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

Back in 1981 when Ronald Reagan decided to reactivate the four Iowa class BB's the Soviet Union went nuts and protested, they actually soiled their red diapers. The Soviet navy had already figured out how to sink an American super carrier but could never come up with a weapon to sink an American Iowa class battleship.

Go to post #1 of this thread and go to the link provided and look at the photos of the armor plating of the Iowas. The armor plating is nothing like the armor plating found on other BB's. We aren't talking about Krupp armor plating. The Iowa's were designed to take direct hits from the Yamato's 18" guns 3.219 lb. armor piercing rounds and keep on fighting.

Before land lubber geeks got involved in designing U.S, navy warships, warships were designed to take direct hits and keep on fighting. I doubt a Burke today could take a hit by a Ruskie or chi-com anti ship missile and keep on fighting,

BTW: The Japanese Yamato class battleships had numerous design flaws and the IJN had never perfected battle damage control procedures like the USN did. It still took between 11 to 15 torpedoes and seven direct hits by 1,000 lb armor piercing bombs to sink the Yamato.

 

The Iowa Class is an awesome design....but it can be effectively put out of commission by aircraft bombing the decks and as the report states....4 to 6 shaped charged torpedo's an sink it.

But realistically they are no longer necessary.

The U.S. Navy reigns supreme and our Sub Force is extraordinary.

USAF Bombers can strike anything anywhere and we are well on our way in developing Direct Energy Weapons, Rail Gun's....and at present whatever vulnerabilities we have can not be exploited to any extent that would change the results of an overall U.S. Military victory.

AboveAlpha.....plus...rise of the Drones.

 

The Japanese tried doing that. No luck.

The Iowa class BB during WW ll.

9 × 16"/50 cal Mark 7 guns
20 × 5"/38 guns
80 × 40 mm/56 Bofor anti-aircraft guns
49 × 20 mm/70 anti-aircraft guns

 

Big Difference between this and some 2000 LBS BUNKER BUSTERS slamming into the deck of an Iowa Class!

AboveAlpha

 

Just to add....a whole new level of Carbon Nanotube Armor will be coming out for U.S. Naval Ships.

It's ability to take a hit will make an Iowa Class loo like Tin Foil.

It will be at least a decade before we see a test craft....but it's coming!

I have also heard of a Caging System for Ships like on a Stryker.

It causes any incoming missile to detonate before it impacts the hull.

AboveAlpha

 

Sound like you have little confidence in the Burkes and Ticonderoga's and their Aegis fire control weapons platform ?

Neither do I. It seems that story about the USS Donald Cook might be true.

If the Russians in Syria are able to blind American satellites, GPS, cell phones, radion field communications and blind E-3 AWAC aircraft and cause UAV's (drones) to crash, the American Navy destroyers are worthless. Come on, all a Burke is nothing more than an oversize destroyer escort.

 

I was not looking at this from that aspect of Carrier Strike group defense.

And yes the Russian's have electronic warfare capability.

But that is one area we are decades in advance.

Many times when things like this happen we allow them to happen just so we can gauge Russian capabilities.

AboveAlpha

 

Guess what ?

That's exactly what the Russians have been doing watching us during the first Gulf war and our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Obama's little wars supporting the Arab Spring and radical Islam.

As NATO and the American military has acknowledged that in the first thee months when Russia got involved in Syria they have learned more about Russia's capabilities than during the last ten years.

Last year the CONO reported to Congress, knowing that Obama will be packing his begs in January of 2017 and without mentioning names, if the next POTUS isn't like Obama and Congress is willing to pay the money to repair the damage Obama has inflicted on our military, the U.S. Navy could be back to 2008 combat readiness levels by 2022.

 

The reason we have not spent a lot of money as far as the Navy is concerned is because we are waiting for the test results on a number of programs to come in as this will determine the way our Navy will exist for the next 100 years.

For now the U.S. Navy is fine and there really is no danger of China or Russia attacking it.

So we have a bit of time to make some real hardcore decisions.

AboveAlpha

 

Did you see Bloomberg today. What's going on with todays Navy ? Who's in charge ?

The U.S. Navy has a new class of a crappy ship besides the Little Crappy Ship, the crappy JHSV.

Two excerpts:

 

The argument about bombs being dropped on a modern (or modernized) ship are so much bilge water.

