@AmericanThunder
plus any incoming missile would have to get through the Phalanx CIWSs on the battleships, plus a storm of SM-2, -3, and -6 missiles from the surrounding ships, plus the f-18s from the carrier that is bound to be nearby.
@Nuker1337 On the other hand, Iowa's deck armor scheme is amazing. So at great ranges, where these ships will engage targets, they're *very* well protected against plunging fire, and against aerial bombs dropped from planes. If I were a WWII pilot, I sure as hell wouldn't want to fly anywhere near one of these ships. It was almost certain death, and even if you got lucky and lived through the hail of AA fire, your dropped bomb would likely just piss off the BB crew.
@Nuker1337 Yes, that's right. When Iowa was first put to the design table, the guns that were available were the 16"/45 cal rifles used on the previous BB class. However, after construction on the Iowas had already begun, the 16"/50 cal rifles were ready for production, so the Iowa was fitted with these new weapons. For the benefit of anyone who isn't familiar with naval rifle terms; 16" is the bore diameter and caliber is the multiplier for barrel length: bore x caliber = length.
@AmericanThunder The armor of the Iowa class is slightly less than what would be required to fend of its own 16 inch projectiles, at least at short range.
@AmericanThunder Not to mention that -- however easy or hard -- it IS possible to intercept a cruise missile. I've yet to here of a successful interception of an incoming 16 inch shell :)
For those saying that the newest sea-skimming anti-ship missiles(Russian Sunburn missile?) would easily sink an Iowa, I will mention one point. A typical battleship armor scheme is designed to defeat the ship's own guns. A 16" gun shell travels at roughly 2000 mph, and carries 750 lbs of explosive behind a hardened penetrator. The new sunburn anti-ship missile, carries 750lbs of explosive, travels at 1400 mph. The ship was built to withstand such a thing. Am I missing something here?
@EntropicMisanthropic The same principal holds true for gun shells; HE shells are designed to destroy soft targets, and AP shells are designed to destroy hard targets. Same thing with anti-personnel weapons; Hollow point bullets work great against guys wearing t-shirts, and full metal jacketed bullets work best against guys wearing armor vests.
@EntropicMisanthropic So you're saying that even though there are no battleships left in service anywhere on Earth, the russians and chinese are still designing and building missiles to defeat battleship armor? I would think modern missile designers would design missiles to sink modern warships. A missile designed to sink soft targets (carriers) is a different design than a missile designed to sink hard targets(battleships)
@EntropicMisanthropic
Super carriers don't have rolled homogeneous steel armor. While it wouldn't be fool proof, a battleship is much more able to take damage than a carrier (due to the thickness of internal bulkheads).
We have plenty of ability to down supersonic anti-ship missiles:
RIM-174 Standard ERAM
RIM-161 Standard Missile 3
RIM-162 ESSM
Phalanx CIWS
RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile
@EntropicMisanthropic er, I should say the Iowas were intentionally left to rust in order to break the power of the battleship admirals while still also humoring the Marines, who were the ones who really needed the Iowas the most for amphib assaults. The powder was left to degenerate in the hot sun on tarped barges until it eventually caused a 16 inch gun to blow up, and then the Navy said "Oops, seems they're just too unsafe and too much trouble to keep around!". Worked out perfectly for them.
The other problem is that the US Navy is the Ivy League respectable, "old money" branch of the US armed forces and has been for years. Thus, it tends to be fiercely cliquish and resistant to change, and different "Mafias" represent their individual branch (battleships, subs, carriers, destroyers, or planes). Once the battleship Mafia lost out to the carrier and aircraft Mafias in the 1950s under Forrestal, the carriers were intentionally left to rust and the machinery blueprints destroyed.
The one irreplaceable benefit of the Iowa class is the ability to basically throw 9 x 2000 lb HE bombs at a time constantly for weeks on end, presuming what you're shooting at is within 20 miles or so of the shore. No aircraft or even an entire carrier could match that level of raw HE on target in the shortest period of time.
That said, the AA armament is useless today and wouldn't save it from missiles, nor would all that thick armor. The idea of using it as a Tomahawk launcher is silly.
@310eraser Ridiculous. The Russians and Chinese have supersonic, sea-skimming antiship missiles with extremely large armor penetrating warheads. Many of them are adjustable between a sea-skimming approach or a top-down dive, both at supersonic speed. They built them specifically to destroy US supercarriers, we have no ability to shoot down supersonic cruise missiles, and I assure you they would trash an Iowa class very quickly in open combat.
@themens200 They did anti-ship missile testing against the thickness of Iowa belt and the missiles basically bounced off. These battleships are not slow either, they can reach 30 knots.
the alreigh burke is better and less armored
but i really really like the battleships the commanders excuse is that they are heavy armored and slow moving and can be targeted easily bu aircrafts i think the solution is to lower its armor and add air defence systems to it and you keep powerful naval artillery less expensive than the cruise missile
Français
