WHY WON'T THEY BRING HER BACK ;_;
Either way, how would it be feasible to recommission the Iowa and Wisconsin?
>>30094902
because battleship a shit.
don't worry, i was 13 once. it gets better.
No, not really.
If they kept the machinery needed to build barrels and shells around in a warehouse somewhere, maybe.
But if you have to build a brand new factory just to operate your fossil of a ship, it's really not worth it.
However, I kinda feel like the Iowa's should be like the USS Constitution. They are basically legendary ships now.
It wouldn't.
They're ancient, inefficient relics.
The Iowa class is awesome but why would they?
Cruise missiles are better than her guns which are her biggest selling points.
Unless they make railgun/laser BBs there's no real need for a gun platform to be that large.
>>30094902
>how would it be feasible to recommission the Iowa and Wisconsin?
It wouldn't be, they were in terrible shape even after the 80's refit.
>>30094902
I suppose you could if you completely converted them to missile cruisers
She's a waste of money anon. Gone are the days where your ships could actually trade volley's of fire or take a hit. Modern ship's rely on offensive firepower in the form of missiles and active defense in the form of anti-missile missiles.
>>30094946
i'm looking forward to anti anti missile missiles
Those BB's sure look cool.
>>30094960
They have them. In fact, many missiles, especially anti-ship or ICBM's have their own countermeasures built into them.
>>30094922
>If they kept the machinery needed to build barrels and shells around in a warehouse somewhere, maybe.
Speaking of that, the Iowa's second turret was never repaired.
>>30094988
Why the fuck not?
The navy gets a ton of money.
You'd think they'd be able to repair an ancient relic no problem.
I think it would be worth keeping them around just to train people on maintenance, repair, parts fabrication, etc.
>>30094902
In 1996, congress priced restoring her around $600mn.
>>30095001
>The navy gets a ton of money.
You don't seem to understand that lots of money =/= infinite money to waste
>>30095001
>I think it would be worth keeping them around just to train people on maintenance, repair, parts fabrication, etc.
Train people to repair engines that don't exist anymore? Are you retarded?
The age of the battleship is over.
>>30095013
It's literally no different than using Model Ts to teach new automotive students the basics.
If an automotive school has a few ancient cars to help new students get their feet wet, what's wrong with that?
The lessons learned still apply modern cars because modern cars are still evolutions of older cars.
Besides, would you rather a new guy fuck up an old Iowa or fuck up a brand new ship?
It's just about education. And those ships are so fucking huge they could be used as academies.
>>30095008
This is very true.
>>30095085
Because reactivating a battleship is not the same as having an old car lying around. Your analogy is stupid.
>>30094902
they've been stuffed and mounted. bilge filled with concrete.
>>30094902
Only reasonable re-commision would be if power/space requirements for Rail gun dictated a ship of that size. Even then it would probally be as a stop-gag for testing purposes/trial at sea runs until a purpose built modern ship came on-line.
Could pretty much turn the USS Iowa into a large scale floating test bed ship (with little to no intention to put her on a war footing) with labs for analysis and full scale proprietary systems that need testing at sea, IE Rail-gun/laser program. Space could include large scale power monitoring equipment and all sorts of analysis capabilities that wouldn't necessitate the need to send the data back to shore, await tweaks/updates then run test again.
Of course end of the day this will still be stupidly expensive and not happen.
>>30095002
So for the price of 2 and a half destroyers, we could have four battleships?
Not bad.
I still think the things might serve better to be used as floating academies.
>>30095085
>It's literally no different than using Model Ts to teach new automotive students the basics.
So you agree, a pointless, expensive, esoteric waste of time.
>>30095085
beause a model-t is irrelevant to teaching post-ww2 auto mechanics. you might as well use a riding lawnmower [same planetary belt-driven transmission]
your analogy is not apt and its because you dont know jack about mechanical things
>>30094902
They did for the Gulf War right? Can't you just enjoy knowing that it did it once?
>>30095128
>So for the price of 2 and a half destroyers, we could have four battleships?
?
restoring =! new build
>>30095120
My opinion is just that... an opinion. Don't get your panties in a wad.
I'm just saying everyone would be happy if they were used as educational and academic centers.
The coast guard still maintains a sailing ship for training, right? Not a bad idea considering many students likely never sailed before. Besides, it encourages teamwork.
>>30095123
Seriously? Why?
That's fucking stupid.
Everyone says restoring them is a waste of money but sabotaging them isn't?
>>30095150
>I'm just saying everyone would be happy if they were used as educational and academic centers.
everyone == you and the mouse in your pocket?
>>30095137
Engines are engines dude and if we have 4 battleships laying around they might as well get used for something.
>>30095150
You think a 1,500 ton school ship is comparable to a 58,000 ton battleship.
I don't even need to ask, you are retarded.
>>30095158
are you simple? a dullard?
the ships are going to sit in salt water for n+1 years. the iron maggots [rust] is going to eat through the hull eventually. if the bilge is filled with concrete it means you dont have to constantly pump it out
not only do you not know jack shit about cars, you dont know jack about boats, either.
>>30095160
I used have a pet mouse :3 several actually.
>>30095171
>Engines are engines dude
No. No they are not.
>>30095171
they are being used for something. tourist attractions. its all they're good for.
>>30095171
>if we have 4 battleships laying around
They aren't "laying around".
They're fully disabled and used as museums.
>>30095171
Seems you know absolutely nothing about engines.
>>30095183
They could have just fucking used expanding foam! Why concrete? Foam would have been easier and likely cheaper.
And if your boat has a rust hole concrete in the bilges would not be my first decision.
>>30095128
That is over $900 million in 2016 dollars, which is comperable to a new Flight IIA Arleigh Burke.
>>30095214
Yes, foam, known for its toughness, heavy weight to ballast the ship and resistance to degradation.
Dipshit.
>>30095193
>>30095212
If you don't think you can learn about engines by tinkering with a lawnmower, you're the stupid ones.
