely over 1% of the population/landmass I do believe... they have the durability and are kind of like the standard bearer for the US Navy. Carriers themselves are relatively vulnerable to airstrikes and other ships, while the battleship is pretty much a friggin beast. Not to say the Carrier is a beast, and is probably the most versatile/powerful warship, but the battleship has its place in the Navy

if there are so many advantages, why aren't they in use anymore? 😕

They require a large crew, suck tons of fuel oil, are a pain/expensive to maintain (they are 60 years old), and would require a major propulsion/weapons refit to continue to sail.

Basically the navy felt that the money was better spent on new ships, though none of them have the abilities of the Iowas.

 

[AndrewR]

The Iowa class battleships are gone. They got rid of the last two just last year (not even mothballed anymore).

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
The Iowa class battleships are gone. They got rid of the last two just last year (not even mothballed anymore).

The Iowa is still at Suisun Bay in reserve awaiting a city to take it as a museum ship. San Franciso refused on account of the Iraq war and the Navy's anti-gay policies (a retarded, IMO, decison). Supposedly Stockton is now the candidate to get it.

The Wisconsin is on display at Norfolk and is still on the rolls as in reserve.

The New Jersy is a museum ship at Camden, NJ

The Missouri is of course at Pearl Harbor (restored to 1945 condition) moored near the Arizona.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Why on earth would you lug a battleship halfway around the world just to launch missiles which a destroyer could handle or bombard shorelines which attack planes could handle? There's a reason EVERYONE on earth stopped building battleships after WWII. They were proven to be worthless. The battleship has as much place in modern warfare as the bow and arrow do. They lived far too long because some admirals were hopeless romantics like yourself and invented jobs for them to do rather than retire them for good.

Their utility is in their 16" guns. They could bombard the enemy 20+ miles away with shells that weighed 2700 lbs. While the Tomahawk missiles have much longer range, they only pack half the punch and are extremely expensive. The rounds for a cannon are relatively cheap.

If the enemy had lots of air-defenses but not much of an airforce, a battleship would be a good choice. Other ships might be more versatile but more expensive to operate due to the types of weapons.

So what? A 2700 pound shell with a range of 20 miles? That's EXACTLY why they're worthless. An F/A 18 Super Hornet can carry an entire broadside over a range of 900 miles unfueled, virtually unlimited with A/A refueling and actually hit something. Battleships made a lot of noise and kicked a lot of dirt in the air, but their guns were not accurate and needed to pump a constant barrage on a target to have even minimal effect. Battleships are like dinosaurs, huge, slow, one-dimensional and now extinct because they could not adapt to a changing world. There is nothing a battleship can do that a carrier and a couple of destroyers could not do 1000% better.

Dude, you need to read up on battleships. The 16" guns are extremely accurate when radar directed, and they are nowhere near slow.
In fact, the Missouri was the fastest capital ship afloat when she was still in service.
35 knots FTW.
Battleships can be command centers, are virtually immune to missile attacks, carry two kinds of missiles themselves, are among the fastest ships afloat, and are the most intimidating of all naval vessels, even today.
Park the Iowa off North Korea, then try parking the Nimitz. Then ask the NK's which one they are most afraid of.
They'll tell you the Iowa. They know when the F/A 18's are coming, but nobody knows when a salvo of 16" 50 calibers are on the way until they hear that noise...then it's too late. Plus, they'll know they basically have no shot of sinking it, even if they manage to get a missile or two through the defenses.
Nope, Battleships have plenty of uses and are very viable in today's fleet....but unfortunately, there's a lot more money in designing a replacement for them than there is in modernizing them to serve for maybe 20 more years until a GOOD replacement can be designed.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: coomar
For targets within range of the ships' cannons, it is cheaper to fire and harder to stop shells than either missiles or aircraft strikes. The 16-inch (406 mm) guns of the Iowa?if equipped with guided shells?would offer a cost-benefit ratio potentially rivaling an aircraft strike for targets along the coast, and even firing the older shells would have similar accuracy to many types of aircraft bombing strikes.[/b][/i]

And for the 1% of the land mass in the world that's within the range of a battleships guns that's a real selling point.

