Aircraft carrier for sale.

[ZenOps]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334008/HMS-Invincible-sold-scrap-eBay-style-auction-website.html

Bwahaha! Someone out there is listening to me. Ridiculously expensive to maintain, marginal military benefit.

The HMS Invincible, the main carrier during the Falklands (of which the Brits won)

Aircraft carrier = obsolete.

But I take back my assement of the Chunnel, it is afterall naturally lined with chalk/gypsum which is basically drywall (and is therefore somewhat mold resistant, unlike concrete)

"HMS Invincible was due to be sold to Australia for £175 million in 1982 - but the sale was hastily stopped when the war in the Falklands broke out."

[DayGlow]

A helicopter / VSTOL aircraft carrier and a supercarrier are 2 very different beasts.

[kertejud2]

Yes, aircraft carriers are so obsolete that the UK has ordered two 65,000 tonne super-carriers (3x the size of Invincible), one of which is already under construction.

In other words, the British navy has decided to replace 66,000 tonnes of aircraft carriers (Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious) with 130,000 tonnes of aircraft carriers (Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales) because mobile air power is irrelevant and has gone to the wayside.

[badatusrnames]

Originally posted by ZenOps

Aircraft carrier = obsolete.


The aircraft carrier ended the age of the battleship, please do tell what it has been replaced by.


Originally posted by kertejud2
Yes, aircraft carriers are so obsolete that the UK has ordered two 65,000 tonne super-carriers (3x the size of Invincible), one of which is already under construction.

In other words, the British navy has decided to replace 66,000 tonnes of aircraft carriers (Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious) with 130,000 tonnes of aircraft carriers (Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales) because mobile air power is irrelevant and has gone to the wayside.

:werd: The Ark Royal is obsolete, not the aircraft carrier.

[Redlyne_mr2]

Hmm.. interesting to see if this will sell. The US usually sinks their old ships.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
Hmm.. interesting to see if this will sell. The US usually sinks their old ships.

I think it has to sell. Its an auction for scrap so there will be a buyer at some price.
And IIRC the U.S. scraps most of their ships, but some are sunk as part of weapons testing (and I think they sunk a few as part of an artificial reef project).

[ZenOps]

Steel has dropped in price considerably of the last decade (depending on type of steel that is)

Pennies are now made of worthless steel.

Its sad - but back in 1982, $400 million CDN probably would have bought the complete intact and fully tested carrier, the pride of the British Navy.

Just goes to show how worthless a dollar is nowadays when you can plunk down A Billion and maybe get 1 1/2 airplanes.

[911fever]

haha this is funny

[kertejud2]

A billion dollars would get you ten of the most advanced airplanes for sale (or maybe 13 or 14 of the second most). You could buy three times as many Harriers or F-18s, but they aren't as good as the planes that cost more and would be shot down. Just think, in WWII you could buy an F6F Hellcat for $35,000. Now to buy an F-35 you have to pay over $90M. How useless a dollar is, amirite?


Of course, what does the cost of fifth generation fighters and scrap steel have to do with the supposed obsolescence of aircraft carriers?

[n1zm0]

UK has nothing on Russia:

. ‘Varyag’ is an aircraft-carrying air cruiser; Built in 1988 and then, in 1993, according to a treaty between Russia and Ukraine, was gleefully handed over to Ukraine:

http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/post-3-12767838146338.jpg

In April 1998 was sold to a Chinese company for $20 million with its net value of $5-6 billions. In 2008 it was renamed into ‘Shi Lang.’:
http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/post-3-12767838475339.jpg

‘Minsk’ is an aircraft-carrying air cruiser, Built in 1975, written off in 1994 and in the end of 1995 successfully towed to the South Korean shore and sold there:

http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/post-3-12767838794275.jpg

Aircraft-carrying air cruiser ‘Admiral Gorshkov. The ship was built in 1987 and removed from operational status in 2004. Sold to India right away.

http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/post-3-12767839195086.jpg

‘Ulyanovsk’ is a nuclear aircraft carrier with 75,000 tonnage. The construction works started back in 1988 and was scheduled on 1995, but in less than 5 years funding was cut off and a half-built ship was eventually melt back:

http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/post-3-12767839386238.jpg

Total:

1) Out of seven aircraft-carrying air cruisers just one is battle-ready. Fife of them sold and one junked.

2) Out of two helicopter-carrying antisubmarine cruisers sold two.