Would you rather your kid take apart the lawnmower to learn, or take apart your car?
Neither of you understand what I'm suggesting. Textbooks can only teach so much and old ships can provide risk free hands on education.
>>30095210
No such thing as fully disabled. People can restore disabled tanks and artillery dude. It's a PIA but it can be done.
>>30095195
I'm certain they are wonderful tourist attractions but I doubt they bring in significant money from sources outside of America.
>>30095249
you are baiting right ?
>>30095249
>Neither of you understand what I'm suggesting.
Even you don't understand what you're suggesting.
>>30095240
I don't think they were concerned about ballast when did that.
At least foam is removed easier.
>>30095249
Doubling down is not the best way to respond when multiple anons point out you said something really stupid.
>>30095249
>Would you rather your kid take apart the lawnmower to learn, or take apart your car?
How do you think technicians in the US Navy learn to maintain engines?
They don't go aboard a carrier and start taking apart the reactor, which is how you seem to think they operate.
>>30094922
OP probably asked what could be done about it to make it worthy to be recomissioned
I personally believe that it could be an excellent railgun platform with backup guns
>>30095256
>>30095258
>>30095265
I feel like I'm casting pearls before swine
>>30095261
>I don't think they were concerned about ballast when did that.
Then you don't know the bare basics of things being in water.
>>30095276
>I'm so smart, surely what I'm saying isn't retarded!
>No, it is everyone else that must be wrong!
>>30095270
Maintenance=/=any amount of mechanical overhaul.
You're saying it's possible for a guy to pass nuke school without ever so much as lifting a wrench?
>>30095270
Furthermore, if you fuck up an engine on a lawnmower, you can just run down to the nearest hardware store and buy one.
You can't do that with the engines in the Iowas. There just aren't replacement parts.
>>30095249
>I doubt they bring in significant money from sources outside of America.
what the fuck does that have to do with anything? all that matters about tourism dollars is that they come from outside your locale. damn, son, you dont know shit about economics either.
why dont you stop posting for a while so you can stop embarrassing yourself.
pic somewhat related - its a training ship for obsolete techniques nobody uses anymore
>>30095277
THE THINGS WEIGH MILLIONS OF POUNDS.
Ballast is literally of no concern.
>>30095304
I'm saying if all they do is suck money from other states... They aren't earning the country a single penny.
>they never made her into a carrier
>>30095318
This is how I know you know absolutely nothing
>>30095335
Christ your argument gets more retarded by the post.
>>30095318
>Ballast is literally of no concern.
How the fuck do you think large ships stay afloat? Fairy dust?
>>30095249
Youre not going to learn anything relevant to car engines by picking lawnmower engines apart.
>>30094902
it's a hulk now. no way to bring her back. but I did fuck a chick behind turret #2 last year.
>>30095335
they're stimulating the local economy.
also, they never earned the country a single penny - quite the opposite. a capital ship is a giant hole in the ocean you pour money into.
merchant ships generate revenue. not warships.
>>30095357
archimedes' theory of displacement
the ballast doesn't keep a ship afloat. it makes it manageable while its floating.
still doesnt change the fact that the other guys a fucking window licker
>>30095338
>ski ramp
>>30095344
>>30095357
I think neither of you understand what ballast is...
It's like saying "my motorized fishing boat will perform better if I pour a bunch of concrete on the bottom".
None of you make any sense.
honestly who gives a shit if they aren't ideal warships. They're the coolest things on the water, period
none of this means dick if i cant have an iowa-class hydrofoil anyway.
>>30095366
Story
Story
Story
>>30095396
if you've ever been on a boat before, you know damn well that the ballast totally helps your boat perform under common boating circumstances.
the concrete in the bilge isnt ballast. when a ship needs to ballast itself it puts water in the ballast tanks.
the concrete in the bilge is to make it so the ship doesn't sink when its sitting moored to a dock for the next 35 years and nobody is maintaining it.
ballast also keeps shit like this from happening
>>30095386
Ballast only makes it easier to manage SAILING ships.
Archimedes didn't have lot of motorized ships in his time, did he?
Ballast is meant to make the ship heavier so that it acts as an intermediary between the water and the wind, thus making sailing more stable.
>>30095396
Ballast makes your ship stay stable in the water by keeping it low you prat
>>30095417
Ok, I can get behind that :)
>>30095434
It wasn't built right to begin with, then.
I'm just saying the Iowa's already had ballast. So putting concrete in bilge to act as ballast makes no damn sense
>>30095270
They actually teach prototyping on reactors either on ancient boomers or in a non-modern reactor in backwoods NY.
Not that it matters much as 'modern' usn pwrs are still a pretty old design. Rickover said he wanted X and REEEEEEEEEEEE'd for years until he got it, and it became the standard thereafter.
>>30095436
i dont know where to begin with whats wrong with your post. its like a swirling vortex of ignorance
boats float because of archimedes' theory of displacement. whether it was the basket moses floated down the river in, or the largest container ship operating today. as long as you keep the water from coming inside, it will float.
ballast makes it easy to manage ANY ship especially empty cargo ships, and top-heavy ships like battleships...
isaac newton once told me that if you add mass it takes more force to move it.
>>30095450
So you're saying you think it's a good idea to pour a couple bags of concrete on the bottom of pic related, while calling me stupid?
>>30095466
it would make toppling over a lot less likely
>>30095466
No, because I'm talking about an Iowa, what a pathetic attempt.
>>30094902
Make a nuclear powered Montana Class with rail guns. A genuine 21st Century battleship. Still wouldn't be practical but we'd win the international dick measuring contest now and forever.
>>30095023
>>30094940
>>30094934
>>30094912
>Implying any of that matters
We keep the USS Constitution around, and it isn't like she is efficient exactly.
We should have kept the Iowas in service because they're cool as fuck. Fuck it, create a separate tax JUST to keep them afloat, see if I give a fuck.
