I just watched Donald Trump aboard the battleship USS Iowa, while on the fantail in front of the 16" guns of turret #3 Trump said we don't build ships like the Iowa's like we use to, the worlds biggest guns in reference to the Iowa's 16"/50 guns and then he said, we should recommission the Iowa. An active duty Iowa class battleship would be a big game changer with Iran, they feared the Iowa's back when they were on active duty with Ronald Reagan's / G.H. Bush's navy. Putin would be yelling foul on the geopolitical chessboard if we we had an Iowa class BB that the Soviets spent over forty five years trying to figure out how to sink an Iowa class battleship and could never figure out how to do it. The chi-coms would start packing and departing the South China Sea if we had an Iowa class battleship in the Pacific. One of the most stupidest things President Clinton ever did besides treating the Al Qaeda threat as a law enforcement issue not as a national security issue was to turn all four of the Iowa class battleships into museums.
Rebuild the Iowa. We almost lost to the Japanese because of people like you. Battleships? The Russians don't know how to sink a battleship? HOW OLD ARE YOU? Never heard the word "torpedo?"
Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse
Trump seems to have read up on the Iowa's. Until Trump calls a Navy corpsman a "Navy corpse man" or calls submarines "ships that go under water" or says that bayonets are obsolete, he knows more about the military than the current Commander in Chief.
LOL, I would believe that Obama now knows far more than Trump when it comes to the military. That said, Obama is not running for the Oval Office he already won it, Twice. So you want to put someone in office that proves they know nothing about the military.
The Prince of Wales and the Repulse weren't Iowa class BB's. Huge difference. Also there are no weapons in any navy's arsenal that can sink an Iowa class battleship. Look at the Japanese Yamato in which it took 11 to 15 torpedoes and several direct hits by armor piercing bombs or her sister ship the Musashi in which it took 11 to 19 torpedoes and 17 direct hits by armor piercing bombs that cause her to go to the bottom. But it was the lack of efficient battle damage control procedures why these two ships were sunk.
Recommissioning Iowa class battleships is not that absurd. The USS Wisconsin was used during the Gulf War. They can use Tomahawk cruise missiles in addition to the 16 inch guns.
How old am I ? Old enough have watched the USS New Jersey fire a 16" nine gun salvo. Also have actually watched what those 16" 2,750 lb. and 1,900 lb. HC rounds can do on land. I was a Shore Fire Control Party Man while I served in thde Marine Corps, in layman terms a naval gunfire spotter. Also served with Sub Unit One, 1st ANGLICO when I did my tour of duty in the Nam so I know something about naval guns and the Iowa class BB's. BTW: We almost lost to the Japanese because of people like me ? You don't have an argument so you are making (*)(*)(*)(*) up. How could we have pulled off the invasion of Iwo Jima without battleships or most of the amphibious landing during WW ll. FYI: During the Vietnam War the North Vietnamese feared the USS New Jersey's guns more than the B-52's Arc Lighting missions. In fact the North Vietnam government contacted the Nixon administration in 1969 saying they wouldn't even discuss having peace talks as long as the New Jersey was in the South China Sea. When Ronald Reagan activated the four Iowa class BB's the Soviet Union went nuts and protested. In one hour a Iowa class BB can put more tons of ordnance on target in just one hour (60 minutes) than an entire aircraft carrier air wing can in 24 hours. As for torpedoes, I already provided a link to the "Strafford Morss and Iowa Class Survivability" Now battleships don't operate alone, they have destroyer escorts to deal with enemy subs and enemy aircraft just like aircraft carrier have. During WW ll the Iowa class and North Dakota class BB's were the escorts for the fleet fast aircraft carriers. The carriers needed the battleships during WW ll, a battleship don't need a carrier but it helps. An Iowa class BB is just as fast as our super carriers today In fact during the first Persian Gulf war an Iowa class BB departed port at the same time as a Nimitz class CBG and the Iowa class BB was in the Persian Gulf two days before the carrier arrived. How could that be ??? Well there was a huge storm and while the Iowa class BB just plowed through the storm, the carrier had to reduce speed.
