Whats with the iowa?

[merc4ulfate]

It takes all of the Iowa's arsonal to level a city ...

It takes one missle,
One torpedo,
One nuclear weapon,
One modern bomber,
One stealth ship,

To sink the Iowa.

When you look at it this way ... it really isn't all that cost effective to me.

[Akotalaya]

yea i never said they were invincible, but the iowa alone carries more ordinance than 35 modern bombers...and honestly, any ship can be sank with a nuke, thats not that special, and a torp? yea, well..you tell me where you got that data since none of the iowas have been sank yet? and a stealth ship? ok, you forget missiles CAN be caught on radar..and since the us is really the only country with stealth ships i dont think thats much of a problem, i also wouldn't be too worried about missiles since like i said, countermeasures, anti air..all sorts of things, missiles also malfunction..not to mention it does take awhile to get a lock with a missile..also, no it wouldent take all the iowas ordinance to level a city, since like i said she carries enough ordinance to fire as fast as she can for a total of 30 minutes and equal 35 b-2 spirits, and she would still have ammo left over, and as far as torpedos, doesent she have a bit of extra armor? also, modern ships have survived hits from torps lol..im enjoying this debate

[TorpX]

I think you are comparing operating costs of the Iowa then, to modern ships today. The Iowa uses more fuel, has a much larger crew, and when the guns need to be fixed/barreled that will cost more.

Modern ships are designed around the missile, old battleships around the gun. Missiles can hit targets well beyond the range of the biggest guns. It is really a question of operating one Iowa, or several modern missile cruisers. Putting too many eggs in one basket often leads to disaster.

[Lokisaga]

I agree that this thread should be moved to the General Topics section, but these are my thoughts on an interesting question of naval strategy. The reason no one uses big gun battleships, like the Iowa, anymore has nothing to do with the amount of firepower they can land on a target in a given amount of time (their dps, if you will). It's because of the limited range of that firepower. For example, the Iowa's main 16"/50 cal. guns have a maximum range of 38 km, and fire will be very inaccurate at that range. On the other hand, an F-18 has an operational radius of 720-740 km with a full combat load-out, but this is effectively limited only by pilot fatigue with the addition of in-air refueling. The Tomahawk cruise missile has a range of 1,300 to 2,500 km, depending on sub-type, with pinpoint accuracy. This allows modern aircraft carriers, and guided missile ships, to launch attacks while in a different time zone from their targets, and that range makes them less likely to be engaged and possibly sunk by the enemy. That brings me to my second point. We've talked about the horrendous expense of both aircraft carriers and battleships. Aircraft carriers, and guided missile ships, are seen less likely to be lost in a battle because they stay so far away from the enemy; therefore, they're seen as a better investment. The thinking is that even though a carrier may cost more than a battleship it's less likely you'll have to replace a carrier.

[razark]

Wasn't the question of battleship vs. carrier answered in the 1940s?

[Sailor Steve]

Moved to appropriate forum.

[Akotalaya]

the navy is said to have talked about guided missile ships, they said during an assault, it wouldn't be feesable, nor effective because of the time it takes for the missiles to lock onto a new target, but what i think alot of people are forgetting, is that the iowa was upgraded with tomahawk missile launchers and harpoons, her main guns may only be considered close range, but when you look at it she also has the long range fire support that modern ships have, not to mention i think i said earlier, she can actually increase the endurance of every ship in the fleet, can stay on station longer and has the capabilities to defend herself from many threats, i say the battleship idea isnt obsolete at all, it does need to be modernized..but if there so out of date then why have they made it into the age of missiles and still proven to be useful? my grandpa was in vietnam when the iowa was firing on the enemy and he said she helped out a great deal AND took out more structures than planned, it has also had more of a service life than any modern ship today, it seems they have re called her back into action for every major conflict since the second world war, im not sure they have done that before. also back in the 1800's they said battleships were obsolete, but we still got em! and one country was using a first world war era battleship until the 70's..not to mention the uk and russia were looking into battleships in the 50's and i think even in the 60's, russias problem was a power shift, that caused the fall of there ships! i love history dont you?

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by razark

Wasn't the question of battleship vs. carrier answered in the 1940s?

This. Pearl Harbor anyone? No? How about the Bismarck? Yamato? Should I continue?

[mapuc]

Was searching the Internet for information about future warship when I found this page. While reading it I remembered this post.

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/ind...fleet-project/

Markus

[Seahawk14]

I visited the Wisconsin in Norfolk, Va a few years ago. During the tour, the docent told us the ship cost $1 million per day to operate.

Per day.

Aside from the whole "wasn't the carrier v battleship question answered in the 40's?" thing, using just that metric alone renders an Iowa-class (or any other large "big guns only" warship) cost-ineffective. And that's being conservative and assuming that the $1 million/day cost of operation was in 1991 dollars. Put in today's dollars? No way.

Sorry folks, the Iowa-class' contributions to US Naval history are just that: history.