Hell even remove the aft turret and just stuff the fucker full of VLS cells or tomahawks, then you have a ship that can travel as fast as an Arleigh Burke but with a foot of armor plating. That has to be good for something. We need them when North Korea finally starts shit so we can shell an asian shit hole just like the good old days.
>>30095436
Ballast is still useful in motor ships. It lowers the center of gravity, making the ship more stable. Some cargo ships NEED ballast when not carrying cargo, as they rely on the weight of the cargo to provide stability. And it's important to warships too, it's hard to fire guns accurately if you're rolling a lot. Although, in warships it's wasteful to have something there JUST to act as ballast, better to replace it with extra fuel or a bigger engine or something (in the former case you should subdivide it into individual tanks that can be flooded with water when empty, so you retain the stability even when you've used up a lot of fuel).
>>30095462
Then how the fuck did the Iowa's manage to sail for decades without all that concrete ballast in their bilges???
omg, somebody arrest anyone that's ever sailed an Iowa!! They broke Isaac Newtons and Archimedes laws!!
>>30095480
So the argument once again swings around to "I don't care, battleships are great and they're good because I want them to be!"
>>30095482
Because they had, you know, other shit.
Fuel, food, ammunition, people, and so on.
>>30095481
You could achieve the same stability by making the beam wider.
Look at cruising catamarans. No ballast, no nothing. They sail just fine.
>>30095482
>Then how the fuck did the Iowa's manage to sail for decades without all that concrete ballast in their bilges???
BECAUSE THEY HAD WATER IN THERE
FUCKING DICKHEAD
>>30095478
I swear I read somewhere that they were planning on doing that with the first incomplete Montana hull; convert her to nuclear power and arm her with nuclear warheads.
>Tfw the Montana will never go toe to toe with the Yamato
Just fucking pull my fingernails out and slice my jugular with them.
>>30095436
>Ballast is meant to make the ship heavier so that it acts as an intermediary between the water and the wind, thus making sailing more stable.
You've been smoking what? Intermediary?
Ballast lowers the centre of gravity so the damn thing doesn't tip over.
>>30095466
it'll be more stable with weight in the bottom, especially if you stand up. if you've ever ridden in a john boat you'd know that.
>>30095489
He's not me.
>>30095491
And if they ever sail again, they'll have the same stuff. Right now they are literally sitting in shallow water, moored. Ballast means nothing because if it did they would have flipped already.
>>30095489
Yep.
They're fucking awesome. They shoot shells the size of a fucking volkswagen. If you don't think that shit is fucking tits then you can get the hell out of my face.
>>30095492
Widening the beam increases water resistance. Ballast is a way of sacrificing weight carrying capacity for increased stability without sacrificing speed.
>>30095408
what? Los Angeles county dude. maybe nofuns for guns but the women are easy. she wanted to fuck on a ship so we went to a spot between the battle commanders steel sarcophagus and turret two and bent her over lifted skirt and had fun.
>>30095480
>see if I give a fuck.
You're gonna give plenty of fucks when every politician in favour of that tax gets voted out and replaced by Pacifist McLibson.
>>30095492
and we have one of those, too.
USNS [which means naval auxilliary] Spearhead
>>30095504
>Ballast means nothing because if it did they would have flipped already.
Uh, didn't they say they DO have ballast now?
>>30095494
How the fuck haven't they rusted through then?
I thought bilges where where you pumped water out. Bilges=/=ballast tanks.
>>30095504
>Ballast means nothing because if it did they would have flipped already.
How are you not getting it into your thick fucking head that the ballast is being provided by the concrete that's replaced the water in their bilges?
>>30095462
accelerate it not move it. that is a function of drag.
>>30095497
I'm talking about ships that sail via wind power in that post. Ballast keeps the wind from sliding the ship around the waters surface, so that it's sails can use the wind
Ballast isn't a necessity to the Iowa's at all because if it was they would have been sunk already.
>>30095524
>I thought bilges where where you pumped water out.
Gee imagine that, you're an ignorant shit arguing something you don't know about.
>Iowa class battleship
>W19 nuclear artillery shell
>15-20 kiloton
feasible.
>>30095514
>He thinks Democrats will be allowed to live after the God Emperor takes office
The next US Battleship will be the USS Ivanka Trump, she will be based on a Montana hull and have 4 turrets with 3 16" rail guns each, along with a hanger for storing and deploying 4 F-35Bs. She will be nuclear powered, and will fire the first shots on the European coast when we liberate the continent from Muslim shitholes.
Stay mad about it :^)
>>30095510
I'm pretty sure by adding ballast it takes more energy to move it
>>30095536
For ships, adding more mass makes it sit lower in the water, increasing drag. So you DO need more force to move it at a constant speed.
>>30095524
Maybe you should have looked up and found out the bilge is the lowest compartment of a ships hull.
>>30095530
Because bilges=/=ballast tanks.
I thought you want to keep water OUT of the bilge tanks, because otherwise you'd sink.
>>30095538
You're thinking of the keel. That's what provides resistance that allows the sails to function. Sailing ships need lots of ballast for a different reason - to prevent from being blown over by the wind (since the air hitting the sail is well above the center of mass and the center of buoyancy), but ballast can be useful for any type of ship.
>>30095481
fun fact. We always have ballast on container ships to counteract bending forces so we don't break up in transit. empty we are fine ballast just gets us deep enough to use the bulbous prow to effect. we actually tend to have more ballast when fully laden.
>>30095548
Yes, because it sits lower in the water. Though potentially that won't have as much of an effect as widening the beam.
>>30095556
Exactly. It's where water from rain, ocean spray, etc goes.
And if you don't pump the bilges, you fucking sink.
Which means that now those Iowa's have no way to remove this water. So they'll sink.
It isn't your goal to keep water IN the bilge.
It's your goal to keep it out.
So you don't fucking SINK.
>>30095500
antiroll tanks are actually high up in the superstructure not low.
>>30095584
I think the center of gravity and righting force is the more sane reason to use ballast.