The Shkval, 'Squall' in English, is a nuclear-capable underwater anti-ship missile designed for use by nuclear-powered submarines against large surface ships such as aircraft carriers. It comprises a rocket-assisted propeller, which allows a top speed of 220 mph and a maximum range of 6 nautical miles, and a torpedo warhead. The super-cavitating Shkval is considered silent and fast, up to 3-to-4 times over existing torpedoes. The underwater rocket produces a high-pressure stream of bubbles from its nose and skin, which coats the torpedo in a thin layer of gas and forms a local envelope of super-cavitating bubbles achieving low drag. It is not clear whether the lack of a guidance system or, if exists, how it works. Due to its unique characteristics, Shkval is deemed as one of the most advanced naval weapon systems currently deployed worldwide. The torpedo is assembled at the Dastan Torpedo Plant in Kyrgyzstan.
The first Tomahawk missiles that were fired against Iraq during the first Gulf war was launched by an Iowa class battleship. But it was the Iowa's 16" guns that the Iraqis feared the most. All of our enemies past and today fear the Iowa class 16" guns. But I doubt any of the Iowa's will ever be reactivated. It could be done, it's been debated by the U.S. Naval Institute, U.S. Naval War College but, President Clinton ignored the law that Congress passed and G.H. Bush signed into law and Clinton issued an unlawful order had all of the extra 16" spare barrels cut up and sold for scrap. There were enough 16" rounds in storage and enough spare barrels for all four of the Iowa's to refight WW ll.
There is so much wrong in that message it is hard to list it all. You did not present that "no navy has any capability to sink an Iowa class battleship." You posted a claim that a single old technology 1000 pound could cripple but likely not sink it. Our aircraft carriers do NOT have battleship protection now. Battleships are defenseless without air cover. From 1999 - 16 years ago: the Navy does not intend to return any battleships to active service; (11) the Navy states that the battleships cannot meet naval surface fire support requirements for range accuracy and cost too much to operate; and (12) the Marine Corps supports this position. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-62/html/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-62.htm So you claim the Marines and Navy are incompetent. Ever heard of "rust?"
You might want to do some more research, the torpedo only travels a short distance at that high speed then drops down to it's normal speed. It's a short range stand off torpedo. But I remember when "Janes" first reported about that torpedo and it did cause some western navies to freak out. Excellent website on naval weapons. -> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTRussian_post-WWII.htm Home page -> http://www.navweaps.com/
The U.S. Marine Corps does not support that position. Since WW ll the main mission of U.S. Navy battleships was for providing naval shore bombardment before amphibious assaults and for providing NSFS for U.S. Marines. My expertise is naval gunfire support, I was good at it. When the Iowa's were decommissioned the U.S. Navy was no longer capable of providing NSFS for the Marine Corps. The only gun the navy has is the 5"/54 pop gun. Cruisers have two while the destroyers have one pop gun. Nether capable of firing four to six round salvos that are critical when the target is an area target. The 5"/38 guns of WW ll era were better at providing NSFS than the modern 5"/54 guns of today. The problem with the 5"/54 guns they are automatic and are fed by a magazine. If you needed to go from a FQ or FD fuse to a FT or VT fuse it took 20 to 30 minutes for the gun crew to unload the magazine and put on the fuse you needed. The 5"/38 guns could do it in less than a minute. 20 minutes is a long time when your in the middle of a fire fight. I use to hate it when one of the newer destroyers that had the 5"/54 guns was on the gun line. The Navy's three Zumwalt destroyers with it's rail guns can't accomplish all of the missions needed for providing NSFS for the Marine Corps. Unable to hit targets on revers slopes. No air burst capabilities. Still not able to fire multi gun salvos where all projectiles come on target exactly at the same time. Not capable of providing night illumination rounds. No Willie Peter rounds. The Marine Corps aren't happy campers with the rail gun. And at $20,000 per round, it's not the smart way to fight a war.
