USS Iowa: that will teach the Iranians a lesson

Damaged be damned!

Park the battleships in Straight and shell them so bad not even the air stands upright, if need be. I stand by my (admittedly centuries-old) theories regarding surface warfare. The purpose of your first-rate ships is to fight other first-rate ships. Seeing as there aren't any, there's not much point in trying to hit a tiny corvette with a shell the size of a sedan when one missile will do the job right the first time. Those guns should be turned on other targets instead. A corvette could possibly sink or damage a battleship quite severely with a ramming manuever or rack of missiles. That's why you don't let them.

I still say that if you're not going to use them, give them to us, so we can refit them.

Rich23, I think that Iran is just using negotiations to stall until they finish putting together nukes. I don't believe the lies that come out of either President's mouth, but I'd rather Iran not have nukes based on their generally genocidal tendencies alone.

DE

Originally posted by rich23


The first is that apparently, during the Falklands war, after the Sheffield got hit so badly by an Exocet, Thatcher went to Mitterrand and harangued him until he got the manufacturers of the Exocet to send the Royal Navy the disarm codes for the missiles. I loathed Thatcher for what she did to the country, but for that action I have to grudgingly give her some respect, especially when you consider that it must have been something of a blow for the manufacturers. Imagine their sales reps at an arms fair, saying how effective they are, and then a potential customer coming back with "Yeah, right, as long as no-one gives the disarm codes away! I think I'll be going with a government that can keep a secret, thanks!"

You know, I hear this alot on ATS, but I never find any evidence of this actually happening. What I don't understand is a missile, designed in the 70's, has the ability to recieve a "disarm code" in flight. Please, fill me in.....

The Marine Corps wants a battleship and while I can't remember what their precise reasoning was, my justification for such is that when the Marines hit the ground, a battleship is capable of providing unsurpassed fire support immediately.

The battleship has much more value than just fighting other ships. Just the sound of those two thousand pound rounds flying over is enough to scare the daylights out of you. I can't even imagine what it must be like to be on the receiving end.

as a former member of the usn, one ting that has always terrified me is the fact a single sub can destroy an entire continent.

A corvette ramming the Wisconsin and sinking her.......it'd be more like a car going over a road bump. The captian would say "What was that?" and the XO would say..."just another Iranian corvette, sir, no worries". It'd put a bit of a dint in the hull and scratch off some paint. The corvette would crumple like a tin can!!!.

I'm thinking more along the lines of fireboats, if you know what those are. Suicide ships or something ridiculous like that. Don't pass it off, look at the Cole.

DE

Originally posted by DeusEx
I'm thinking more along the lines of fireboats, if you know what those are. Suicide ships or something ridiculous like that. Don't pass it off, look at the Cole.

DE

There's a huge difference between the Cole and the Wisconsin.......the Cole is made out of light gauge steel and aluminium, the Wisconsin is made out of heavy gauge chrome-moly' and 16 inch heavy armour plate. The explosion that took out the Cole would scar the side of the Wisconsin and leave a big black mark. You'd need a ton of high explosives and an ability to penetrate the hull before you'd do any damage. Even then, it'd only be local damage. To sink the ship, you'd have to rip half of the side open and that would take a lot of cordite or C4!!!!.

You could do it, but I'd doubt the op' would come off.

Originally posted by Mdv2


It might be very powerful, but would it be possible to prevent it from getting destroyed by air raids? I've seen pictures of Iranian stealth planes, but I am sure there are other people on here knowing better what the chance is such a ship would be destroyed, which would be a major psychological victory for Iran (a la Pearl Harbor).

Iran does not have any stealth aircraft. However, if we do go to war with them, I sure hope and pray to God above that they don't deply their new state of the art stealth camels. That would sure have me shivering in my britches.

I think there's a bigger chance of the Iranians visiting the Iowa as a museum piece than anything else

It was struck from the National Vessel Registry back in March, although it is still considered a "mobilization asset". Personally i think it's future going to be as a museum on the San Joaquin river in Stockton Ca, vice patrolling the Persian Gulf.

I think there's a bigger chance of the Iranians visiting the Iowa as a museum piece than anything else

It was struck from the National Vessel Registry back in March, although it is still considered a "mobilization asset". Personally i think it's future going to be as a museum on the San Joaquin river in Stockton Ca, vice patrolling the Persian Gulf.

Originally posted by bg_socalif
I think there's a bigger chance of the Iranians visiting the Iowa as a museum piece than anything else

It was struck from the National Vessel Registry back in March, although it is still considered a "mobilization asset". Personally i think it's future going to be as a museum on the San Joaquin river in Stockton Ca, vice patrolling the Persian Gulf.

That being the case, maybe the Iranians will use their "stealth planes" on it there

Or

They could launch a "suicide attack" on the admissions stand infront of the ship

If I were the Iranians, I'd worry a lot more about the Ohio SSGN.