>>30095575
Yes keels do that too, but not every ship has a keel that will do this and in those cases ballast do that function.
>>30095594
two instances of matter cannot occupy the same space.
if the bilge is filled with concrete, there's no where for water to be...
>>30095606
That makes no logical sense to me unless that's they only place they could put them
i used to think there's no autism like >>>/n/ autism
but this thread has me reconsidering that position
thanks for the laughs guys, i needed it.
trolling is a art
>>30095625
...except on the fucking floor, in the engine room, filling up decks, etc.
Think of a ship as an upside down umbrella and the bilge is a pump with a tube going to the umbrella tip so it can suck water out of the bowl.
If you fill the tube up with concrete, your umbrella will fill up with water.
Which is why I'm so flustered that the Iowa's bilges have CONCRETE IN THEM
Have you been on the IA, MO or WI? It would take some major retrofitting to make them even marginally relevant again.
>>30095650
if you fill the umbrella with concrete it wont fill with water. how hard is this to understand?
>>30095508
mate your volkswagen sounds a bit small. you should get it checked out.
>>30095664
Haven't you seen the new "Battlestar Galactica" series? Galactica only survives because she was ancient. Still had phones with cords and everything. Viruses didn't work on her.
Why do you think police ask people to read say the alphabet backwards? Only a robot could do it.
They are checking for cylons.
>>30095540
>>>30095492
actually he is correct. it is either a wet bilge or a rose box in a 'dry bilge' where you pump out water.
>>30095538
Mostly, it helps compensate for the recoil of the guns but I bet you can dump it in a pinch.
>>30095489
Arguably, the Iowa class is nearly unsinkable. While it's citadel is heavily armored, it also has reserve buoyancy so even if all of the fore and aft and most of the superstructure was torn off the ship would still float. A torpedo to the keel might kill one but nobody is sure if you can actually kill an Iowa-class battleship with AShMs.
Also, in the 1968 refit of the USS New Jersey they managed to fit in 32 Tomahawks and 16 Harpoons. All while keeping all three 16" turrets. Each triple turret weighs nearly as much as a DD. Rip one out and you could easily fit a VLS cell and change.
Finally, there's the W23 nuclear shells. While only 15-20 kilotons, I doubt any navy in the world is capable of withstanding them.
>>30095669
If you fill an umbrella with concrete it won't float.
The Iowa's must be important for terrorists to infiltrate and sabotage them like that.
>>30095514
>favour
Opinion disregarded.
>>30095682
I'm just being trolled to all hell, go figure
>>30095553
does not necessarily increase drag. Modern ships utilize a bulbous prow which requires a certain draft to optimize drag.
>>30095689
>Arguably, the Iowa class is nearly unsinkable.
Fucking bollocks.
>>30095689
>but nobody is sure if you can actually kill an Iowa-class battleship with AShMs.
No. People are plenty sure you can kill an Iowa class. Don't spout this mythical undefeatable armor bullshit.
>>30095680
Ok then...
>>30095719
Yep. Logical fallacy typical of US public education. Just because one hasn't sunk doesn't mean you can't sink one.
>>30095694
yes it will. you can make entire ships out of concrete.
there's that damn archimedes guy again - if you can keep the water out, it will float.
next you'll tell me heavier-than-air aircraft wont fly
>>30095705
no you are not. I am an merchant marine engineer. I work on ships kid.
>>30095748
a random non sequitur
>>30095719
So how much armor can be pierced by an AShM? Can it be spoofed by armor spacing?
Can you prove this?
>>30095793
>prove me wrong
>>30095756
I'm literally arguing with people that think a concrete filled umbrella will float and that removing a ships ability to drain water will make it last longer.
Pardon my scepticism.
>>30095753
You're missing my point.
If you remove a ships ability to drain water, it won't float long.
It's like a floating cup. If you fill it with water, it sinks.
>>30095843
and you completely missed mine.
lets say you have a swimming pool and instead of water, you filled it to the top with concrete. now you have no need to change the filter or add chlorine. its the same thing with a stationary museum ship. only there's no swimming pool.
>WHY WON'T THEY BRING HER BACK
for the same reason the Army doesnt have chariots.
>>30095862
>a team of BigDogs pulling an armored chariot full of marines
>the musher is wearing an armored exosuit and has an electric lash
You've got no vision for the future of warfare.
>>30095826
Go suck start a shotgun champ.
>>30095897
i find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter
>>30095085
>It's literally no different than using Model Ts to teach new automotive students the basics.
exactly. that's why it's stupid.
Cars almost exclusively have MacPhersen struts. Model Ts have leaf springs (transverse leaf springs no less). Almost everything on cars today are powered (electric or hydraulic), T's, if they have any accessories, use a lot of mechanical or vacuum power. Electronic fuel injection, coil packs for ignition, sensors, cam-sensors (often OHC or DOHC), all of which is controlled by the ECM, which is basically a motherboard with microprocessors. Model Ts have primitive (even by 1970s standards) carburetors, distributors, magneto switches, no electronics, and are flathead engines.
Model Ts are horrible to teach 18-year-olds how to work at Midas or Meineke.
Teaching sailors fresh out of basic training to run a Virginia or Arleigh Burke by training them on a steam-powered battleship with some modern retrofits is useless.
>>30095809
Well, you wouldn't be able to do it with a Harpoon. Harpoons don't have shaped charges nor does it have the kinetic energy to pierce the belt armor. It might pierce the deck armor but turning for a top down attack would make it an easy target for CIWS and RIM-116. Might be able to knock out the radar, though.
The Exocet has a better chance with an actual shaped charge. However, Iowas have an armored citadel which needs to be penetrated before they can be sunk. With the distance between the belt and the citadel acting as spaced armor it's a big question whether or not the Exocet can kill an Iowa.
>>30096068
and what of torpedoes? anything that can break its back in the arsenal?
