Whats with the iowa?

[Akotalaya]

so, ive done alot of research and found out that an iowa would be more cost effective to operate, has more range than most warships today, packs more firepower, actually has a few more uses, its faster than most ships we use..it would cost less than a new Oliver hazard to upgrade to modern specs, the iowa has nothing but good things going for it, including, if damaged, repairs would be simple and in expensive compared to a modern ship, i have counted things up and its starting to look like the operation of an iowa seems like a better choice, also...most modern ships cant even compare to the operational range and endurance...basically what im getting at, is the iowa, would actually be a better choice of warship when it comes down to it. (yes, i know there old but they were built when things werent made in china) so, im wondering...if they are actually superior to most ships we use today, why dont we use them? it just doesent add up...please, im eager to hear what you all have to say!

[Dread Knot]

Well, other than the obvious issues like being vulnerable salvos of cheap missiles and torpedoes there is the personnel problem. People are the most costly expense for the military, and the Navy has been on a campaign to reduce the numbers of sailors per ship. The newest surface ships call for a crew of fewer than 150, whereas in its 1992 configuration, the New Jersey required a crew of almost 2,000 sailors. Except for Nimitz-class aircraft carriers (with compliments of about 3,200) no ship in the U.S. Navy approaches that many crew. And the Nimitz is a far more versatile vessel.

More important, the shells from the battleships are unguided. Even with a talented gunner the accuracy of the ship’s main guns was only about 32 percent at nine miles against a battleship-size target, according to a Naval War College study during World War II. For ground targets that could mean shells striking hundreds of yards away from the intended point of impact.

(To be fair, during the battleships’ last hurrah in the 1980s and early 1990s, improvements to the Iowa-class guns were paired with a radar system to increase the accuracy. Noncombat tests saw hits with in 150 yards of a target at a range of about 19 miles).

In the modern era of guided weapons, the margin of error for those old 16-inchers is too high to justify the cost and the trouble of getting the battleships back to sea.

There are, of course, a host of other issues that make reactivation of the Iowas impractical—parts, training and maintenance among them. At some point even the venerable B-52 bombers will have to be retired due to the same issues.

[Akotalaya]

i do see where your coming from, but if you look at the Vietnam war, the Iowa that assisted there actually hit its targets pretty accurately, not to mention, she also took out more fortifications than expected, when it comes down to it the numbers have added up, it costs over 160 million to operate the russian kirov for a year, and the iowa was somewhere around 99 million per year to operate, that includes crew costs, fuel and any repairs, the basics pretty much, it was also said she was easy to adapt and modify, large amounts of space made this easy, and they also stated it would take less money to modernize and re fit than it would be to build a new oliver hazard, i think i stated that in my op, also, her 5 inch guns had rocket propelled ammunition from what i have read, and i also read that she can maintain continuous fire for 70 days straight, unlike todays ships, that can only maintain about 8..she has litterally proven superior in almost every way, from being cheaper to actually operate and maintain to having more range and endurance than a modern ship, the iowa also carried tomahawks and harpoons, so that was a plus, she doesent carry near the amount as some ships but she has them! also, she was proven to be able to lay down as much firepower in a 30 minute period as 25 or so b-2 spirits, thats pretty impressive really..and activation costs of the iowa were much cheaper than they thought they would be, it was about 6 million cheaper, and it only cost something like 100 million, dont quote me on that, but it all in all from my research, the iowa actually came out on top, not to mention, she could actually extend the endurance of the ships around her, meaning she could also double as a tanker! thats what she did in the second world war to increase the range of the ships around her, she has a range of 15,000 miles, they have only 6,000 and 8-10 days or something like that endurance time when the iowa has something like 40, but can maintain constant fire at 100 rounds a day for 70 days and still have shells left over, she also doesent have to go back to port to re load and thats another plus over other ships! anyway, like i said the numbers are adding up and it would actually be cheaper to re activate the iowa's and modernize them to todays standards than it would be to build new ships, like i said yearly operational costs is under 100 million dollars, while others are skyrocketing over that!

[captgeo]

and what does this have to do with SH4 ??????

[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.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Seahawk14

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

Seahawk14! Still worth the hike up four levels at Ft. Point under the Golden Gate Bridge to watch USS IOWA going by though! Probably the last time a Iowa class 'Battleship' passes under the Golden Gate!...and a kaleun was there!!