View Full Version : Needs More Battleship!
Don't care what anyone says, we should have Battleships! Iowa-Class battleships to be precise. In 1984 the USS Missouri was updated and modernized and Reactivated, and served until 1990. It was a glorious site to see and parked off the shore of an adversary struck fear knowing the devastation it could impart from a long ass distance via 2,700 lb HE rnds. Here's how the Iowa-Class ships could be modernized into ships for the future, and good luck to the navy that had to face such a thing:
How the U.S. Navy Could Bring Back the Iowa-Class Battleships
The National Defense Authorization Act for 1996, generally known as the defense budget, had a unique provision hidden inside the text: the text directed the Navy to keep at least of the four Iowa-class ships on the Naval Register in good condition, retain the logistical support to maintain battleships on active duty and keep those ships on the Register until the secretary of the navy certified that existing naval gunfire support equaled or exceeded the firepower of two battleships. Iowa and Wisconsin were finally stricken from the Register in 2006 after the secretary of the navy, citing the upcoming thirty-two Zumwalt-class destroyers, certified they were no longer needed.
Now, eleven years later, the Navy is only getting three of the thirty-two Zumwalt destroyers, and the long-range attack projectile specifically designed for the Zumwalt’s two 155-millimeter guns is being cancelled due to exorbitant costs. The Navy is again facing a naval gunfire shortfall, in addition to an antiship shortfall. Could the Iowas make yet another comeback, bolstered with new and powerful weapons?
Cont:
Basically offshore heavy artillery batteries. REAL heavy!
Maybe they have the technology to boost the range past 26 miles these days?
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-21-18, 19:52
Ok, for full giggles, replace the guns with rail guns. Plenty of electrical power...
‘Skip shot’ rounds like skip bombing?
The Missouri’s were really compromises, I want Montana’s.....
Iowa class was a compromise. It had to fit through the Panama Canal among other considerations. As sentimental as I am toward them, I just don’t know if they are sound anymore
Ok, for full giggles, replace the guns with rail guns. Plenty of electrical power...
‘Skip shot’ rounds like skip bombing?
The Missouri’s were really compromises, I want Montana’s.....
Drawing board only. Hiroshima and Nagasaki saw to that.
SomeOtherGuy
09-21-18, 20:07
Or you could actually build 10-20 Zumwalts and supply them with ammo. Magically the unit price would plummet to levels that Congress would approve (if still outrageous).
The Iowa class was awesome at its time. That time is 75 years ago. Even with all the armor I don't see them surviving a real war against Russia or China, and they aren't needed against anyone else. Capital ships as a concept are practically obsolete with both ballistic missile and hypersonic anti-ship weapons. The smarter investment would be lots of destroyers/cruisers for force projection and patrol, and lots of SSGN type subs - like the early Ohio boomers converted to cruise missile carriers - as formidable, stealthy, survivable arsenal ships.
titsonritz
09-21-18, 20:26
I like it when they drop anchor, pull a 90 and blast E.T.
The_War_Wagon
09-21-18, 20:27
Awwww yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... USS Vengeance! :cool:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-t3QsoLyF3Mg/UebLpfQo66I/AAAAAAAATFU/t-z8t6zQRHU/w1200-h630-p-nu/QMx+Star+Trek+Into+Darkness+USS+Vengeance+artisan+replica.jpg
When I was a teenager I got to go on the USS Iowa one Memorial Day while visiting relatives in the Newport News area in the mid to late '80's. We used to go there every year for Memorial Day. Being on BB-61 as a young buck was a truly awesome experience! I bought a BB-61 souvenir hat, and I think I still have it in my hat box. I have a big box full of hats I've gathered over the years as I like to collect them. I need to dig the box out and see if it's still there.
I'm all for bringing them back. They just ooze 'EFF OFF!!!
eightmillimeter
09-22-18, 01:43
I was on Iowa last spring. As awesome as it was it was sobering to see just how rough the ship was. There is literally no way to bring these back without completely gutting them. Just the basic plumbing and electrical are completely shot. Apparently the 1980’s refurb program consisted of “if it looks like it need to be fixed, just throw some paint on it” because I saw paint so thick in places it had to have an armor rating.
I’d love to see one or two in service but damn it would take a lot, too much probably.
That said, there is absolutely a place for a ship that can function all of its weapons with mechanical and analog controls isolated from the digital world.