>>30094902
UK might buy em and reactivate to enforce the naval blockade once they BREXIT
>>30095450
wrong. it makes a ship ride better by lowering the center of gravity. a ship without ballast is extremely stable, but will become extremely sharp (having a short roll period). adding ballast lowers the center of gravity and, thereby, the metacenter, which allows for a longer roll period.
t. licensed deck officer
>>30095968
You talk down about steam power, but even nuclear ships still rely on steam.
>>30095496
I would like this
>take Montana hull
>outfit with AEGIS, AN.SPY1, and a bunch of Tico VLS
>install Ohio class Trident tubes
>a few side-facing Harpoon missile launchers
>CIWS, Rolling Airframe missiles, RIM-7 Sea sparrows for point defense
Suck my dick, Kirov.
>>30094902
why do people idolize these so much? they are completely obsolete
>>30096127
but a coal/oil burner is nothing like a nuclear reactor. and unless you're on a sub or a Nimitz, you're using a gas turbine not steam.
>>30096139
autism and ignorance are an amazing combination
>>30096139
for the same reason they idolize Tomcats and Warthogs
>they're so cool. Why did they ever get rid of these? They're still totally useful in my fantasy world. I can't be bothered to read into why they were decommissioned or about modern warfare, but I'll defend them to the death on /k/ with hyperbole, straw man arguments, and dank memes.
>>30094988
What's the final word on that? Was it accident or sabotage?
>>30095480
one day your parents might stop buying your food for you
>>30095480
>using a wooden museum ship to argue refitting and recommissioning a battle ship
That's about as stupid as the post saying it's a good idea to train auto tech students on Model Ts.
>>30096204
>>>30095680
both bug and superbug are better dogfighters than a dedicated interceptor for bombers and the A-10 was a boondoggle from the beginning with no real role to play.
>>30095001
No powder,projectiles,parts, barrels or other 1980's parts exist for these ships anymore.
>>30096333
I don't disagree with you. I love the 'Cat. But for all its problems, it just cannot do anything that a Super Hornet can.
And the A-10 is the best PR aircraft in existence. But that's it!
>>30096215
They used old powder that was unstable. Officially it was an accident.
Pic from Summer 2012.
>>30096139
I like them because to this day they hit harder than anything else.
An Iowa can dump around 2.5 million pounds of ordinance on a target every hour. We have nothing else that can do this.
That's like 50 B1 bombers.
The Iowa's can blast the fuck out of shit better than anything we have, it's that simple.
They are badass as fuck.
Remember this thread each time you say they are obsolete. They may be fossils but they hit harder than anything. They are like fucking dinosaurs. Huge and ancient, but if it comes to life everything's gonna run from it as fast as they can.
>>30096235
That's not a nice thing to say...
Even murderers get three squares a day.
>>30094902
Because she's expensive, obsolete, and would have no mission?
>>30095124
If all you want is a test bed that would not be set up to enter combat, why not just do it on land instead of in a very expensive, very old giant steel hull?
>>30096359
kinda why the navy policy for intercept from launch was to use the bug. f-14 was used if already flying cap or was the only alert ready. since F/A-18a was deployed.
>>30095304
>training ship
It's for cadets whose job sometimes involves helping drunk sailboaters get their lines back in order.
It's pretty weird how the USCG got the Eagle. The Russians have its sister ship (the whole affair reminds me of project paper clip).
>>30096401
This. What the fuck purpose would it serve?
>>30095496
Do they really have an incomplete Montana hull or keel laying around somewhere?
Did they ever get money to keep the USS Texas from rotting away? Did they at least get it into dry storage yet?
>>30096448
With a true refit turning her main batteries modern... her mission would be to BTFO anyone that lives within a hundred miles of the ocean or major rivers. Which happens to be the majority of humanity.
>>30096482
Refit that motherfucker too. Holy shit. I remember hearing all about skilled laborers bitching about not having a job, why don't we fucking maintain and refit our massive collection of mothballed ships?
>>30096461
They don't, they didn't quite make it that far. >>30095496 probably got it mixed up with what they had planned for the last incomplete Alaska cruiser.
here's how you do a museum ship. you BEACH it.
>>30096368
>Officially it was an accident.
After unsuccessfully trying to frame one of the sailors who died in the explosion.
>>30096535
you sound gay
>>30096517
The Alaska's were boss as fuck, too.
>>30096098
Oh definitely. The Iowa's torpedo defense system was obsolete before it was even put to sea. Anti-torpedo bulges did some good but not nearly enough.
Now the USS New Jersey was fitted with the latest in torpedo decoys but those decoys are less effective year after year. Counter torpedoes are still in the testing phase. Probably the only reliable tactic would be to eat the damage and use bilge pumps to keep the ship afloat. Not ideal and enough torpedo hits are going to overwhelm the pumps to say nothing of the damage to flooding. Probably should line the inside of the hull with shock resistant foam and padding, too.
Then again, most navies use anti-ship missiles than torpedoes
>>30095826
You're honestly a fucking moron if you think filling the bilge with concrete is going to make it sink. Guess what, the ship is designed to keep afloat after sustaining hits below the waterline, and ships are designed to keep from taking on water while moving through the worst weather imaginable. It's vastly cheaper to just have caretakers pump out any sort of water taken on using portable pumps than it is to keep the bilge in working operation.
If you want an example of what happens if you don't seal the bilges, look at USS Texas. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/USS-Texas-battle-against-rust-may-prove-too-3628981.php
>>30096421
Because testing something on land doesn't test it in real operating conditions, IE constant vibrations 24/7. Most systems also get tested at sea regardless against target craft or sea trials, this would give a large ship to continuously do said testing on and have ample space for analysis/tweak facilities so you don't have to stop everything and wait for land based lab to get back with data for next trial run.
A good example would be the "Franken Hurk" they built for the E-2D program where they modified a C-130 with all the systems going on a E-2D to include the radar dish. This allowed them to fly, make adjustments/analysis in air and keep going vs having to do a test flight, land, make adjustments, take off again and repeat. Think it was something like 3-5 normal test flights for every 1 the Frakenhurk did.
