Iowa class BB, they don't build them like that today

An Iowa turret and barbette would survive as many 2000 pound missiles as you would want to hit it with. You can't do squat to it by blast. You have to penetrate the armor. The system is designed to take shock and lots of it. Knocking it out of alignment is just fantasy on your part. It will survive a hit by 2000lb armor piercing shell with the majority of it's weight hardened steel at well over 2000 fps; the the impact cap of hardened tungsten of less than 4 square inches. I won't do the math for you, but that degree of sectional density is immense, more more than any cruise missile could generate. Yet the armor is still strong enough to either break the projectile up or deflect it.

 

OK....listen....if you look at the turret each individual cannon can lower or raise.

Not all three within each turret have to move with the others.

We have the ability to visually guide an armor piercing high explosive missile directly into the area and space which has no armor to allow each cannon to lower or raise.

We could even use a Hyperbaric Missile and get it right into that turret and detonate all the powder packs and blow that turret right off the ship!

AboveAlpha

 

You must mean thermobaric, but what system has that warhead and with adequate size? And against a moving ship with a sea breeze. How big is this thing going to be? No such thing in existence and certainly not in the US Navy. And an optically guided anti-ship missile? Once again which one and which LMAO armor piercing warhead are we talking about here? Alpha you're really way way way out of your league here. You might as well be talking about Captain Kirk's using a phaser or a proton torpedo.

 

Thermobaric is specific to a massive increase in heat and pressure.

Hyperbaric is specific to expansive pressure to the point no form of armored structure can contain it and it will burst open the strongest of structures.

If you recall back in 1991 we used optical guidance on a cruise missile to stop Saddam from pumping and spilling millions of barrels of oil into the Persian Gulf.

We hit the pump dead on.

That was not in motion but it was back in 1991.....that's 24 years ago.

We can guide a missile right into the cannon movement area on a turret....and that turret will pop off like latex glove a person is blowing air into against their face.

AboveAlpha

 

You seem to think offensive missiles are perfect while defensive systems (including defensive missiles) are worthless - that's far from true. The attacker has the advantage in that he does not have to be perfect, but the defender has to be near perfect, but with something the size and scale of the Iowa the room for error in the defense is significantly increased.

And its a 2 way street - nothing prevents the Iowa from sending a wave of missiles at the attackers, and something the size of the Iowa would pack a lot of missile systems. Take the 16-inch guns off the Iowa and install more missile systems and gun systems than several frigates carry. The attacker will have losses.

That adds to the "cost" to the enemy, the enemy has to develop and field and concentrate resources to engage a modern battleship. Your wave of missiles from aircraft, ships, subs isn't free, they have to be built and manned and equipped, and then they all have to be devoted to attacking one ship. That's all part of answering the "is it worth having a battleship" question.

As far as I know, the Iowa 16 inch barrels were not used for bunker busters. I know 205mm (8 inch) howitzer barrels were used for the initial GBU-28's but that was out of necessity (the rapid schedule), production GBU-28's have about a 16 inch diam but are not made from barrels but are specifically designed warheads.

"Bunker busters" are hard pressed to successfully penetrate 21 ft of reinforced concrete (which equals the 20 inches of armor in places on the Iowa). The buster has to penetrate the armor and remain intact in order to detonate. Busters can go through a lot of dirt to get to the buried bunker, but dirt is not armor or reinforced concrete.

And how do you get that 30,000 weapon to the ship? The range on those is short, well within the air defense capability of any ship. And the 30,000 lb weapon itself is large and a clear target for defensive missiles - missiles capable of engaging aircraft at altitude and cruise missiles at sea level.

Certainly there are land based non-nuclear systems that can seriously threaten any ship even a battleship, but they are land based and are not perfect.

I don't know if bringing battleships back is worth it, but there isn't a clear answer.

 

I seriously doubt that.

Just a quick note: The 16" gun turret on an Iowa weighs 1,108 tons. Each turret had three 16"/50 guns each protected in it's own armor protected compartment each gun barrel and breech weighing 239,156 lbs.
That would be over 1,387 tons, the turret isn't going no where.