3) Out of 20 frigates 19 are written off and melt down or junked.

4) Out of four missile cruisers three are efficient and one is in pre-sale preparation.

http://englishrussia.com/index.php/2010/06/20/russias-used-to-be-marine-forces/

[e31]

Originally posted by badatusrnames

The aircraft carrier ended the age of the battleship, please do tell what it has been replaced by.


Battleship<Aircraft Carrier<Chuck Norris.

Someone had to do it...

[Freeskier]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
Hmm.. interesting to see if this will sell. The US usually sinks their old ships.

The hmcs mackenzie
http://freepages.military.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cdobie/berbeck-scan0017.jpg

Where is she now?

http://rwglobal.com/~8arm/images/Lingcod_056-537194038.jpg

[Supa Dexta]

There were 2 destroyers back home last summer, being scrapped.

The HMCS Gatineau and the Terra Nova, I used to seadoo by them every few days.

http://www.saoc-central.com/terranova_.jpghttp://macsnavylinks.ca/maccdale/236cf.jpg

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by n1zm0
UK has nothing on Russia:

. ‘Varyag’ is an aircraft-carrying air cruiser; Built in 1988 and then, in 1993, according to a treaty between Russia and Ukraine, was gleefully handed over to Ukraine:

http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/post-3-12767838146338.jpg

In April 1998 was sold to a Chinese company for $20 million with its net value of $5-6 billions. In 2008 it was renamed into ‘Shi Lang.’:
http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/post-3-12767838475339.jpg

‘Minsk’ is an aircraft-carrying air cruiser, Built in 1975, written off in 1994 and in the end of 1995 successfully towed to the South Korean shore and sold there:

http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/post-3-12767838794275.jpg

Aircraft-carrying air cruiser ‘Admiral Gorshkov. The ship was built in 1987 and removed from operational status in 2004. Sold to India right away.

http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/post-3-12767839195086.jpg

‘Ulyanovsk’ is a nuclear aircraft carrier with 75,000 tonnage. The construction works started back in 1988 and was scheduled on 1995, but in less than 5 years funding was cut off and a half-built ship was eventually melt back:

http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/post-3-12767839386238.jpg

Total:

1) Out of seven aircraft-carrying air cruisers just one is battle-ready. Fife of them sold and one junked.

2) Out of two helicopter-carrying antisubmarine cruisers sold two.

3) Out of 20 frigates 19 are written off and melt down or junked.

4) Out of four missile cruisers three are efficient and one is in pre-sale preparation.

http://englishrussia.com/index.php/2010/06/20/russias-used-to-be-marine-forces/

And to think the depreciation on some AMG 65 series is bad :nut:

[chkolny541]

Originally posted by DayGlow


And to think the depreciation on some AMG 65 series is bad :nut:

why did you requote a huge post just to say this!??!

[DayGlow]

Because editing on an iPhone is a bitch with my fat, powdered sugar covered fingers.

[alloroc]

Originally posted by DayGlow
Because editing on an iPhone is a bitch with my fat, powdered sugar covered fingers.

:rofl:

[derpderp]

I'm going to buy it on my McCredit card.

[garnet]

Originally posted by DayGlow
Because editing on an iPhone is a bitch with my fat, powdered sugar covered fingers.

classic :thumbsup: now i know the official kind timmies to keep on hand
since donuts are not monitary, can they even be considered a bribe? :rofl: just asking :D

[95EagleAWD]

Sad that a warship with so much history is to be scrapped.

Museum ship? The Falklands War was a pretty big deal to the Brits.

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by kertejud2
Of course, what does the cost of fifth generation fighters and scrap steel have to do with the supposed obsolescence of aircraft carriers?

Even a car needs a garage.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
Sad that a warship with so much history is to be scrapped.

Museum ship? The Falklands War was a pretty big deal to the Brits.

The USS Enterprise was scrapped after WWII. If the 'Big E' can suffer that fate, then any ship can.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by kertejud2


The USS Enterprise was scrapped after WWII. If the 'Big E' can suffer that fate, then any ship can.

Oh I know... But all the Iowa-class battleships were donated as museums and maintained in operational readiness until very, very recently.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD


Oh I know... But all the Iowa-class battleships were donated as museums and maintained in operational readiness until very, very recently.

The Royal Navy is oddly unsentimental when it comes to its ships, no capital ships have survived the scrapyards. HMS Belfast is the only survivor from WWII and it was a run of the mill light cruiser that was only saved when private money came in.