The biggest problem would be the supply chain for many of the replacement items. At one time there were replacent liners for the 16” cannons at Crane but I heard they were disposed of. The manufacturing process of the ship is a lost art also and they are manpower intensive. Are they sexy, hell yeah, but like the beloved M-14 and the F-14 they are a maintainence whore.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-22-18, 08:07
Whores get the job done, just sayin’...
Grand58742
09-22-18, 08:21
Build new ones with updated everything except the 16 inch guns.
The revisions to the ship class with the addition of the guided missile systems made it highly useful in an age between the necessity of having digital warfare devices and old school analog "pound your ass into submission" firepower. Is such a ship needed today?
We're still using "obsolete" A-10s and B-52s aren't we?
Let's face facts here. Despite the "do more with less" attitude that often permeates the .mil, sometimes a low tech, single use platform is needed to get the job done. It isn't pretty, flashy or have all kinds of bells and whistles, but it sure gets the job done efficiently when you need it to do that job. Having the ability to park a platform with a couple of escorts just off a coast with the ability to toss in 24,000 pounds of shells at once or attack targets hundreds of miles inland with its missile systems is a fairly cheap alternative to parking an entire carrier battle group as a show of force.
Basically offshore heavy artillery batteries. REAL heavy!
Maybe they have the technology to boost the range past 26 miles these days?
Check out the article. It's suggesting following the trend of non powder based weapons.
Ok, for full giggles, replace the guns with rail guns. Plenty of electrical power...
That's the idea.
Iowa class was a compromise. It had to fit through the Panama Canal among other considerations. As sentimental as I am toward them, I just don’t know if they are sound anymore
I didn't know that, but makes sense.
Or you could actually build 10-20 Zumwalts and supply them with ammo. Magically the unit price would plummet to levels that Congress would approve (if still outrageous).
The Iowa class was awesome at its time. That time is 75 years ago. Even with all the armor I don't see them surviving a real war against Russia or China, and they aren't needed against anyone else. Capital ships as a concept are practically obsolete with both ballistic missile and hypersonic anti-ship weapons. The smarter investment would be lots of destroyers/cruisers for force projection and patrol, and lots of SSGN type subs - like the early Ohio boomers converted to cruise missile carriers - as formidable, stealthy, survivable arsenal ships.
Might be an excellent choice for using in say low tech threat areas also. I don't think what happened with say the Cole would have done anything but scratched the paint on an Iowa class battleship, and an Exocet might leave a mark, maybe. Seeing haji vaporized against the hull of a battle ship he ran a speed boat packed with explosives into have little effects on the battleship would be very demoralizing for them. A damn dingy and two guys almost sunk the damn Cole, and killed how many sailors? F that. Those battle ships were designed to take direct hits from kamikazes. Big Mo took 3 kamikaze hits. and it didn't do chit. What's haji gonna do against that? Die and die badly.
I like it when they drop anchor, pull a 90 and blast E.T.
Funny, that scene did come to mind. Best scene in another wise meh movie.
Build new ones with updated everything except the 16 inch guns.
The revisions to the ship class with the addition of the guided missile systems made it highly useful in an age between the necessity of having digital warfare devices and old school analog "pound your ass into submission" firepower. Is such a ship needed today?
We're still using "obsolete" A-10s and B-52s aren't we?
Let's face facts here. Despite the "do more with less" attitude that often permeates the .mil, sometimes a low tech, single use platform is needed to get the job done. It isn't pretty, flashy or have all kinds of bells and whistles, but it sure gets the job done efficiently when you need it to do that job. Having the ability to park a platform with a couple of escorts just off a coast with the ability to toss in 24,000 pounds of shells at once or attack targets hundreds of miles inland with its missile systems is a fairly cheap alternative to parking an entire carrier battle group as a show of force.
If done per that article, it would be one hell of a platform O death and close to immune to low tech threats to boot. Besides being crazy thick, the armor design itself was quite sophisticated and designed to withstand a direct hit from guns equalization it's own or smaller, and other low tech insults. Good read on that:
"The most notable difference between modern warships and the Iowa Class battleships is the huge amount of armor protection the Iowas employ. Modern warships are hardly armored at all, instead relying on their ability to stop incoming threats before they can hit the ship. Newer warships have only a few inches of armor plating and in an effort to save weight, have even used aluminum in their superstructures. In contrast, the Iowas were built at a time before missiles and since you could not shoot down or destroy an incoming projectile, the ships were built to withstand the tremendous force of impact produced by naval gunfire."
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2925
Whether cost effective I don't know, but nothing says "you really don't wanna go there" like a battleship.
eightmillimeter
09-23-18, 02:55
53924
53925
53926
I got to be a sideboy at a college graduation for ROTC kids on the USS Wisconsin.