>no meantion of zumwalt anywhere
Shame. SHAME.
it does iowas job better.
>>30097178
way to kill the thread
Reasons why
> It would be a pain in the dick
> they're all museums
> why do we need a fucking fleet of battle ships in the 21 fucking century
> WE HAVE TOMAHAWK CRUISE MISSILES AND DEDICATED SHIPS TO FIRE THEM!
Listerine here.
Does anyone know what a modernized 16 inch gun would be capable of?
I know 5inch artillery guns 70 years ago were good for like 4 miles, and today it's more like 10-11.
Honestly, if the Iowa's main batteries were modernized, what would they be capable of?
I truly believe in those ships because thousands poured their heart and soul into creating them under conditions more dire that anyone today will ever experience... hopefully.
>>30098457
Nothing that sails can land 2.5 million pounds of ordinance on a target per hour besides those BBs.
That's why.
>they don't have shells, nor tooling to make the shells
>all the powder is old and unsafe to use (part of the problem that led to the USS Iowa disaster)
>they require specialists who know what they are doing to even load the things (part of the problem that led to the USS Iowa disaster)
>they require specialists to work on the old engines
And on top of all of that, you still need to rebuild the ships that have been left to rot away as museum ships for the past 20 years.
Why rebuild some 70 year old ship, when for the same cost you can build a fleet of new destroyers?
>>30098856
99%+ of which is wasted blowing up dirt
>>30096128
Aegis is not an acronym you fucking retard.
>>30098831
>Does anyone know what a modernized 16 inch gun would be capable of?
They could fire M113 Gavins full of US Marines and killer bees for air-defence.
>Honestly, if the Iowa's main batteries were modernized, what would they be capable of?
A really large rocket-assisted projectile with a decent warhead and GPS guidance, basically just scale a modern precision artillery munition up. Also be a really fucking expensive way of doing it because you would have to re-create all the manufacturing infrastucture to build them new from scratch. Then new hulls to mount them on. Those ships required like 3000 or something people to sail. You couldn't even use the old design because it was never created to launch PGMs. So effectively everything from new to do what? Nothing that aircraft couldn't do.
Aircraft will also always have longer range and greater flexibility and deliver a larger warhead by weight of projectile. And supply air defence. And network warfare and real-time intelligence. And the list goes on.
>I truly believe in those ships because thousands poured their heart and soul into creating them under conditions more dire that anyone today will ever experience... hopefully.
Some people do find them emotional. But don't worry, the will be another war to generate all that strong feeling again.
>>30098856
To an amazing range of...25 whole fucking miles.
Hopefully the enemy will be nice enough to collect all their troops on the shore like no one has down since before World War 2. Even the British intended to engage enemy after landing with manuevere forces. So did the Germans, Hitler just refused to release them. By that time you're not doing fuck with your silly guns.
>>30095480
The Constitution isn't an active warship, you mongoloid. Some of the Iowa class ships still exist as floating museums, be glad you have that instead of them all being torn apart for scrap.
>>30094902
The 100 million 1939 cost of an Iowa is cheaper than a single 1.8billion A.Burke for the Burkeswarm even adjusted for inflation.
Even remaking the tooling to build one would probably be cheaper than the 22.5 billion sunk into the Zumwalt program.
Maybe if a railgun shot could reach thousands of miles and you could prove it was cheaper and just as capable as a carrier borne aircraft with a JDAM... then maybe you'd have something. Otherwise no.
>>30096897
If that's what you want then buy a barge. You don't need a 70 year old solid steel hulk for a test bed. That has to be one of the most retarded ideas I've read on /k/
Originally I had said the most retarded, but then I remembered how retarded some of the shit on /k/ is.
>>30096368
>They used old powder that was unstable
Yes and no. Different powder propellants were used for the Iowa class's various 16" shells. If I remember correctly from the congressional findings (not the Navy's), some BuOrd jackass put the skipper up to performing illegal tests with the Iowa's guns, where superheavy AP projectiles would be fired with the faster burning propellant designed for use with the HE shells. This was coupled with mechanical issues on the ship, specifically involving the hydraulic rammer that loaded the shells and powder. It had two speed settings, fast for the shell and slow for the powder. The ram was being operated by a new sailor on his first gun assignment (he overrammed the powder and the system had no built in safeguards to prevent it), and unlike a previous incident where the slow-burning powder for the superheavy AP shell was used, the ram ran the powder into the shell, compressed it, and caused it to detonate. A similar overram incident occurred twice on the USS Mississippi, but the Navy vehemently denied that the two were related to the Iowa's case.
>>30099495
She's still a commissioned naval warship, I think anon meant to say. Which she is.
>>30099212
You seem awfully upset over a few capital letters
>>30095085
The throttle for the Model-T was on the steering column nigga. Like they're worlds away from modern cars when it comes to the experience of driving one.
New question, if they had to do homeland defence and all of the other ships were fighting somewhere else, would they consider recommissioning the Iowa/Missouri?
>>30099968
No. They're not warships anymore. They're old, non-functioning museum pieces. The guns don't have ammunition, the engines don't work and the crews don't exist.
>>30095273
That would work well... right? It sounds cool as fuck
>>30095680
>They are checking for cylons
topkek
So absolutely nothing is useful about it? And this isn't the same kind of thinking that people had in the 30's when they thought tankettes would be useful?
>>30100108
In a world where guided missiles exist, there's no reason to have a battleship, unless you arm it with missiles. If you arm it with missiles, there's really no point in having armor because missiles are for long-range engagements; you're not swapping ordinance at visual range, you're getting slammed from a bolt from on high if you happen to wander into identification range. In those circumstances, a battleship's armor is not useful; the missiles carry a far larger amount of munitions than any battleship artillery piece could, and they could very well be coming at you from the edge of space. So armor's out.
Then there's the size of them. A big hunk of steel that size is going to be a high-value target, and once again missile technology is what slays the battleship: since missile weaponry can be so devastating and accurate, it makes more sense to divide force between a group of smaller, individually-expendable vessels than to concentrate your force inside one big, slow, vulnerable unit.