150+ Tomahawks and 66 SEALs in one of the quietest nuclear sub designs ever built.

For reasons Orangetom pointed out very convincingly, the Iowas, amazing as they are, are no longer as useful as they once were, and extremely difficult and expensive to operate.

I too have been under the hulls of CVNs in docks. Yes I understand of what you are speaking.

I would like to point out however..that to us "A " torpedo on a ship like a Battleship or a CVN would be like ...dumb. You need a good spread. I think the number of torpedos used on the General Belgrano in the Falklands Islands war was three.
A spread of three or four modern torpedos is very different from a single fish. Mind you now the General Belgrano was not a battle ship or a CVN...but it was a large ship.

I dont know what the chemical compound/compounds used in modern conventional torpedos is ..but it has to be like...times 50 or times 100 what the olde torpex was in WW2 and the torpex was powerful.

A three or four fish spread under a vessel as large as a carrier or Battleship is a matter of programing now days.

I used to believe all that stuff too about how rugged these ships are we build untill I got to talking to some crews on SSNs. I was taken back the first time I heard it and I have heard it from many. As I said ..most surface ship crews havent a clue.

oh..and Deus Ex....no the Canadians dont want these battleships either. They have a difficult enough time putting to sea as it is. I dont exactly know who all your politicians are ..but sometimes they seem dumber than ours..and ours are really dumb...many of them. Your military forces seem like they are on the very bottom of the list as far as funding. I dont mean this to be insulting but its just something I have noticed. Correct me here if I am way off...base Deus Ex. I am not insulting the fighting spirit of the Individual Canadian here. The Canadians forces have historically and amply demonstrated thier backbone and I salute them. More like your politicians of which I am speaking.

Thanks to all for thier posts,
Orangetom

Agree about the Ohio class conversions...

Thanks,
Orangetom

The Canadians forces have historically and amply demonstrated thier backbone and I salute them. More like your politicians of which I am speaking.

It's the old addage, Orange'.....the pollies are the ones who start the wars. It's us poor dumb twats who have to do all the fighting. Never see a politician roll their sleaves up and grab a gun. Except to take potshots at their political opposition every now and then.

It's the same everywhere.

Tell you how long wars would last if we made the pollies go and fight them...... 2 seconds. How could people who are too self centered and power hungry be made to want to risk their own scrawny necks for anyone. Heck, sometimes they don't even like putting out for themselves!!!!.


[edit on 24-9-2006 by GhostITM]

Originally posted by stumason
You know, I hear this alot on ATS, but I never find any evidence of this actually happening. What I don't understand is a missile, designed in the 70's, has the ability to recieve a "disarm code" in flight. Please, fill me in.....

The source for this was a book written by Mitterrand's psychiatrist and there's a Guardian artlcle here that repeats his story. I now see that part of what allegedly persuaded Mitterrand to give over the codes is that Thatch supposedly threatened to nuke Argentina. I don't know about the technical details, but the story certainly had legs: Google "Thatcher Mitterrand Exocet" to find a list of people as gullible as me.

On the other hand, you haven't DISPROVED it either, just raised a perfectly good question.

And the way I remember it (and I certainly haven't done any research on this) the Sheffield was the only successful exocet attack on the Royal Navy in that conflict. It's circumstantial, and not researched, as I freely admit, but I'm open to more information should you care to post it.

Sad state of affairs is that after the cold war, the budget was slashed. After the Somalia Affair, we had a combined force of 40,000 men and women and nearly zero funding.

It's taken until about 2004 to get any funding back into the forces, allowing them to purchase some APCs and light armor, and not much else. We're still using vintage Sea Kings from the 50's and 60's, and our offensive air fleet is a hundred CF18s, which are crappy hornets. Only twenty of them can fly.

I'm lucky, I guess. I'll get to use more than the poor suckers in there right now. But I still want the battleships, expense or no. We have no close air support, minimal naval support, and almost exactly zero airlift. The battleships would be a total blessing, along with anything else we can get our hands on. We have half again the coast America does, and sixteen ships of the line to defend her with.

DE

www.foxnews.com...

According to them they do and it sound like it could do some damage to whatever navy we muster up.

Iran claims they invented the sun, for Christ's sake. Mehran posts outlandish claims all the time. The question is, do you believe them?

I don't. Not at all.

DE

DeusEx, maybe if you ask us Aussies, we'll build you a few subs and frigates to boost your numbers. How would you guys like some brand new Collins Class submarines and Anzac Class frigates??

We'll even throw in a Wedgetail AEW plane or two

And you can go grab a few C17's and C130-J's off the US for airlift

Also, if you want, we'll install a few of our Jindalee OTH radars for you. They can see B2's and F117's quite easily