Bet your a$$ I took photos. Fastest of all the BBs. Would love to see them update.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-23-18, 09:33
I did the math before for a friend:
All four Iowa battleships after WWII. If all four shot together, EACH broadside would have been almost 100,000 pounds of high explosive. All four ships together would take 2.5 hours to deliver the same amount of high explosives as the Hiroshima bomb.
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/bb-iowa-class-g638966.jpg
A battle line like no other...
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/bb-iowa-class-g638938.jpg
All four Iowa battleships after WWII. If all four shot together, EACH broadside would have been almost 100,000 pounds of high explosive. All four ships together would take 2.5 hours to deliver the same amount of high explosives as the Hiroshima bomb.
And I think people forget we had North Carolina and South Dakota class ships too. Not as fast, but with 16 inchers too.
And I think people forget we had North Carolina and South Dakota class ships too. Not as fast, but with 16 inchers too.
I believe it was the armor and it's design was what set the Iowa Class above those and set the standard for the time. There's quite a few modern weapons that would sink, or severely damage modern ships that would hardly scratch the paint on an Iowa Class ship. Modern weapons being designed to deal with minimal armor.
Remove the rear turret, add in numerous more VLCS tubes and you still have room for a flight deck for up to 3 F35B’s. Now you have a mobile Gun Boat with its own carrier wing. The Carrier wing can provide air support for the battle group and or provide additional air cover for landing troops.
I read in a report that detailed this exact plan that they could put something like 300-400 VLCS tubes and the flight deck on the back of the boat. Along with strip all the 5in guns, add some of the 155’s the zumwalts are getting and updated multiple more phalanx guns. IMO, we could cut back the number of carriers to 1 per fleet and add 3 BB’s to each fleet for less money than they are spending now.
Awwww yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... USS Vengeance! :cool:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-t3QsoLyF3Mg/UebLpfQo66I/AAAAAAAATFU/t-z8t6zQRHU/w1200-h630-p-nu/QMx+Star+Trek+Into+Darkness+USS+Vengeance+artisan+replica.jpg
I totally use that ship as my ship in a Star Trek Online. USS Liberty NCC-1776
Remove the rear turret, add in numerous more VLCS tubes and you still have room for a flight deck for up to 3 F35B’s. Now you have a mobile Gun Boat with its own carrier wing. The Carrier wing can provide air support for the battle group and or provide additional air cover for landing troops.
I read in a report that detailed this exact plan that they could put something like 300-400 VLCS tubes and the flight deck on the back of the boat. Along with strip all the 5in guns, add some of the 155’s the zumwalts are getting and updated multiple more phalanx guns. IMO, we could cut back the number of carriers to 1 per fleet and add 3 BB’s to each fleet for less money than they are spending now.
Much of what you're saying is mentioned in the article linked in the OP, but the author goes further then that.
Guess thats what I get for not reading the article lol.
The Missouri was part of the first Gulf War, so it was in service at least through 1991. It was also setup for and fired Tomahawk Cruise Missiles then.
My non professional opinion, I think they should of kept at least one of the Iowa Class Battle Ships in service at least with a limited crew until a full crew is needed. The ability to launch 2,000 lbs. projectiles 25 miles is a good capability to have if we ever need to prep a well defended beach for an amphibious invasion and support our guys as they good inland.
NYH1.
The Missouri was part of the first Gulf War, so it was in service at least through 1991. It was also setup for and fired Tomahawk Cruise Missiles then.
My non professional opinion, I think they should of kept at least one of the Iowa Class Battle Ships in service at least with a limited crew until a full crew is needed. The ability to launch 2,000 lbs. projectiles 25 miles is a good capability to have if we ever need to prep a well defended beach for an amphibious invasion and support our guys as they good inland.
NYH1.
Per the OP:
The National Defense Authorization Act for 1996, generally known as the defense budget, had a unique provision hidden inside the text: the text directed the Navy to keep at least of the four Iowa-class ships on the Naval Register in good condition, retain the logistical support to maintain battleships on active duty and keep those ships on the Register until the secretary of the navy certified that existing naval gunfire support equaled or exceeded the firepower of two battleships. Iowa and Wisconsin were finally stricken from the Register in 2006 after the secretary of the navy, citing the upcoming thirty-two Zumwalt-class destroyers, certified they were no longer needed.
