Jump to content

JohnPJones

Members
  • Content count

    1,662
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6076

Community Reputation

103 Valued poster

About JohnPJones

  • Rank
    Lieutenant
  • Insignia

5 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

501 profile views
  1. Well I’m back, as for Iowa being TLAM platforms, they could have removed the 16” turrets simply welded a metal plate over the opening and put more launchers there, you could fit what? 6 more launchers on that way and still have more gun power on one side of the ship than any other ship in the fleet. any way, I’m not an advocate of the Iowas coming back, but like is said in the thread topic something like a battleship could make a comeback. there is still a legal requirement to replace the B.B.’s NGFS capability now that the Zumwalts have failed so miserably in that role. my suggestion is the BMD variant San Antonio with a mk71, mk110, and between 150-288 VLS. HII says 288 VLS is the max they can fit on the hull, but I think a mk110 would cut that down a bit, and SVTT and mk38 might still be desire by the navy which would cut a few more out as well. edit as for your comment that the guns weren’t enough to keep the Iowas in service, that’s either an ignorant thing to say or intentionally misleading. the Soviet Union fell the only serious threat to the nation gone. It thus makes sense for budget cuts, no capital ship sized surface combatants are necessary at that point, but congress for 20 years required that the NGFS capability provided by those guns be maintained or replaced, thus why the ships were still in the reserves until 2011 when an order of 32 zumwalts was decided to have satisfied that requirement.
  2. It’s interesting how that other guy hasn’t responded since I asked for him to cite a source about the Iowas and being TLAM platforms...
  3. Would there be any hazard to landing a help on VLS, especially if spaced to provide trip free walk paths on either side? seems like the best compromise. while I will always think big guns have a roll in the navy (until hard evidence to the contrary emerges anyway) I don’t think they’re as important as more VLS unless they get more extended range.
  4. Funny, you’d think they’d have had more tomahawks if that was the purpose of bringing them back? You’re literally the first person I’ve seen make this claim so do you have a reliable source you can cite? the Long Beach class was only what? 5ft longer than a Des Moines class and mounted 2 TLAM launchers P/S while being 5ft narrower than the Des Moines class, so how were they too small? why not convert an old carrier by bolting a half a dozen TLAM launchers, and some CIWS, and sea sparrow launchers on them? why hasn’t a shore position surrendered to any guided missile ships if they’re so much better than battleships and their guns?
  5. yep TLAM would be VLS only i don't really see that as much of an increase in shore strike capability, when you already have VLS for 2 dozen or more. i'd keep the flight deck, simply because it would be useful in case a helo needs to do an emergency landing or for PAC xfers, VERTREP, medevac, etc, but it could probably be much smaller than it is since you'd only need one MH60 to hit the deck at a time for such situations. im choosing the 8" guns partially because they already had guided rounds designed for it which currently the 5" guns don't, and because they make a bigger boom. the RoF is fairly similar if i'm not mistaken. 12rpm vs 16-20 (as per wiki.) and the mk110s can each put out 10x as many rounds as the mk45, can and again if i'm not mistaken already has guided munitions designed for it. also i'd keep phalanx because it does do a good job of doubling as swarm defence weapon as well, and wouldn't really want to use SEARam for that. also i think i forgot to mention, might as well drop a mk38 mod2 in any remaining empty 40mm tubs still on board...i mean why the hell not, it's a battleship right? edit i'd keep harpoon launchers because VLS based ASMs would be primary ASM batteries, and harpoons would be secondary ASM batteries (the 5" to the 16" so to speak.)
  6. So trying to be smug and get a gold star from teacher got it.
  7. Well that was interesting to read... im not actually advocating this, but the Iowas could be adapted to be effective NGFS platforms as well as an Arsenal ship. turrets 2&3 replaced with mk41 replace the old 5” guns with mk71s and mk110s (x3 8” x2 57mm per side) replace TLAM launchers with SEAram. you can have hundreds of ESSMs, and dozens of every other VLS capable weapon. im sure you could fit PVLS on either side of the flight deck as well if you really wanted more missile tubes
  8. Did you miss the point of the mental exercise that much or are you just trying to be smug and get a gold star from teacher? try actually reading the post that specifically said LRASM wasn’t being considered...
  9. Naval and Defense News (cont.)

    Anyone know if the water jets are louder or quieter than screws? Just curious
  10. Naval and Defense News (cont.)

    Not particularly excited for Austal to be moving forward
  11. Well I mean it might be because there aren’t any weapons (we know of) currently in use that can defeat an Iowa’s armor. but I agree there’s no reason for the Iowa’s to come back, just build a new, working, and useful NGFS platform based around the mk71
  12. Naval and Defense News (cont.)

    What’s the nearest they’ve been reported to the Maldives?
  13. Nuclear propulsion question

    We always UNREPed every 3-4 weeks if we weren’t pulling into port, so never got that bad, but there were a few times sandwich bar became annoyingly common
  14. Nuclear propulsion question

    You’d still be tied down by food concerns and other daily necessities
  15. Naval and Defense News (cont.)

    In regards to the tensions in the eastern Med, it seems this is a fairly old issue that pops up now and again. That could mean either it will follow the historical examples and nothing will happen, or Turkey is finally sick of it and does something really stupid lol
×