The U.S. Navy meanwhile has taken a much different stance in preserving ships, though too late for Big E.

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by ZenOps


Even a car needs a garage.

I have 6 cars and no garage.

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by GTS4tw


I have 6 cars and no garage.

Ok, maybe better to say you need a parking spot for it.

Air aircraft carrier is just a floating garage/parking platform. As far a a fighter can fly - you really want to conserve the fuel and let the boat get you to the spot you want.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by ZenOps


Ok, maybe better to say you need a parking spot for it.

Air aircraft carrier is just a floating garage/parking platform. As far a a fighter can fly - you really want to conserve the fuel and let the boat get you to the spot you want.

And the need to have a "floating garage" is obsolete how?

[ZenOps]

Exactly.

Because just like how the aircraft carrier made the battleship nearly obsolete, the nuke makes the aircraft carrier obsolete and brings battleship back to usefulness and submarine as the ultimate weapon.

If you happen to be using your aircraft carrier to invade a nation that does *not* have a nuke (and has zero friends with nukes) - then its still useful. Y'know like third world countries that can't fight back anyhow, which are the last low hanging fruit for a nation built on war like the US.

Makes sense?

In a real Armageddon North Korea sense - the carrier makes no sense. In the "I want to invade a small country and steal everything" sense - the carrier is still valid.

With that said: China is building their first carrier. My thoughts are Greenland. Although France seems to want it (SLBM launches and all) and might have to fight the US for it, if the US has a water crisis.

I can see three nations fighting for Greenland (against the Danish Minority) screw Iraq and Iran.

[boarderfatty]

Originally posted by ZenOps
Exactly.

Because just like how the aircraft carrier made the battleship nearly obsolete, the nuke makes the aircraft carrier obsolete and brings battleship back to usefulness and submarine as the ultimate weapon.

If you happen to be using your aircraft carrier to invade a nation that does *not* have a nuke (and has zero friends with nukes) - then its still useful. Y'know like third world countries that can't fight back anyhow, which are the last low hanging fruit for a nation built on war like the US.

Makes sense?

In a real Armageddon North Korea sense - the carrier makes no sense. In the &quot;I want to invade a small country and steal everything&quot; sense - the carrier is still valid.

With that said: China is building their first carrier. My thoughts are Greenland. Although France seems to want it (SLBM launches and all) and might have to fight the US for it, if the US has a water crisis.

I can see three nations fighting for Greenland (against the Danish Minority) screw Iraq and Iran.

Holy shit this has got to be one of the most ignorant posts I have read on here in a while.

There are two forms of war Conventional warfare and Nuclear warfare. Only Conventional warfare is fought. no full out nuclear war has been fought (dont give me Japan circa WWII) There is a reason that they are developing the F-35, there is a reason they are still developing tanks, there is a reason there is such a thing a ground forces.

Even if there were two nuclear powers to go to war I would highly doubt either would resort to launching one. the civilian casualties, collateral damage, and other side effects of nuclear fallout are far to great to risk.

War has always been fought on the ground that is the way you win a war. by having your troops on the ground taking it over. The Germans never took England in WWII because they couldn't get troops on the ground. They bombed the shit out of it, England lay in rubbles but it was never under German control because German troops could never make it up the shore.

I would suggest giving your head a shake, but that is just my 2 cents

PS: Also Big battle ships are obsolete, but there are still certain styles of battleships in use in the escorts for Carriers, Carriers are useful tools of conventional war, but are fairly limited in close range defenses which is why battle ships are needed to protect the carriers and support ships.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by ZenOps
Exactly.

Because just like how the aircraft carrier made the battleship nearly obsolete, the nuke makes the aircraft carrier obsolete and brings battleship back to usefulness and submarine as the ultimate weapon.

Why the battleship? The battleship is useless as a weapon ever since Dec. 7, 1941 and that hasn't changed. Aircraft carriers have nukes and the machines capable of launching them. What's the point of building a battleship with this ability? For the sole fact that it doesn't have planes means its range is limited, and it simply carrying nukes makes it like a giant submarine that sits on the surface without adequate means to protect itself. Fuck you're stupid.



If you happen to be using your aircraft carrier to invade a nation that does *not* have a nuke (and has zero friends with nukes) - then its still useful. Y'know like third world countries that can't fight back anyhow, which are the last low hanging fruit for a nation built on war like the US.