>>30094902
Would FFG-7s be useful for escorting commercial ships through areas with piracy? Maybe we could bring those back.
It's got a 76mm gun, CIWS and helicopter facilities for action against the pirates.
>>30098831
What if you used the 16" gun to fire a 8-12" saboted, GPS/IR/laser guided round that had glide capability?
>>30099520
this fucking meme again
adjusted for inflation gets you...absolutely fucking nothing. i mean it. all mechanical systems and some primitive as fuck valve based radar and manual optical fire control. big ass old as fuck engine design. brilliant. great shit nigger you just restarted a line of ships built with 30s era technology and put them to sea against...shit with modern radar and fire control. you're a smart guy.
no wait you're a fucking retard. you want modern systems you pay modern prices. the cost of a burke is mostly in the electronics/sensors. so guess how much your battleship is going to cost.
>>30094939
Mother of God, a battleship platform full of laser and rail cannons... I think I just shed a tear at the thought of such beauty.
>>30100437
what are you going to fire it at
glide capability is redundant. sabots rely on velocity to damage, you make that shit glide around you've got a big lump of shit doing nothing at all.
glide bombs glide because they have (relatively) big wings to carry them after being launched from aircraft. a sabot doing that just doesn't make sense.
>>30100455
I mean, having a saboted round would allow the same charge pushing a 16" shell push a lighter one, increasing its muzzle energy.
I was thinking that wing deployment could occur later in trajectory to give maneuverability/increased range.
>>30099669
Stupid question but was it concussion that killed the guys below the top level?
>>30100108
>And this isn't the same kind of thinking that people had in the 30's when they thought tankettes would be useful?
It's more like if people in the 30's still thought the torpedo ram had any utility in naval combat (or had any to begin with).
she's a big ship
>>30100529
For you
>>30100438
Holy fuck you are retarded. Can't even bother to finish reading the last part of the post where I agree that modernizing the battleship to be better than a carrier is not going to happen.
>>30100529
>>30100472
ok. well, i guess?
glide wings are a low-velocity thing, if you try and use wide wings at speed they'll get ripped off. if you deploy them when you're slowing down you'll increase drag and add lift. so i dunno, probably.
just did some google, there was a saboted round that was used to disperse submunitions.
>HE-ER Mark 148 (Planned)
>13 in (33 cm) extended-range (ER), sub-caliber projectile with sabot. ET-fuzed with a payload of submunitions. Experiments with this projectile were conducted during the 1980s, but development was cancelled in FY91 when the battleships were decommissioned.
>Projectile weight without the sabot was about 1,100 lbs. (500 kg) and range was to be in excess of 70,000 yards (64,000 m) at a muzzle velocity of 3,600 fps (1,097 mps).
seems like it was used to gain extra range.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php
incidentally, the bursting charge on the ww2 rounds was only about 70kg. compare to the explosive charge on a 1000lb bomb (about 180kg) or a harpoon (221kg).
I don't understand the desire to recommission old ships. If you want a new battleship, you build a brand new battleship. Steal some of those nuclear reactors from the carrier production line and it will have enough power for the weapons of the future.
Just call the first one the Iowa II and everyone should be happy.
>>30100540
>Can't even bother to finish reading the last part of the post
if you had bothered having the reading comprehension of a ten year old (you know, only a couple of years less than your physical age, not too much of an ask) then you would have realized i was attacking your fucking ridiculous position about how much more affordable it would be compared to a modern destroyer. and subsequently all following arguments (hurr durr, compare to carrier hurr) just become fucking ridiculous.
hey fuckpig i'll re-iterate because you're stupid, you start putting railguns on these ships, they're not going to cost the same as they did in the 30s you cockfaggot. hence
>you want modern systems you pay modern prices.
i assume you're a nigger and you can't read too good so i'll show you again
>you want modern systems you pay modern prices.
no wait, i don't think you got the point so one more time
>you want modern systems you pay modern prices.
is it starting to sink in yet?
>>30094902
>Either way, how would it be feasible to recommission the Iowa and Wisconsin?
The biggest problem is crewtraining since it uses lots of outdated tech, while the electronics can be replaced for relatively cheap, the propulsion is and will be ancient forever.
You can train specialists to deal with it but nobody will actually want to be one because once it gets REALLY old(They're like 70 now m8) their extensive qualifications can be thrown out of window.
>>30095862
>for the same reason the Army doesnt have chariots.
The marines have that shitty jeep derivative that may as well be a chariot.
but yeah
>marines
>>30096139
A lot of this is caused by the fact that the Army doesn't have field artillery bigger than 155mm. When those ships were used to support the troops in Vietnam or Iraq they left gigantic impression on the soldiers, officers, everybody because 16" main battery seemed like atomic bomb in comparison to ordinary artillery they've use.
>>30100529
hell, the secondary armament is bigger than that boat.
>>30094939
The USS New Jersey has been modified and served in 1991. Its has Tomohawk missiles and CIWS
>>30094902
The maintenance cost on her is too high: literally every part of her needs to be custom built because of the fact that she was built using 40s technology. Ergonomics if you're not an officer are terrible, and everything is analogue, so you end up with 400 miserable sailors.
If you want a battleship, whine to DoD about giving the navy extra bucks for an Arsenal Ship, but please, leave the old gal to rest.
>>30096139
It can sink a Burke in single combat, therefore in their heads it is not technically obsolete.
>>30096604
>Keep inefficient Iowas around
>Scrap my state's namesake before they even got to do anything cool with it
>Replace it with a shitty sub
>>30100487
I'm not sure on the exact causes for the men in the lower levels of the turret. The report does say that the fireball and overpressure filled most of the turret, so I would think they died to that initial explosion. If they died later, it was likely due to lack of breathable air (turret filled with cyanide gas and carbon monoxide from the burning powder bags), or one of the secondary explosions.