Yes, you just listed the defensive AA capabilities of a WWII era batttleship. But during the modernizations, the guns were linked to the RADAR, so they were much more accurate then they were in the 1940's. Plus they placed STINGER sites on the ship.

And do not forget, the Battleships did not go into combat by themselves. They went as part of a Battleship Battle Group, which consisted of the following:

Now we are talking about some serious anti-air capability. So before the aircraft can even reach the battleship, it must somehow survive passing through at least 6 other ships, some of which have the most sophisticated air defense systems on the planet. What are the odds of that happening, with the aircraft then able to line up for an accurate bombing run over the ship itself which is still firing RADAR guided gunfire even if it makes it through all the missiles?

What people keep forgetting is that the ability of aircraft to attack ships in the late 20th and early 21st centuries are nothing like they were in the mid 20th century. The surviveability of aircraft to penetrate such defenses are slim to none. On top of the fact that such accurate bombing on a moving target is almost impossible. Pilots have not practiced that kind of skill in decades, primarily because of the reliance in the modern era of missiles instead of bombs.

Those who talk about how obsolete ships always talk about the BBs like they are sitting out there by themselves, like the USS Nimitz in a certain 1980 Ramon Estevez sci-fi movie. They would have to defeat at least 7 ships, and how many militaries in the world have the kind of airpower assets that would be needed to take all of them out? And could afford to loose a significant number of them in the attempt?

When discussing the surviveability of any capitol ship, you can not consider just the ship itself, but you must consider the entire group that it operates with.

 

I am not Navy.

You will have to ask Mushroom about this.

AboveAlpha

 

Mushroom isn't a squid, He's a Marine who is now hanging with soldiers.

 

REALLY????

I thought he told me he was Navy...although the Marines are really part of the Navy.

Shroom told me he worked with SM-3's.

AboveAlpha

 

Some people tend to confuse things around here. Just because I have a lot of knowledge of things, that does not mean that I work with it.

I know a lot about Navy equipment because I have worked with the Navy. Other equipment I know a lot about because I have worked with it at higher levels or that it is similar to equipment I have worked with.

Specifically, Amphibious Operations and the equipment that works with it (having been a Marine), and most aspects of Air Defense, because I worked with it for over 5 years. Working with Brigade level commands, I understand how things like SM-2 and SM-3 work in relation to a theatre wide Air Defense network. My interest in missile defense has caused me to research all of the systems the US has deployed, as well as it's capabilities and limitations.

I also never claimed to be much of a mechanic, but I understand how the internal combustion engine operates.

 

OK....I will take you at your word but did you or did you not tell me you were part of an SM-3 launch crew.

If no...I will take you at your word but remember....In GOD we trust....all others we TRACK.

AboveAlpha

 

And you know this just how?

 

Reread the report I posted a few pages back.

AboveAlpha

 

Considering what you've posted before and the very small torpedoes that do carry shape charges, lets say I'm very skeptical.

 

Look....I have ALREADY stated that we do not posses or need such Shaped Charge Torpedo's but if we need them it would take a very SHORT PERIOD OF TIME TO GET THEM IN THE THEATER!

The U.S. has multiple decades of experience in developing Shaped Charge Munitions and no matter how thick armor is id Molten Super Heater Copper is released from a Shaped Charge Munition or Torpedo....it can burn through any width of armor unless it is Depleted Uranium Carbon Composite or Nanotube or Buckyball Enhanced Steel Armor.

AboveAlpha

 

You're in a fantasy. You have no idea of how shape charged warheads work, strengths or weaknesses. Not a clue.

 

Really?

So you are denying a Mark 50 torpedo exists for use against Subs?

Underestimate me at you peril.

AboveAlpha

 

Or do you deny Sting Ray torpedo's exist even if that are Brit...although we bought them out?

AboveAlpha

 

Like I've said before you're way out of your league and you're probably a kid. The warhead is designed to drill a small hole in HY steel. You don't even know what HY steel is or how it responds to changes in depth, much less it's behavior in water.

 

First of all I am over 50.

Secondly I am NOT Navy....so there will be occasions I might make a mistake.

Thirdly....we are perfectly capable of developing Shaped Charged Torpedo's to sink and Iowa Class.

And if you think we cannot.

You know very little.

AboveAlpha