A modern navy corvette like the Germans Brunshweig class corvette weighs 1,840 tons.

Or, just three Iowa class 16" gun turrets weigh more than a fully loaded Oliver Perry class frigate.

In fact the turrets are so heavy their own weight keeps them secured to the ship, they aren't attached to the ship, they just sit on huge teethed gears that are well protected by armor just below the deck . Turn the ship upside down and the turrets would just fall off.

But what happens when 800 pounds of gun powder explodes inside one of the turrets gun compartments ?
Or when 2,000 ponds of gun powder are ignited and explodes inside the turrets powder room ?

It happened on the USS Iowa on April 20th 1989. -> https://youtu.be/uHSzYy-XLsU

In all 2,800 pounds of gun powder exploded inside the gun turret and just below the turret.

The bursting charge of a 16" AP 2,750 lb. round is 40.9 lbs. The bursting charge of the 1,900 lb HC round is 153.6 lbs.

 

We haven't even approached the question of sending a missile down the 16 inch barrel.

It seems your argument has now reduced to having 1 battleship as a huge missile ship versus 6 faster, significantly cheaper missile ships - that can be at 6 different locations at the same time. Or how many dozens of aircraft that can be anywhere in the world within hours?

So how much of a presence and coverage capability of the Navy are you willing to reduce to have that battleship? How much do you want to reduce the attack capabilities and versitility of the military?

Anything build by humans can be destroyed by humans. The race for indefeatable ships has always been met with new ways to kill ships.

This Bismark and Tirpitz did not benefit Germany in WWII one iota. They even became PR disasters. But if German instead had used those resources on far less costly submarines to have a submarine fleet of 200 rather than 78, the UK may not have survived long enough for the USA's entry, with that level of merchant ship destruction even the USA's rapid rate of construction of liberty ships could not have kept up and overall those two battleships, impressive as they were, turned out to be entirely counter productive and sapping away other viable military expenditures and efforts.

The Air Force has a saying the fighters can win a battle, but bombers make policy. A battleship would be useful should we decide to do a sea invasion of Somolia. But we don't really need it to successfully defeat Somolia. It is our aircraft that is the make-it or break-in in serious war and has been from mid-WWII.

The Navy's primary tasks - other than Aircraft carriers and submarines - is patrol and transportation. Patrolling the entire world takes a lot of ships, not 3 huge ships, and a lot of aircraft (which aren't cheap). The enemy you invision a battleship fighting doesn't exist.

You cannot name one realistic battle/war senario where a battleship would make the difference. I could name hundreds, thousands, where a battleship wouldn't even be usable.

Explain how a battleship would have any relevancy fighting ISIS?

 

No, I do not recall nor does such a weapon or delivery system exist. There is no naval missile with optical guidance. And what missile are we talking about that will "pop that turret off." Please I'm waiting. And what is cannon movement area exactly? Just name the model. Alpha you're just ridiculous. Now you're talking about make believe weapon systems.

 

It's your fantasy to send a missile down the gun tube. You might as well get Spock to beam down and use his phaser. I'm still waiting on the weapon system you're going to use.

 

[video=youtube;qalJ9koob2Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qalJ9koob2Q[/video]

 

My Mandarin is a little rusty but I think the chi-coms were saying that the American imperialist are now down from 36 16" guns to 35 guns.

For some reason I can't post videos and photos on the PF, just links. I use to be able to post videos and photos.

 

The way to burst the turret is to deliver a Hyperbaric Warhead on a missile using optical guidance...and YES...we can do this and we have in the past done it almost 25 years ago....on a stationary target I admit but that was almost 25 years ago and we are much more capable now.

There are 3 different type of Hyperbaric warheads.

And do not confuse these with Thermobaric Warheads which we use to kill Jihadists deep in Afghan Caves.

The CDC in of itself has the ability to order the use of Hyperbaric Munitions.

They come in 3 forms one being a FUEL AIR DEVICE.