You do realize that the nuke in this case makes pretty much everything obsolete...except for things capable of delivering nukes...like aircraft carriers.


In a real Armageddon North Korea sense - the carrier makes no sense. In the &quot;I want to invade a small country and steal everything&quot; sense - the carrier is still valid.

Or if you're a country that wants the ability to maintain a naval and air presence in an area teeming with nuclear powers. If you want to invade a small country and steal everything (say, Taiwan), you'll have to deal with the U.S. carrier battle groups in the South China Sea. If you want to fire something at Japan, you have to deal with the naval and air power the U.S. has in the Sea of Japan etc.

As long as the U.S. and NATO have air and naval supremacy (which requires aircraft carriers), they hold an upper hand in all non-nuclear conflicts (which is all of them, whether you have nukes or not).

[ZenOps]

Oceanic nukes are probably the most likely scenario for using a nuke.

No civilian casualties, and if far enough in the ocean (because these aircraft carriers do take upwards of months to get to their destination)
then there is plausible deniability of any type of bermuda triangle type scenario (or more likely "accident")

There have been many multi billion dollar navy ships that have been "lost" in the ocean. If you want to be a conspiracy theorist, nuke based ship sinkings have already happened.

They are usually followed by a rogue "wave", which is not fooling any geologist worth their salt, because it is not triggered by an easily detectable earthquake. Rogue wave from an asteroid falling in the ocean, possible as well.

Land nukes are the very least likely scenario.

[ZenOps]

I don't know why I bother repeating but:

Aircraft carrier is obsolete, if you have to use a nuke on a bomber to deliver a nuke.

Submarine is hidden can pop up anywhere, can fire a SLBM that travels at mach 15 and contains multiple warheads. Death from above in less than 10 minutes.

If using a "poor mans" submarine torpedo aimed at a ship, death from below in less a minute.

The main thing is, that an aircraft carrier is mofoing huge and slow. It would take weeks if not months to travel over the ocean. As soon as it gets halfway to its war destination - it might be considered an act of agression (unless its a first strike weapon, which is just plain silly - as a ICBM can go around the world in less than two hours)

And then you have a solid week - to bring it down before it really gets close enough to do any damage. The range of a typical plane on a carrier is not in the hemisphere range. Its built for speed of a little less than mach 2 - and not built for endurace. A bomber would be even slower. You can't hide an aircraft carrier from satellites - which means its more than just a sitting duck, its a trillion dollar sitting duck.

IE: North Korea has the ICBM technical capacity to more or less hit a target (give or take maybe 10 miles or so) just off the coast of Hawaii. The George Washington carrier - would take I don't know for sure - but maybe two weeks to get to Incheon island in South Korea?

As soon as one gets SLBM technology, any ship is pretty much at the whims of the King of the Sea - the Submarine. Submarines are even nuke proof - as all they have to do is dive deep enough and hope the water will absorb the concussion blast (the radiation and heat will not be as much a factor through hundreds of feet of water) Water is actually a better absorber of radiation than Steel.

As a rescue vessel it would be a good ship. But not a war machine.

I would definitely think much higher of Canada if we didn't spend money on fighters, but spent money on a helicopter carrier (Search and rescue, food delivery dropoff, etc...) You don't deliver food and medical supplies with a submarine.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by ZenOps
Oceanic nukes are probably the most likely scenario for using a nuke.

No its not.

Any country that would want to use a nuke against a NATO nation wouldn't have the capability to hit a small, moving target in the ocean (most don't have the capability of hitting a stationary target the size of California). And any such nation that has a nuke, wouldn't waste one on a single carrier. Their goal is to create as much damage as possible and bring the people to their knees. (Maybe) destroying a single carrier battle group does nothing but piss your enemies off and you're fucked when the next one comes in.


No civilian casualties, and if far enough in the ocean (because these aircraft carriers do take upwards of months to get to their destination)

No they don't.

There's a reason the U.S. has eleven nuclear-powered carriers, its so they never need months to get a carrier to a spot where they need one.


There have been many multi billion dollar navy ships that have been &quot;lost&quot; in the ocean. If you want to be a conspiracy theorist, nuke based ship sinkings have already happened.

Name a couple, just for shits (Bikini Atoll tests do not count). I'm sure the conspiracy theorists could explain why tens of thousands of naval servicemen and women have been lost at sea with shitty explanations.


Land nukes are the very least likely scenario.