So, they have gone from 4 to 2 and at 2 because the crazy expensive Zumwalt-class destroyers were not delivered in the numbers expected, if I understand correctly. 2 are apparantly in good working condition, but obviously very outdated. Updated per article, they would have few equals I suspect.
vicious_cb
09-23-18, 14:55
I believe it was the armor and it's design was what set the Iowa Class above those and set the standard for the time. There's quite a few modern weapons that would sink, or severely damage modern ships that would hardly scratch the paint on an Iowa Class ship. Modern weapons being designed to deal with minimal armor.
That not necessarily true, any anti modern antiship missile could easily have a last minute top attack mode that would punch right through the deck armor. Also 300mm armored belt on Iowa is a laughable amount of armor for any modern HEAT warhead.
That not necessarily true, any anti modern antiship missile could easily have a last minute top attack mode that would punch right through the deck armor. Also 300mm armored belt on Iowa is a laughable amount of armor for any modern HEAT warhead.
I have no doubt various modern anti ship missiles would sink that ship. There's also some weapons that would not, that may otherwise sink modern ships (assuming they got through) and there's low tech stuff those ships were built to withstand, that put a massive hole in the Cole and such. The belt was designed to take a direct hit from a 16 inch armor piercing rnd, so in addition to being a foot thick, there were various additional designs added that greatly improved it's ability to take massive hits, such as multiple layering, angles, etc, expecting them to get through and survive. Not being an expert, I can't claim that would stop say "any modern HEAT warhead." I will say, it will fair far better than the 2-4" give or take in most modern warships. From linked article:
"The vertical side armor consists of an upper and lower belt which is inclined to an angle of 19 degrees. The total depth of the belt is 38 feet 6 inches and extends from just before turret 1 to just aft of turret 3. The upper belt is Class A armor, 12.1 inches thick, while the lower belt is Class B armor, 12.1 inches thick at the top and tapered to 1.62 inches at the bottom."
Source:
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2925
The deck even thicker, and as with sides, some additional design changes that was intended to take direct hits from 16" HE rnds and survive. Just like the metal a tank, it's not just thickness that dictates ability to withstand attacks.
Modern anti-ship missiles could sink it, but how many would it take and how many of those launched would actually make it to the target?
One of the Japanese Musashi sisters (don't remember which one) took something like 9 torpedoes and 27 bombs to sink it. Yes, WWII ordnance, but put it in perspective.
Grand58742
09-23-18, 20:09
Much of what you're saying is mentioned in the article linked in the OP, but the author goes further then that.
The thing about that article is it's a way expensive method of fixing a non-existent problem and likely doing it slowly. The BB series were built originally for ship to ship combat, but also had that really important secondary mission of preparing a beach target for a follow on invasion. Something they did rather well and the Iowa Class was the pinnacle of that design (decided difference with the Montana Class follow on, speed being the main factor) so much so they got drug out of retirement several times since the unique capabilities were absent from the rest of the fleet.
However, the author of the paper ignores the fact that attempting to retrofit a 70+ year old hull isn't going to be the easiest task, especially with some of the technologies he talks about being extremely expensive. Personnel costs aside, the Iowa Class was a reasonably cheap alternative to a carrier battle group in the support role, especially with targets within range of the guns. The author, in my opinion, is trying to design a whole new class of expensive ship by saying "well, 5' guns are obsolete, so let's replace them with expensive toys that still really aren't as mature as they should be. Let's automate the main armament even though it's likely going to have to be designed and tested for years before it's ready to use. Let's rip out the turbines and drop in a reactor, get rid of a gun turret and drop in a vertical launch system for scads of missiles..." So on and so forth. Really expensive retrofitting needed on a ship with a single purpose in mind today.
It pretty much stops being an Iowa Class at that point. Hence, my suggestion to use the original parameters and build an updated version. Sure, keep the armor plating (just as much for stability of the platform as for armor purposes) keep the secondary 5' guns or even upgrade it to a 155mm standard. Hell, replace a few of the secondary guns with a few MLRS pods on each side for good measure if it makes them happy and they want increased range. The SSM platforms were adequate when it was upgraded in the 80s. I mean, 32 BGM-109s and 16 Harpoons aren't anything to scoff at.
I like the idea of having a somewhat cheaper alternative to a carrier battle group as well as having a dedicated gun platform for Chesty's Misguided Children, but the author really got stupidly expensive in his wish list. You and I both know tried and true is sometimes better than trying to buy your way out of a problem and "fixing" a ship that was never designed for what he lists in that article.
Let me ask this, could an Iowa class battle ship be converted to nuclear power like our aircraft carriers?