Basically the missile is guided into the cannons open slot.....it does not detonate upon impact but releases a combination of Ultra-High Level Burn Fuel and PURE OXYGEN.

The detonation of the Fuel Air device is not what blows the turret off.

The turret is not airtight.....the warhead pumps pure O2 and Fuel vapor....it detonates....the pressure blows out all gasses in the turret and partially separates joints and seals.....immediately after this form of explosive decompression....very much like if a window in an airliner at 35,000 feet was broken open the pressurized air in the aircraft's cabin will explosively eject out that window.....so the detonation of the O2 and Fuel causes the pressure in the turret to exist at over a Million Times the air pressure outside the turret.

This pressure explosively exits the turret and breaks welds and seals and joints...etc.

Then a pure vacuum exists within the turret and a form of REFLEXIVE ACTION occurs as what has been designed to hold the turret together has already been destroyed but the pure vacuum inside the turret causes air from outside to rush back in.

As this air rushes back in a secondary explosive charge that is part of the missiles warhead that survives the primary detonation itself will detonate at the exact moment it's sensors read a Barometric Pressure overload.

It is similar to when a LIGHTNING BOLT is discharged and a person hears the Crack and Boom of THUNDER.

That Thunderclap is the result of the bolt of lightning creating a vacuum where it cut's through the atmosphere and then the surrounding air rushes in at such velocity that the kinetic force and energy of the electron orbital fields surrounding the atoms in the molecules in air colliding and repelling each other with incredible force.

The Hyperbaric Warhead is similar as it detonates and creates a vacuum in the turret then as the outside air comes rushing back in at velocities far faster than the speed of sound.....the secondary warhead's sensors read the point of OVER-PRESSURIZATION....as the air will rush back in so fast and so greatly that the turret for a microsecond will be vastly OVER-PRESSURIZATION and at that moment the second detonation occurs which will blow the turret clean off the ship in pieces.

AboveAlpha

 

You have no delivery system, never had one in the past and don't have one now. Simple fantasy on your part. What's next the Starship Enterprise?

 

And you have no battleship, do you?

 

The delivery system is the same one we used fitted with an optical guidance system back in 1991 when we optically guided in a Tomahawk Cruise Missile and EXACTLY hit the spot necessary to stop all that oil Saddam was purposely dumping into the Gulf!!!

That was almost 25 years ago and we certainly are better at doing it today!!

AboveAlpha

 

Nope, battleships are still there, but your missile system is still a fantasy.

 

Please name the model. No optical guidance system on Tomahawk ever. Certainly not in 91. You'll have to account for which one of the 288 or so that were launched and from what platform. Absolutely no optical system on anti-ship variant that's been out of service for years.

 

What? So you take out a turret, if a missile just happens accidentally to make it down a barrel, technology is nowhere near that level of accuracy.

The value in the battleship is in its structure, the guns usefulness is unknown, 3 turrets of 16 inch guns is not needed but maybe 1 is useful.

Its false to assume 6 small ships is better than 1 large ship. The 6 ships can be in multiple places so there is a strategic advantage, but they do not equal one very large ship. The large ship has the economy of scale, can withstand far more damage, can handle more opponents at once, can carry more powerful weapons and sensors.

Top speed of the Iowa is listed as over 32 knots, equal to the top speed of aircraft carriers and Aegis cruisers. Small ships have no speed advantage of any significance, the small ships that do have a significant speed advantage cannot achieve that speed in the open ocean except in rare conditions.

Can't be answered. Nobody knows what the cost of re-commissioning the Iowa would be, how it would be equipped, what its role and capability would be, what it takes to defeat it.

But it would certainly be a versatile ship, large enough to be a missile cruiser, air defense cruiser, strategic sensor platform, and provide tactical co-ordination, all in one hull.

Really, you are going to push that airpower is the key theme? That's been disproven from Bomber Harris in WW2 to Rumsfeld in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now its getting ridiculous. A battleship appropriately configured would be a major force in any battle at sea or near the coast. The issue is whether its worth the cost.