No, they're not.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by ZenOps
I don't know why I bother repeating but:

Aircraft carrier is obsolete, if you have to use a nuke on a bomber to deliver a nuke.

What makes you think they need to fire them from a bomber? You think they figured out how to launch a nuke from underwater but never figured out how to do it from a 70,000 tonne ship?


Submarine is hidden can pop up anywhere, can fire a SLBM that travels at mach 15 and contains multiple warheads. Death from above in less than 10 minutes.

Q: Number of times a nuclear submarine has fired a weapon in an act of war
A: 3

Q: Number of times a nuclear submarine has fired a nuclear weapon
A: 0


Nuclear subs are there for one purpose. Deterrence. For everything else (see: every war in the past and the foreseeable future) the aircraft carrier is the most important weapon.



If using a &quot;poor mans&quot; submarine torpedo aimed at a ship, death from below in less a minute.

Q: number of ships sunk by nuclear submarines
A: 1


The main thing is, that an aircraft carrier is mofoing huge and slow. It would take weeks if not months to travel over the ocean.

They're faster than submarines.


As soon as it gets halfway to its war destination - it might be considered an act of agression (unless its a first strike weapon, which is just plain silly - as a ICBM can go around the world in less than two hours)

And then you have a solid week - to bring it down before it really gets close enough to do any damage. The range of a typical plane on a carrier is not in the hemisphere range. Its built for speed of a little less than mach 2 - and not built for endurace. A bomber would be even slower. You can't hide an aircraft carrier from satellites - which means its more than just a sitting duck, its a trillion dollar sitting duck.

So you'll fire an ICBM at a carrier that takes two hours to get to its target. Meaning you'll have to guess where the carrier will be in two hours because you're looking at a 100km difference in its position from when its launched to when it will arrive. Wouldn't the nuke be better used at attacking, say, San Diego.


IE: North Korea has the ICBM technical capacity to more or less hit a target (give or take maybe 10 miles or so) just off the coast of Hawaii. The George Washington carrier - would take I don't know for sure - but maybe two weeks to get to Incheon island in South Korea?

Or they'd just send the closest ones. Like the ones they have in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean. And now they need a ten mile margin of error on top of their 100km radius?


As soon as one gets SLBM technology, any ship is pretty much at the whims of the King of the Sea - the Submarine.

Is that why subs have been so active in anti-ship tactics? The reason they've so rarely been used since the U-Boats is because attacking another ship shows them where you are (without having to resort to such archaic tactics as listening and sonar). What's the point of having this ominous nuclear threat from below if they're just going to give up their position? They don't. Its one or the other, and North Korea sinking a South Korean destroyer with a diesel sub is a far cry from touching a carrier, and the fact its diesel makes it irrelevant in any sort of prolonged chess game.


[b]As a rescue vessel it would be a good ship. But not a war machine.

Is that why they've been used in every war since WWI?


Carriers suck, like Rob Anders.

I think Canada's first amphibious assault ship will be called the HMCS Rob Anders.

[Team_Mclaren]

Originally posted by ZenOps
non-sense

:rofl:

[ZenOps]

Heh.

I haven't even got the argument that the new modern carriers don't really "fit" into the shortcuts anymore (the Panama canal, etc)

Its like trying to squeeze a semi into a household garage. And regardless, you don't want to be using the shortcuts because some yahoo on the shore of the canal, can just rpg tag it with a handheld weapon (biological/whatever) and taint the entire deck - nevermind an oceanic nuke, lol.

Which always adds three weeks if and when you have to go around continents.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by ZenOps
Heh.

I haven't even got the argument that the new modern carriers don't really &quot;fit&quot; into the shortcuts anymore (the Panama canal, etc)

Its like trying to squeeze a semi into a household garage. And regardless, you don't want to be using the shortcuts because some yahoo on the shore of the canal, can just rpg tag it with a handheld weapon (biological/whatever) and taint the entire deck - nevermind an oceanic nuke, lol.

Which always adds three weeks if and when you have to go around continents.

SSBNs don't go through the canal either.

What else you got?

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by ZenOps
Heh.

I haven't even got the argument that the new modern carriers don't really &quot;fit&quot; into the shortcuts anymore (the Panama canal, etc)

Its like trying to squeeze a semi into a household garage. And regardless, you don't want to be using the shortcuts because some yahoo on the shore of the canal, can just rpg tag it with a handheld weapon (biological/whatever) and taint the entire deck - nevermind an oceanic nuke, lol.

