Recommissioning WW2 US Battleships
Discussion
For the middle east those 16" guns are pointless, 40km range is just a tiny strip of land in syria, reducing those behemoths to expensive tomahawk launchers.
Now north korea though.. 40km from shore gets you right in the outskirts of pyongyang, and quite a few other cities on the east coast.
Now north korea though.. 40km from shore gets you right in the outskirts of pyongyang, and quite a few other cities on the east coast.
Vitorio said:
For the middle east those 16" guns are pointless, 40km range is just a tiny strip of land in syria, reducing those behemoths to expensive tomahawk launchers.
Now north korea though.. 40km from shore gets you right in the outskirts of pyongyang, and quite a few other cities on the east coast.
That assumes you actually park the thing on the beach.Now north korea though.. 40km from shore gets you right in the outskirts of pyongyang, and quite a few other cities on the east coast.
Depends if the 64MJ rail gun is ready for installation or not. 100 mile range, mach 7.5 projectiles and firing 15 per second.
They were test firing the 33MJ gun back in 2010. Built by BAe Systems for the US. - http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/electromag...
Maybe they need a solid base and enough power to install it and the Nimitz (only other thing big enough) isn't ready for decommissioning yet.
Even Arnie mentioned it back in 1996 in Eraser
They were test firing the 33MJ gun back in 2010. Built by BAe Systems for the US. - http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/electromag...
Maybe they need a solid base and enough power to install it and the Nimitz (only other thing big enough) isn't ready for decommissioning yet.
Even Arnie mentioned it back in 1996 in Eraser
Edited by FourWheelDrift on Friday 21st April 12:19
Vitorio said:
For the middle east those 16" guns are pointless, 40km range is just a tiny strip of land in syria, reducing those behemoths to expensive tomahawk launchers.
USS New Jersey fired 250 x 16" shells into Syrian held areas of Lebanon in 1984 in support of US Marines and Lebanese Govt forces as well as 300 x 5" shells in a 9 hour long bombardment."The New Jersey's huge 16-inch guns could be clearly seen spewing long yellow flames as they blasted away from the ship's position south of Beirut. Each round fired by its gunners shook the entire city. Windows rattled, and the terrifying roar sent the few people on the streets scattering for cover."
RedLeicester said:
Wasn't there a thing about despite them being mothballed, there wasn't any ready-use ammunition for the 16" guns anyway, nor was there anyone capable of making them any more?
Correct.The 16" ammunition hasn't been manufactured since the end of the Korean War in the early 1950's, at which point the USN had a stockpile of some 21,000 rounds for the 16" guns
which was deemed sufficient to last through the remaining life of the 4 x ships, and their subsequent re-activation period until final retirement.aeropilot said:
USS New Jersey fired 250 x 16" shells into Syrian held areas of Lebanon in 1984 in support of US Marines and Lebanese Govt forces as well as 300 x 5" shells in a 9 hour long bombardment.
"The New Jersey's huge 16-inch guns could be clearly seen spewing long yellow flames as they blasted away from the ship's position south of Beirut. Each round fired by its gunners shook the entire city. Windows rattled, and the terrifying roar sent the few people on the streets scattering for cover."
Well yeah, but that is lebanon, the 50km strip sitting between syria and the sea for most of the west side of the country"The New Jersey's huge 16-inch guns could be clearly seen spewing long yellow flames as they blasted away from the ship's position south of Beirut. Each round fired by its gunners shook the entire city. Windows rattled, and the terrifying roar sent the few people on the streets scattering for cover."
Im not saying the guns arent impressive, but the limited range is a problem.
Squirrelofwoe said:
williamp said:
Luckily, our oldest ship still in commision ticks all the boxes....
It wont even hurt the enemy....
It could be the flagship of the new, environmentally friendly, minimal-carbon footprint, cheap to operate Royal Navy! It wont even hurt the enemy....
Vitorio said:
For the middle east those 16" guns are pointless, 40km range is just a tiny strip of land in syria, reducing those behemoths to expensive tomahawk launchers.