This is a pretty interesting video of the USS Iowa as it is now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW83U4bkC_k
What if we had the sikkest point defense technology? They could be impervious rape fortresses.
>in the future
>replace each barrel with a railgun cause why not
>add missiles everywhere
Any word on the navy's railgun project? Last I heard they were still testing on land and working out power plant issues. Weren't they working on some kind of salt water-resistant generator for powering the guns? Did they finally get the green light for mounting test units on ships?
>>30099753
Exactly right, not to mention a SPARK ADVANCE lever on the other side, and three pedals on the floor, none of which are gas (one is for 1-N-2 gears, one is brake, and one is reverse). And a hand crank starter.
>>30101824
>It can sink a Burke in single combat
Did CMANO guy run that scenario? All I remember is the LCS and Moskva one.
>>30102941
He did another one where a Virginia SSN leeroy jenkins'd a Liaoning battlegroup and got BTFO.
>>30102941
I saw him do one within the last week where an Iowa with it's 1944 loadout BTFO the new Independence with it's current loadout
>>30102472
needs a woodchipper
anyone know the factors needed to set of the detonator on a 16" AP shell? Id imagine it just passing through something like an LCS without going of
>>30103032
The primer cartridge can be fired either electrically or by percussion. The cartridge is automatically ejected when the breech opens after firing. In the case of a misfire, the cartridge can be manually removed and replaced without opening the breech.
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php
>>30101824
While the idea of sinking a Burke "in single combat" is sketchy at best, you can cherry pick all you want.
It's a dead horse.
Here's the cliffnotes version of this thread:
>>30095001
>>30095002
>>30095008
>Budgets are a thing. Lots of money does not equate to money to waste.
>waste of money because you can build modern ships with far more efficient designs
>some stubborn autist can't get inflation or other economics through his head.
>>30095124
>16-inch guns are not as combat effective as missiles and aircraft, which is why there were killed in the first place. they are cool as fuck, but pointless with modern precision weaponry.
>>30095124
>Railguns will probably be a thing, but there's no point of putting it on an old fossil when you have the aforementioned modern ships that exist or will exist.
>>30095171 (and responses)
>Old engines, and other essential equipment, are super outdated, a lot of which needs parts replaced that don't exist anymore, and would require specialist training for something that's not necessary.
>It is pointless and requires stupid amounts of money and effort to recommission a museum ship; resources better used for modern equipment.
The rest of these posts are aspies (maybe all the same guy/kid) who just cannot listen to reasons why he's wrong and will not use logic to understand why a battleship is an extinct breed that does not need to exist anymore.
This has got to be the same guy who made a 7-part youtube miniseries on why BBs are not obsolete despite all the major navies in the world, a combined effort of millions of men and trillions of dollars, haven't had them for decades.
>>30095480
>then you have a ship that can travel as fast as an Arleigh Burke but with a foot of armor plating.
And it stands out like a sore thumb on Chinese radars!
>>30095171
>Engines are engines dude and if we have 4 battleships laying around they might as well get used for something.
Yeah, that's why the U.S. Army has me work on Blackhawk engines... Oh wait, they don't. Because an engine isn't just an engine.
>>30103142
In the theory, that would be a good thing. The battleship could be fitted with extra CIWS and SeaRAM, to absorb as many anti ship missiles as possible. Whether that sort of attrition based warfare is something the US could stomach is another story.
Keep the BB between the battlegroup and the enemy as a bodyguard when it isn't bombing shit.
This is naturally ignoring that Zumwalt does it better, and will continue to BTFO any Iowa modernization concept as it gaims access to shit like laser CIWS, operational railguns, and hypersonic missiles.
>>30095171
No, just....ugh
Okay, so engines 101
You've got your turbines and your pistons. Turbines are basically a set of fancy fan blades and pistons run on a series of cylinders with plungers in them. A jet will have a turbine engine while a car has piston engines
Then you've got your steam vs internal combustion. Most warships run on steam, boiling water and then throwing that through the pistons\turbines etc.
As a subset of steam turbines, you've got engines that run on nuclear power rather than oil. They heat up water that's under high pressure and then use that water to heat up water under normal pressure to make steam to drive the turbines.
So that's 5 different types of engines, none of which are intercompatible. Confused yet? Good.
Now we have to decide how big it is. Warship? How much displacement? Aircraft? What kind of speed do you want? Supersonic or no? Tank? Car?
How efficient do you want it? How much power do you need? How well can you cool it? All of this dramatically affects how an engine works and what it needs.
Engines are engines. Bah.
>>30103291
The funny thing is, he's simplifying. Alot.
>>30103318
OF COURSE I'M SIPLIFYING Do you Want me to spend All Day going on about Lurbicants?
Like how you want to tune the viscosity of the lubricant so it isn't rubbed off of the vital components but also wont impart additional drag
OH GOD I'VE STARTED, RUN ANON, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES
You also want to watch the thermal properties of the oil as their viscosity will tend to change when heated. Typically, you counter this with anti-freeze which are these clever little molecules tha
>>30095519
It should be a daily reminder that one of these ships is getting a rail gun this year.
>>30103346
Calm down dude. I'm pretty sure that he was just pointing out the humor inherent in a post that long being the "simplified" version. Nobody's bitching at you.
>>30103425
Actually, that was a joke
>>30102467
Pretty neat video, I love doing those kind of things or watching videos from other people getting to go around places like that. Only issue is I usually want them to spend 20x as much time in each area really explaining how the shit there worked and related to everything else on board.
Surprised no one posted boatslut Iowa.
OP can jack off to this anyway.
>>30103559
Did someone say boatslut iowa?
>>30103668
The thread was just treading water, anyway.
>>30103061
Ah, i was referring to the shell it self. Should maybe have said "impact fuze" instead. As in "how much armor does it need to go of when it hits its target". Sorry.
>>30103758
According to that page it's a minimum of 38cm at 0 degrees obliquity.
>>30103888
Forgot the decimal, it's 3.8cm.