NYH1.
eightmillimeter
09-24-18, 00:27
Let me ask this, could an Iowa class battle ship be converted to nuclear power like our aircraft carriers?
NYH1.
Sure they could but why? It opens up all the other problems. You can’t bring them back without gutting and replacing almost everything. Everything from phone lines to toilets... if we decide we need the guns, easier to make new guns and put them on a nuclear ship. Juice isn’t worth the squeeze.
Let the old girls lay..
vicious_cb
09-24-18, 15:46
I have no doubt various modern anti ship missiles would sink that ship. There's also some weapons that would not, that may otherwise sink modern ships (assuming they got through) and there's low tech stuff those ships were built to withstand, that put a massive hole in the Cole and such. The belt was designed to take a direct hit from a 16 inch armor piercing rnd, so in addition to being a foot thick, there were various additional designs added that greatly improved it's ability to take massive hits, such as multiple layering, angles, etc, expecting them to get through and survive. Not being an expert, I can't claim that would stop say "any modern HEAT warhead." I will say, it will fair far better than the 2-4" give or take in most modern warships. From linked article:
"The vertical side armor consists of an upper and lower belt which is inclined to an angle of 19 degrees. The total depth of the belt is 38 feet 6 inches and extends from just before turret 1 to just aft of turret 3. The upper belt is Class A armor, 12.1 inches thick, while the lower belt is Class B armor, 12.1 inches thick at the top and tapered to 1.62 inches at the bottom."
Source:
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2925
The deck even thicker, and as with sides, some additional design changes that was intended to take direct hits from 16" HE rnds and survive. Just like the metal a tank, it's not just thickness that dictates ability to withstand attacks.
Trust me, it would be awesome to see a modernized battleship but the tax payer in me cannot realistically justify the massive expenditure modernizing a BB for little gain especially when its armor is so easy to defeat with warheads like BROACH and JMEWS.
"The BROACH warhead is a multi-stage warhead developed by Team BROACH; BAE Systems Global Combat Systems Munitions, The two stage warhead is made up from an initial shaped charge, which cuts a passage through armour, concrete, earth, etc., allowing a larger following warhead to penetrate inside the target. The weapon is designed to allow a cruise missile to achieve the degree of hard-target penetration formerly only possible by the use of laser-guided gravity bombs."
MountainRaven
09-24-18, 17:32
Or you could actually build 10-20 Zumwalts and supply them with ammo. Magically the unit price would plummet to levels that Congress would approve (if still outrageous).
The Iowa class was awesome at its time. That time is 75 years ago. Even with all the armor I don't see them surviving a real war against Russia or China, and they aren't needed against anyone else. Capital ships as a concept are practically obsolete with both ballistic missile and hypersonic anti-ship weapons. The smarter investment would be lots of destroyers/cruisers for force projection and patrol, and lots of SSGN type subs - like the early Ohio boomers converted to cruise missile carriers - as formidable, stealthy, survivable arsenal ships.
The RTS game World in Conflict imagined a WWIII with the US and USSR fighting a conventional war in Europe. Then the Soviets land troops in Seattle and begin pushing in-land, going for the headquarters of the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") - the in-game reason for why WWIII is being fought conventionally, rather than with nukes, is that the Soviets believe that SDI is active and it works and so they don't want to throw nukes at the US, since they believe the US would be invulnerable to their weapons, but the Soviets have no equivalent defense system to protect against US retaliation. The first mission involves the player launching a counter-attack (that doesn't go well) and the second mission involves fighting in and around a small coastal city south of Seattle in which Missouri brings her big guns to play (quite effectively). But by the game's third or fourth mission, Missouri's at the bottom of the ocean, courtesy of Soviet attack submarines and/or anti-shipping missiles.
(The invasion finally turns around when the US drops a nuke on its own forces - and the spearhead of the Soviet forces - in the last mountain pass before reaching SDI's HQ, combined with activated National Guard troops from further in-land in the US coming onto the line). The Chinese join the war on the Soviet's side, but because they lack amphibious landing craft, their army has to be transported by a variety of ships that require modern docking facilities to unload. So then the game becomes a race to retake Seattle before the Chinese ships arrive. Once Seattle's port facilities are back in US hands, the Chinese ships turn around and head for home, ending the Soviet invasion of the US. IIRC.)
Sure they could but why? It opens up all the other problems. You can’t bring them back without gutting and replacing almost everything. Everything from phone lines to toilets... if we decide we need the guns, easier to make new guns and put them on a nuclear ship. Juice isn’t worth the squeeze.