Which always adds three weeks if and when you have to go around continents.

What the hell are you talking about? Carriers haven't been built to PANAMAX standard for over 50 years. They've been bigger than the canal since the Enterprise was put in service.

It still doesn't take them long to sail around the cape.

Tag one with an RPG? Have you ever fired a shoulder launched weapon in your life? It's not easy to hit shit with them.

Your arguments are ridiculous.

[autosm]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kertejud2
[B]

Why the battleship? The battleship is useless as a weapon ever since Dec. 7, 1941 and that hasn't changed. Aircraft carriers have nukes and the machines capable of launching them. What's the point of building a battleship with this ability? For the sole fact that it doesn't have planes means its range is limited, and it simply carrying nukes makes it like a giant submarine that sits on the surface without adequate means to protect itself. Fuck you're stupid.


More like 1945, they proved usefull in softening up the costal defences during WW2. Before the Allied forces invaded Europe and the South Pacific islands. They could accuratly fire a 2000 lb+ shell 20 + miles.






USS Iowa fires a full broadside of nine 16-inch (406 mm) / 50-caliber and six 5-inch (127 mm) / 38-caliber guns during a target exercise. Note concussion effects on the water surface.The primary armament of an Iowa-class battleship is nine 16-inch (406 mm)/50-caliber Mark 7 naval guns, which are housed in three three-gun


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Uss_iowa_bb-61_pr.jpg

[Hamann]

Originally posted by autosm
USS Iowa fires a full broadside of nine 16-inch (406 mm) / 50-caliber and six 5-inch (127 mm) / 38-caliber guns during a target exercise. Note concussion effects on the water surface.The primary armament of an Iowa-class battleship is nine 16-inch (406 mm)/50-caliber Mark 7 naval guns, which are housed in three three-gun

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Uss_iowa_bb-61_pr.jpg

I'll Help you out just because I love this picture :thumbsup:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/SL65/1276986878511-1.jpg

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by autosm

More like 1945, they proved usefull in softening up the costal defences during WW2. Before the Allied forces invaded Europe and the South Pacific islands. They could accuratly fire a 2000 lb+ shell 20 + miles.

And a SBD Dauntless could accurately drop 2,000lbs of bombs from 500+ miles away. The battleship became an obsolete weapon at Pearl Harbour. The only reason they stuck around is because they had so many of them (and why waste those big guns) and they had more AA guns than cruisers and destroyers for protecting aircraft carriers.The second the aircraft carrier proved a deadlier weapon than the battleship, the battleship became obsolete. Every other surface ship's primary job became carrier escort after that.

Why pick 1945 anyway? Iowa-class battleships weren't decommissioned until the mid-90s, didn't make them any less superfluous after Dec 7, 1941.



USS Iowa fires a full broadside of nine 16-inch (406 mm) / 50-caliber and six 5-inch (127 mm) / 38-caliber guns during a target exercise. Note concussion effects on the water surface.The primary armament of an Iowa-class battleship is nine 16-inch (406 mm)/50-caliber Mark 7 naval guns, which are housed in three three-gun


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Uss_iowa_bb-61_pr.jpg

Prince of Wales (left, front) and HMS Repulse (left, behind) under Japanese air attack on 10 December 1941.

A lot of good their 14 and 15 inch guns could do. This marked the time the Royal Navy would realize that the age of the battleship ended.



There's a reason that there was only one U.S. battleship laid down after Pearl Harbour, and only one British battleship laid down after the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse.

[95EagleAWD]

I disagree on the obsoleteness of the heavy battleship.

There's a very, very good reason why the US Marines wants those Iowas back in service. Because they are the ultimate in sustained, accurate heavy gunfire during an amphibious landing.

In WW2, battleships weren't protected by modern air cover. A BBBG like the one that sailed in the Persian Gulf in '91 to provide heavy gun support on the coast of Iraq is the right way to do it and provides the battleship with the air defense needed. They're still supremely effective weapons and the modern navy still has nothing which can do their job. Ticonderoga cruisers have two 5-inch guns and the Arleigh Burke's have one. They cannot soften a beachhead for landing.

For that reason, both the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin, while striken from the US Naval Registry, are both maintained in a condition that can bring them back to operational status if they were needed.