And you're still wrong there. How do you think we'd get to most of our potential enemies?
Where do you think their biggest cities and military installations are?
Evidently, you're one of the people who think that just because the BB's are old, they aren't viable anymore.
Well, they were designed to be used constantly for 40-50 years. They only have been active for about 15 years or less. The rest of the time they were sitting, which, other than requiring some maintenance on the exposed surfaces, really hurts them very little.
A CVN that's been in service for more than 10 years is much more worn out than the BB's.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
if there are so many advantages, why aren't they in use anymore? 😕

Politics, strictly politics.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: coomar
For targets within range of the ships' cannons, it is cheaper to fire and harder to stop shells than either missiles or aircraft strikes. The 16-inch (406 mm) guns of the Iowa?if equipped with guided shells?would offer a cost-benefit ratio potentially rivaling an aircraft strike for targets along the coast, and even firing the older shells would have similar accuracy to many types of aircraft bombing strikes.[/b][/i]

And for the 1% of the land mass in the world that's within the range of a battleships guns that's a real selling point.

Some of that 1% is the most important real estate in the world. Commerce choke points like the Strait of Hormuz, Strait of Malacca, Suez, and others would require gunnery to effectively knock out a bunch of threats along them.

Battleships are also about the only ships in our inventory that can take hits from anti-ship missiles and still operate (thanks to their exceptionally thick steel armor relative to current naval constuction). Also, the Iowas are not slow. They can do 32+ knots on 1940's technology.

nuclear powered battleships ftw

Battleships are definitely not out of date... they can pound the fvck out of any coastal city, which is most defnitely over 1% of the population/landmass I do believe... they have the durability and are kind of like the standard bearer for the US Navy. Carriers themselves are relatively vulnerable to airstrikes and other ships, while the battleship is pretty much a friggin beast. Not to say the Carrier is a beast, and is probably the most versatile/powerful warship, but the battleship has its place in the Navy

if there are so many advantages, why aren't they in use anymore? 😕

They require a large crew, suck tons of fuel oil, are a pain/expensive to maintain (they are 60 years old), and would require a major propulsion/weapons refit to continue to sail.

Basically the navy felt that the money was better spent on new ships, though none of them have the abilities of the Iowas.

Actually, they don't use oil anymore. When they were reactivated in the 80's, they were converted to run the same fuel all of the Navy's non-nuclear ships run. JP-5 or JP-7, I think?
They do require a large crew, that's a main sticking point.
They would, however, need ZERO propulsion refit, and no weapons refit, other than updating to the latest Tomahawks and Harpoons.

There is already technology tested and proven for the 16's that would allow them to fire 40+ miles, with the same deadly accuracy that they already have.
In fact, they'd probably be even more accurate now, since all the spotting and grids would be done with GPS.
There is further technology that could be researched and put in the field that would allow them to fire 100 miles.

As I've stated before, this is strictly a political move to turn the last two over for museums.

 

[FoBoT]

US == Trident submarine, they carry 240 independently targetable nuclear warheads

USSR == Typhoon submarine, 200 MIRV's

a single sub of this type could possibly trigger a nuclear winter wiping out all life, if it used its arsenal

 

[Sketcher]

I'll give the nod to Pacfanweb for his responses in this thread. For those of you who skimmed over, go back and read the detail in his posts regarding Iowa Class Battleships. He's on task.

There isn't a single ship in the fleet that's good for every kind of deployment and I don't presume to bestow magical status on the ships that I served on but only the uninformed make the arguments against the Iowa Class that have been raised here.

 

[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. 🙂

 

[Xylitol]

What's tonnes? 😉

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: coomar
For targets within range of the ships' cannons, it is cheaper to fire and harder to stop shells than either missiles or aircraft strikes. The 16-inch (406 mm) guns of the Iowa?if equipped with guided shells?would offer a cost-benefit ratio potentially rivaling an aircraft strike for targets along the coast, and even firing the older shells would have similar accuracy to many types of aircraft bombing strikes.[/b][/i]

And for the 1% of the land mass in the world that's within the range of a battleships guns that's a real selling point.

Some of that 1% is the most important real estate in the world. Commerce choke points like the Strait of Hormuz, Strait of Malacca, Suez, and others would require gunnery to effectively knock out a bunch of threats along them.