Let the old girls lay..
Gotcha.
NYH1.
Nightvisionary
09-25-18, 02:37
Had some great personal pics from my year aboard the USS Wisconsin but it looks like the forums incompatibility issues with Tinypic has not been fixed. Too bad.
The biggest problem would be the supply chain for many of the replacement items. At one time there were replacent liners for the 16” cannons at Crane but I heard they were disposed of.
The last of them were actually auctioned off a few years ago (4 years or less IIRC - saw the auction listing online myself). Went for fairly cheap too.
Moose-Knuckle
09-25-18, 10:58
It's 2018, where are our helicarriers?
Sure they could but why? It opens up all the other problems. You can’t bring them back without gutting and replacing almost everything. Everything from phone lines to toilets... if we decide we need the guns, easier to make new guns and put them on a nuclear ship. Juice isn’t worth the squeeze.
Let the old girls lay..
Exactly..the way I see it, those old battlewagons would be nothing but trouble.. Slow, expensive to operate, and chances are, they'll rarely be needed.. Not to mention they're an easy target for any decent air force.. There's a reason why all the navies of the world moved away from them after WWII...
Every year I go to the USS North Carolina. I can't imagine what it would be like to go to sea aboard a battleship. But it would be cool.
crusader377
09-26-18, 10:57
Although the Iowa class battleships are awesome ships and represent the apex of U.S. Battleship design, the day of the battleship are long past. The cost of refurbishing them, maintaining, and crewing them is too high for the utility that they provide. Although their 16" guns are extremely powerful, there range is limited to 25 miles and the United States no longer has the manufacturing infrastructure to build additional guns of that size with a longer range.
Exactly..the way I see it, those old battlewagons would be nothing but trouble.. Slow, expensive to operate, and chances are, they'll rarely be needed.. Not to mention they're an easy target for any decent air force.. There's a reason why all the navies of the world moved away from them after WWII...
Doesn't that apply to any ship though?
NYH1.
Moose-Knuckle
09-26-18, 14:32
Really nobody?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxRBP2ZKUZY
Doesn't that apply to any ship though?
NYH1.
Exactly!
sundance435
10-01-18, 15:47
Doesn't that apply to any ship though?
NYH1.
In theory, not if it's armed with like 200+ VLS tubes. There have been proposals for a missile-armed LPD, with 280+ VLS tubes - no chance of keeping up with a carrier, though.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-01-18, 16:05
I always thought that on D-Day they should have taken an obsolete battle ship, take out the bridge and put some concrete on it and drive it up on the beach and use HE and grape shot to clear the beaches. Could have been used as part of the pier afterwards.
In theory, not if it's armed with like 200+ VLS tubes. There have been proposals for a missile-armed LPD, with 280+ VLS tubes - no chance of keeping up with a carrier, though.
Update the power plant too.
sundance435
10-02-18, 11:39
Update the power plant too.
Yeah, it'd almost have to be a nuke - so would any modern BB, I assume, due to power demands. They've pretty much given up on integrated propulsion as an alternative, though. As it is, I have no idea how they're going to get adequate funding for FFG(X), Columbia-class, and future large combatant programs at roughly the same time (while still building Fords, Virginias, and Flight III Burkes). Just like the rest of the military, the Navy has ridden the Ticos and soon the Ohios hard and the bill will be coming due at the same time. Amazing to think that 1 Ford would get you close to the goal line on something like FFG(X), though.
In the Early 90's one of my friends was stationed aboard the Missouri and I was invited to go on a dependence days cruise . They fired all the the guns and fed us, the crew was amazing and showed great pride serving aboard the Missouri . Then "we" joined an Aircraft Carrier group and was shown how the group worked, had aircraft demonstrations and a two F14 supersonic fly by . The 17 inch armor is amazing . The ship was built to take hits. Some of the other ships did open water demos . It is day in my life I will never forget
Really nobody?
I thought of it, and have enjoyed some of his movies, but he's such a D bag of a human being I couldn't bring myself to post it.
Moose-Knuckle
10-05-18, 13:17
I thought of it, and have enjoyed some of his movies, but he's such a D bag of a human being I couldn't bring myself to post it.
:lol:
His hair plugs . . . you just can't take him serious.
But I love that scene how it shows the loading and firing of a battle ship's gun.
:lol:
His hair plugs . . . you just can't take him serious.
But I love that scene how it shows the loading and firing of a battle ship's gun.
Hair plugs are the least of his problems...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.