And ISIS? What good are submarines in fighting ISIS? Or ICBM's, main battle tanks, anti-air systems? Does the USA base its entire military upon fighting ISIS?

 

Here you go.

Tomahawk Block IV Phase II Future deep-strike requirements are in review and focus on technological advancements and cost reduction. Follow-on Tomahawk Block developments and replacement systems also are being reviewed. An antiarmor variant with a real-time targeting system for moving targets, using either Brilliant Antiarmor Technology or Search and Destroy Armor submunitions, is a possibility. Both submunition options leverage off U.S. Army developmental programs, reducing program costs.
TacticalTomahawk would add the capability to reprogram the missile while in-flight to strike any of 15 preprogrammed alternate targets or redirect the missile to any Global Positioning System (GPS) target coordinates. It also would be able to loiter over a target area for some hours, and with its on-board TV camera, would allow the warfighting commanders to assess battle damage of the target, and, if necessary redirect the missile to any other target. Tactical Tomahawk would permit mission planning aboard cruisers, destroyers and attack submarines for quick reaction GPS missions. If approved by Congress, the next generation of long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles would cost less than $575,000 each, half the estimated cost of $1.1 - 1.4 million for the currently planned Block IV model. The cost savings and increased capability comes from eliminating many older internal systems and components built into the model currently in the Fleet. In addition, streamlined production techniques and modular components would combine to lower the cost. Tactical Tomahawk is expected to reach the Fleet by 2002 if the production proposal is approved by Congress. On 27 May 1999 Raytheon was awarded a $25,829,379 undefinitized cost-plus-incentive-fee/cost-plus-fixed-fee, ceiling amount contract for the modification of the Tactical Tomahawk missile to the Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant configuration as part of the Second Counter-Proliferation Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration. The Tactical Tomahawk missile will be modified to incorporate the government-furnished penetrator warhead and the hard-target smart fuze. Four Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant missiles will be assembled to conduct the advanced concept technology demonstration testing. Work will be performed in Tucson AZ and is expected to be completed by March 2003.

LINK....http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm

AboveAlpha

 

ICBMs are nuclear deterents. Silos are dirt cheap and more defensible than a battleship. Main battle tanks would have relevancy against ISIS. It doesn't take a battleship to have anti-air systems at sea.

Yes, the question of costs. Not just economic in terms of the ship, the crew and operational costs, but also potential political liabilities cost should one sink (ie "Remember the Maine."

Economic costs is not the question of how many dollars it costs - and costs per year - but the cost of what is given up to have and maintain it. What do you give up to have it? More specifically, what new technology and new ships and submarines do you give up to have it?

The answer to "I want" is basically everything possible and as many as possible from the military if they have an unlimited blank check. The military does not have an endless stack of blank checks. Do you give up an aircraft carrier and their aircraft? Numerous smaller destroyer class ships? A couple of nuclear submarines? Name what you give up for each battleship? Also identify how many vessels and types of vessels you would dedicate to the battleship's support vessels - as you also are giving up those costs and personnel from other usages.

What "battle at sea" are you talking about? Against who? There is NO Navy in the world designed for major surface battles at sea. It does come down to that. Battle senarios would have to manipulated to find ways to actually use the battleship in ways vastly lesser expensive ships and more rapidly deployed and on-scene aircraft could be used.

Battleships were built to fight other battleships. They did come in handy against Japan for invasions, but ships less the cost of battleships could have done the same. They also were relevant when aircraft did not have the range to over oceans - and now they do.

Catapults launching Greek fire probably could have some usefulness being cheaper than aircraft to pulmet a hillside with napalm. Do you favor building catapults? There are places mules and horses can go that vehicles cannot. Do you favor re-establishing a couple of horse mounted divisions? Crossbows in some situations might be cheaper and more ideal than firearms. Should we stockpile crossbows and have a few crossbow batallions?