[kertejud2]

The only people who think battleships still have a use are Congress (and I quote, "battleship fans") and some members of the marines. The Navy doesn't want them and most of the Marine Corps doesn't want them.

The Navy has been trying to get rid of the battleships for years because they're a waste of money and they're desperately trying to develop their new and better options for naval warfare. Instead they'll need close to a billion dollars to get two battleships that have been used in amphibious assault bombardment only once since the Korean War up to operational standards.

[autosm]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kertejud2
[B]

And a SBD Dauntless could accurately drop 2,000lbs of bombs from 500+ miles away.

^ Agreed but ......... Each gun can fire a 2 shells per minute.

How many aircraft would it take to deliver that kind of fire power to a fortified position on some south pacific island? One Iowa class ship could deliver in one hour what carrier based aircraft would take all day.

The guns fire projectiles weighing from 1,900 to 2,700 pounds at a muzzle velocity of 2,690 ft/s to a maximum range of 42,345 yards (24.06 mi) using an armor-piercing shell. At maximum range the projectile spends almost 1½ minutes in flight. The maximum firing rate for each gun is two rounds per minute.[58] The turrets are "three-gun", not "triple", because each barrel can be elevated independently; they can also be fired independently. The ship could fire any combination of its guns, including a broadside of all nine.





I used 1945 because they still helped during the war.


The Iowa class battleships are the last battleships to see service with any country. They were originally designed in 1936 to counter a threat of larger Japanese Battleships. They 16 inch guns were highly effective in bombarding shore based targets. The fast speed of the ships also allowed them to also serve as escorts for carrier groups.
]

[95EagleAWD]

USS Missouri and Wisconsin last fired their 16-inch guns in 1991, shelling Iraqi positions on shore.

[ZenOps]

A battleship is an inexpensive piece of military technology compared to a loaded aircraft carrier.

If you factor in the hundred or so fighter aircraft (up to two billion apiece) that is.

And if you leave the recon to the satellites, as mentioned there is no question the battleship has far more conventional firepower than an aircraft carrier.

Besides, recon drones can be launched like a missle. They don't need the deck of an aircraft carrier anymore. Just pop them off the side of the deck of *any* ship.

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by kertejud2
The only people who think battleships still have a use are Congress (and I quote, &quot;battleship fans&quot;) and some members of the marines. The Navy doesn't want them and most of the Marine Corps doesn't want them.

The Navy has been trying to get rid of the battleships for years because they're a waste of money and they're desperately trying to develop their new and better options for naval warfare. Instead they'll need close to a billion dollars to get two battleships that have been used in amphibious assault bombardment only once since the Korean War up to operational standards.

People who like carriers - want to keep their jobs. Like the people at Nasa. The space shuttle is just a 250 mile pizza delivery service for the Russian space station afterall. While at one time Nasa may have been something of mention - it faded into obsolescence decades ago.

A loaded aircraft carrier and personelle keeps many more people employed. A battleship far fewer. A drone ship, employs none.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by ZenOps
A battleship is an inexpensive piece of military technology compared to a loaded aircraft carrier.


You really don't know what you're talking about at all. They are RIDICULOUSLY expensive to run, because you're talking about ships that had their keel laid in the 1930s!

The Shuttle is retired at the end of the year. And with it pretty much all of the USA heavy lift into orbit capability.

What FIGHTER costs two billion dollars? None. B-2A Spirits are about that much, but there's only 19 of those in service.

Is there a place in the modern Navy for the Battleship? I think so. Is the Aircraft Carrier still the most powerful thing on the ocean? Absolutely.

[kertejud2]

So it seems ZenOps is a cross of WWI naval planners and WWII submarine jockeys. That's an interesting mix to have. Basically if Donitz and Fisher had a love-child together for the Cold War and beyond.

Given his obsession with speed he probably would have agreed that the battlecruiser was a good idea.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by kertejud2
So it seems ZenOps is a cross of WWI naval planners and WWII submarine jockeys. That's an interesting mix to have. Basically if Donitz and Fisher had a love-child together for the Cold War and beyond.

Given his obsession with speed he probably would have agreed that the battlecruiser was a good idea.

You cannot control the sea with submarines. It can't be done. That's what aircraft carriers are for. Projecting power.

Subs, however, are very, very good at DENYING the sea to others. Ask Japan and more recently, Argentina how that works.

I'd love to know where all his drone planes come from, because they don't exist. Predator UAVs, sure, but they have very limited armament compared to their loiter times.