Battleships are also about the only ships in our inventory that can take hits from anti-ship missiles and still operate (thanks to their exceptionally thick steel armor relative to current naval constuction). Also, the Iowas are not slow. They can do 32+ knots on 1940's technology.

nuclear powered battleships ftw

Battleships are definitely not out of date... they can pound the fvck out of any coastal city, which is most defnitely over 1% of the population/landmass I do believe... they have the durability and are kind of like the standard bearer for the US Navy. Carriers themselves are relatively vulnerable to airstrikes and other ships, while the battleship is pretty much a friggin beast. Not to say the Carrier is a beast, and is probably the most versatile/powerful warship, but the battleship has its place in the Navy

if there are so many advantages, why aren't they in use anymore? 😕

Unneeded to fight the wars we're fighting now, and not very cost effective. We're not exactly fighting huge countries like China which would require massive military buildup, so to the mothballs the Iowas go

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

All you battleship defenders are extremely idiotic. Do you thinkw e park our carriers 20 miles off the coast of Iraq?

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.

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.

 

[IAteYourMother]

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?

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.

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.

We haven't had a real war yet

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

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?

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.

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.

We haven't had a real war yet

We haven't, but battleships are quite useless. You can't shell much of Iraq from the Persian Gulf with a battleship. Plus it doesn't take much to hit a battleship if the Iraqis really wanted to. Either the battleship exposes itself, or it doesn't get to shell much.

 

[ntdz]

A warship is a class of ship, it's not any ship at sea.

 

[Sketcher]

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?

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.

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.

You're showing your ignorance of Naval Warfare and armament. Having served aboard the USS New Jersey BB-62 and USS Missouri BB-63 (Both Iowa Class) and sailed within miles of shore during conflict and wartime OPS pre, during and post Gulf War AND actually knowing a thing our two about shore bombardment, visual deterrence and mobile command I say with all certainty that the only extremely idiotic assertions here continue to be from those who know little if anything about battleships. I again say that not any one ship in the fleet serves all purposes but the arguments offered up against the battleships thus far are just plain stupid.

 

[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 😉

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Sketcher

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?

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.

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.

You're showing your ignorance of Naval Warfare and armament. Having personally served aboard the USS New Jersey BB-62 and USS Missouri BB-63 (Both Iowa Class) and sailed within miles of shore during conflict and wartime OPS pre, during and post Gulf War AND actually knowing a thing our two about shore bombardment, visual deterrance and mobile command I say with all certainty that the only extremely idiotic assertions here continue to be from those who know little if anything about battleships. I again say that not any one ship in the fleet serves all purposes but the arguments offered up against the battleships thus far just plain stupid.

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.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
We haven't, but battleships are quite useless. You can't shell much of Iraq from the Persian Gulf with a battleship. Plus it doesn't take much to hit a battleship if the Iraqis really wanted to. Either the battleship exposes itself, or it doesn't get to shell much.

You board game warriors are laughable. The only thing the Iraqis had floating in '91 were corvette class mine/missile boats (and nothings changed) which did a great job of harrassing the local fisherman. Our Harpoon missiles were overkill on those tubs. The straight of Hormuz was lined with Silkworm missile sites and the visual of an Iowa class battleship steaming through the straight was enough to send the Iraqis running, abandoning their posts. The few that they did launch were shot down, ran out of fuel before reaching us or didn't lock on target. Now, if they'd had Exocet's in play; it might have been a little more interesting, but not anywhere near a single shot deterrent as has been mentioned a few times in this thread.

We lobbed 16"'s for three days straight in '91 and cleared more landing and inland ground than a whole infantry or carrier squadron could do in a month; considering the costs of doing the same via infantry or carrier forces... Plus, sent 28 T-Lams (Tomohawks) into Iraq central. You just can't do that sort of close-in AND long range support with any type of mobile force at that cost and that effectiveness.

"Plus it doesn't take much to hit a battlehsip if the Iraqis really wanted to" DLeRium, just what do you think the Iraqis or anyone else in theater are going to hit an Iowa class with? Mines perhaps, but we detonated a dozen (lost count) mines that would have put any other ship out of commision.

An Iowa Class can serve as a completely operational command center in place of an aircraft carrier and it was in fact the only ship besides an aircraft carrier capable of exchanging duty of one; my first tour in the Persian Gulf was during that kind of mission. If anyone thinks a visual deterrent is meaningless, you don't know how about warfare.