Battleships in their era were cool and impressive. But they are dinosaurs. Outrageously expensive by every measure, of severely limited application, and other systems can take care of whatever task a battleship may have. Claiming they are cheaper because the shells are cheaper is ridiculous. Iron bombs don't cost as much and it isn't the cost of munitions that are the major cost of a ship, even if launching Tomahawks.


Remember, the old battleships are old. Virtually every system on the ship is outdated. Steel rusts and rusts badly in salt water and inner hulls and bulkheads are generally not accessible. It possibly would be cheaper - meaning still outrageously expensive - to build new battleships than to rehab the now 70+ year old warships.

 

Just to be honest I made a mistake as far as the munition with the optical guidance used in 1991 to directly strike a tiny pipeline target in a way it would prevent Saddam from continuing the pour millions of barrels of oil into the Persian Gulf was a Precision Optical Munition dropped by an F-111.

I have known for years this optical guidance system was incorporated into the Tomahawk but I guess I must be getting old as I mistakenly remembered that it was a Tomahawk when in fact in was an Optical Munition dropped by F-111's as there were I think at least 4 targets that needed to be hit.

AboveAlpha

 

Sorry, not anti-ship and NOT optically guided. Only optical scan via satellite to address battle damage assessment. Not in service and certainly not available in 91. You'd better get something better than wiki. Only current anti-ship weapon is Harpoon presently.

 

An Iowa burns about a quarter million dollars of fuel per day and even reduced crew would likely be close to 1000. The cost of each sailor ready and in service is over $100,000 per year when ALL costs are factored in such as medical, GI Bill stuff, and those who go career - meaning pension. Officers cost much more. The personal costs would be about a quarter billion per year if amortorized across time.

If you see the direction the military is headed, including the Navy, it is to reduce personnel as much as possibly any way possible. They bean counters came to realize it is NOT just how much someone in the military is paid. That is only a small fraction of the total costs.

If maintainence, constant upgrading, supplying, support vessels, shore support personnel, bueacratic and office staffing and costs, and all the rest calculated with fuel and personnel/crew, the cost of an operating battleship you already have and completely modernized and ready to go is likely well over a billion dollars a year- every year. Again, that is on top of the cost of the ship itself. Those 9 big floating cannons ain't cheap to have and keep.

 

The Iowa Class Battleship is a great achievement of American Naval Combat Ship Development and it is without a doubt built to survive just about anything that could be thrown at them.

But today with our vast and unbelievably powerful Submarine Fleet and High Tech. Destroyers.....the Iowa Class is just....outclassed.

I have not even mentioned Submarines as anyone who has ever served on one knows....it is the SILENT SERVICE and we NEVER...EVER....talk about our Submarines.

I am going to talk about our submarines.

The Los Angeles Class attack sub is still one of the absolute best ever attack sub ever made but as good as the L.A. Class are they are LIGHT YEARS behind the SEAWOLF and it's post Cold War redesign VIRGINIA CLASS attack sub.

I live not too far from Electric Boats Grotton Connecticut local where Ohio Class Nuclear Sub's with their Trident D-5 or UGM-133A Trident II Missiles....24 Missiles in each Ohio Class sub and each missile Up to 14 Thermonuclear MIRV (Multiple Independently Targetable re-entry Vehicle); Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicle with the W88 or W76 Thermonuclear Warheads.

And we have 18 Ohio Class subs although 4 of these now carry SLCM's rather than SLBM's.

Anyhooo......the Seawolf was designed to hunt and destroy the massive TYPHOON CLASS Soviet Sub's and it's mission included destroying any type of enemy sub at will and costing many Billions of Dollars each only 4 were built and a scaled down version known as the Virginia Class were and are being built instead.

Still all three....the L.A. Class, Virginia Class and Seawolf would easily sink the WWII era Iowa Class Battleships.

People tend to forget about what we have UNDER the water as looking at Carriers and old Battleships is impressive.

But so is the Seawolf....Virginia and L.A. Class subs.

They are killing machines and one of the reasons China has decided not to attempt to invade Taiwan.

AboveAlpha