Now north korea though.. 40km from shore gets you right in the outskirts of pyongyang, and quite a few other cities on the east coast.
Some research was done into base bleed rounds to extend the range out to 100km+ but budget limitations meant little was done beyond paper studies. Other work looked at making the rounds steerable which would have been pretty funky combined with increased range, again lack of budget meant nowt happened. Now north korea though.. 40km from shore gets you right in the outskirts of pyongyang, and quite a few other cities on the east coast.
I was lucky enough to spend a couple of days on the Iowa in the Gulf in 87-88 ...she treated us to a display of her full broadside a couple of times.....My overiding memory was the thickness of the doors into the superstructure...like bankvault doors.....and she still had shell impact dents from the Korean war......impressive piece of kit but possibly a bit outdated....I suspect trying to find anyone who had the capability , training or experience to run the ships systems would kill the project........
FourWheelDrift said:
Depends if the 64MJ rail gun is ready for installation or not. 100 mile range, mach 7.5 projectiles and firing 15 per second.
They were test firing the 33MJ gun back in 2010. Built by BAe Systems for the US. - http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/electromag...
Maybe they need a solid base and enough power to install it and the Nimitz (only other thing big enough) isn't ready for decommissioning yet.
Even Arnie mentioned it back in 1996 in Eraser
Here'e the gun in action - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i737rM6FxqE plus the smaller GA Blitzer versions.They were test firing the 33MJ gun back in 2010. Built by BAe Systems for the US. - http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/electromag...
Maybe they need a solid base and enough power to install it and the Nimitz (only other thing big enough) isn't ready for decommissioning yet.
Even Arnie mentioned it back in 1996 in Eraser
Want to know how to operate the 16 inch guns on an Iowa class battleship?
The US Navy helpfully made a training film on how to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wT1xkRpCKk
Good luck finding the 79 men needed to operate each turret!
The US Navy helpfully made a training film on how to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wT1xkRpCKk
Good luck finding the 79 men needed to operate each turret!
What can a battleship do that an aircraft carrier cannot?
A battleship can only operate where there is local air superiority; a carrier can create its own air superiority.
The US already has 10 Nimitz class aircraft carriers, which are due to be replaced by even better Gerald Ford class ones.
Why would it want a rusty old battleship of limited (and not unique) capability that cannot defend itself from an air attack?
A battleship can only operate where there is local air superiority; a carrier can create its own air superiority.
The US already has 10 Nimitz class aircraft carriers, which are due to be replaced by even better Gerald Ford class ones.
Why would it want a rusty old battleship of limited (and not unique) capability that cannot defend itself from an air attack?
Glasgowrob said:
interesting suggestion above,
quick and dirty refit with a couple of nuclear reactors and a few whopping big rail guns in place of the 16"ers
and don't say Its a pipedream, with the hair in charge anything could happen
If we are going full sci-fi battleship, i want full-auto railgun/laser CWIS with the ability to track up to a thousand targets simultaniously as well.quick and dirty refit with a couple of nuclear reactors and a few whopping big rail guns in place of the 16"ers
and don't say Its a pipedream, with the hair in charge anything could happen
Ayahuasca said:
What can a battleship do that an aircraft carrier cannot?
A battleship can only operate where there is local air superiority; a carrier can create its own air superiority.
The US already has 10 Nimitz class aircraft carriers, which are due to be replaced by even better Gerald Ford class ones.
Why would it want a rusty old battleship of limited (and not unique) capability that cannot defend itself from an air attack?
Because MAGA.A battleship can only operate where there is local air superiority; a carrier can create its own air superiority.
The US already has 10 Nimitz class aircraft carriers, which are due to be replaced by even better Gerald Ford class ones.
Why would it want a rusty old battleship of limited (and not unique) capability that cannot defend itself from an air attack?
williamp said:
Luckily, our oldest ship still in commision ticks all the boxes....
It wont even hurt the enemy....
no but it could make it's ears bleed - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_FpYLnNhVwIt wont even hurt the enemy....
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff