stumbbled on some awesome news about the Iowa's

[EJ_TANK]

i was messing around on the interwebs and i came across something that said that in 2006 congress invoked an act that would permanantly keep 2 of the Iowa's in "ready" condition. Meaning that while offically they are in the reserve fleet, their engines, systems, componants, and ammo will be properly maintained. Now im history buff who absoutly loves battleships, and sometimes its nice when history repeats itself, it be pretty awesome to see the Wisconsin and Iowa, (those are the 2 that were selected to be in the ready program) take the seas for the 5th time.

 

 

im sure i have many spelling errors and i apologize in advance

[triptyx]

Cool find, I'm glad to hear it.  :smiles:

[Flakstorm_]

I agree +1

[kgskippy]

Even with the advances in today's technology  they would still be viable options as they still outclass many of the world's navy.  Just because they don't shoot missiles (although they can be fitted to I'm sure) their range is still amazing.  However, it would also take a lot less escort ships now because of the advances in destroyers and cruisers.

[mrlazorz]

kgskippy, on 14 March 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

Even with the advances in today's technology  they would still be viable options as they still outclass many of the world's navy.  Just because they don't shoot missiles (although they can be fitted to I'm sure) their range is still amazing.  However, it would also take a lot less escort ships now because of the advances in destroyers and cruisers.

Actually, they can and do. If I'm not mistaken somewhere 'round the eighties they loaded some Surface-to-air missiles and some surface-to-surface on them. Tomahawks if memory serves.

[Snakehead1234]

kgskippy, on 14 March 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

Even with the advances in today's technology  they would still be viable options as they still outclass many of the world's navy.  Just because they don't shoot missiles (although they can be fitted to I'm sure) their range is still amazing.  However, it would also take a lot less escort ships now because of the advances in destroyers and cruisers.

I already heard about this news a while back but some other people will surely appreciate this information.
Don't worry about your spelling there is a sell checker/correcter so you shouldn't have to worry about that.

[Snakehead1234]

mrlazorz, on 14 March 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

Actually, they can and do. If I'm not mistaken somewhere 'round the eighties they loaded some Surface-to-air missiles and some surface-to-surface on them. Tomahawks if memory serves.

Yes they still have the launching tubes on deck, I think. Let me look up a picture

[Snakehead1234]

You can clearly see the Harpoon launch tube from this angle on the USS Wisconsin.  

[nightmedic]

if you are referring to the boxes on each side of the aft fdc , those are harpoon asm launchers not tomahawks.

[Snakehead1234]

nightmedic, on 15 March 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

if you are referring to the boxes on each side of the aft fdc , those are harpoon asm launchers not tomahawks.

Well they are missiles so yeah I did prove that the Iowas indeed have missiles fitted.

[EJ_TANK]

ive had some freinds think they should remove the aft turret and replace it with missle tubes that would be load of missiles

[Scootaloo23]

Did the movie "Battleship" influence this at all?  :teethhappy:

[anonym_s4TCbLNuhWyC]

Nope it was in 2006 WAY before the movie Actually why dont they lengthen the Stern (as well the bow for looks) And slap Vls (vertical Launch Systems)

On the new empty spaces and add the advanced radar (the mast on modern destroyers) to it? but i have heard the shockwave from the 16 inch guns disrupts and even damages the radar and also reduces the effectiveness of those 4 phalanx ciws it has on them :o

[anonym_s4TCbLNuhWyC]

mrlazorz, on 14 March 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

Actually, they can and do. If I'm not mistaken somewhere 'round the eighties they loaded some Surface-to-air missiles and some surface-to-surface on them. Tomahawks if memory serves.

Yep it is armed with 32 × BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles

[anonym_s4TCbLNuhWyC]

Snakehead1234, on 14 March 2013 - 11:16 PM, said:

You can clearly see the Harpoon launch tube from this angle on the USS Wisconsin.  

I want a legit Lego Uss iowa battle set because the kreo version BARELY resembles the real ship

[EJ_TANK]

FYI the movie battleship was probly this biggest POS ive seen since.........I dont know i guess since they took mystery science theater 3000 off they air on the sci fi channel

[Scootaloo23]

EJ_TANK, on 15 March 2013 - 01:53 AM, said:

FYI the movie battleship was probly this biggest POS ive seen since.........I dont know i guess since they took mystery science theater 3000 off they air on the sci fi channel

I enjoyed it. The key to enjoying it is to not think and enjoy the boobs and explosions. Plus, it was a WAY better movie than Transformers, because:

Our protagonist isn't nearly as much of a lameass

Better love story than Twilight

There is a story, just enough so it makes sense.

Love interest has relevance to the (Fairly flimsy) plot

Mighty Mo kicks [edited].

[Elysion]

I actually enjoyed that made for TV battleship movie more than the one they showed in theaters.

 

I dont really know why.

 

Probably because the theater one had too little battleship and too much dinky little destroyer.

[anonym_s4TCbLNuhWyC]

Elysion, on 15 March 2013 - 02:11 AM, said:

I actually enjoyed that made for TV battleship movie more than the one they showed in theaters.

I dont really know why.

Probably because the theater one had too little battleship and too much dinky little destroyer.

I was expecting you.... :P i agree if they made Battleship 2
Uss iowa refitted with railguns and alien weapons...and HOPEFULLY more armor
that 1 shell in the final battle took out the 3rd turret ONE
also with atleast 12 more battleships with the same tech

[Elysion]

That fly

[Battleship_Unknown2]

It'd be awesome if someone made a historical, Master and Commander-style movie about Jutland. I don't know why a filmmaker hasn't attempted to dramatize it yet. I mean, what more could you ask for? The most collosal surface battle in history? That's going to sell some tickets.

 

Overall, there are far too few WWI movies in general. It really is a forgotten time period.

[Scootaloo23]

New Movie Idea- "Pirateship"

 

It's basically "Battleship", but with pirates.

[TheFishlord]

PrincessRoyal, on 15 March 2013 - 03:22 AM, said:

It'd be awesome if someone made a historical, Master and Commander-style movie about Jutland. I don't know why a filmmaker hasn't attempted to dramatize it yet. I mean, what more could you ask for? The most collosal surface battle in history? That's going to sell some tickets.

Overall, there are far too few WWI movies in general. It really is a forgotten time period.

Off topic, but I'm a writer and to try and make some movies or write scripts sometime in my life...I'm adding that to my reserve of war movies. Before that, though, I have Saburo Sakai's air combat and Fluckey's patrols on the USS Barb to do...both have really engaging characters and epic moments that sound like they're ripped right out of movies.

Back on topic, I think that it has been this way (unofficially) for a while with the Iowas, simply because it costs too much to scrap them instead of hold onto them for another thirty years. And unless Russia and/or China can improve on or surpass the Kirov-class, an Iowa will be as big and bad as "direct-combat" ships need to be. If only for heavy bombardment, they'll have a role for a while (although I believe the new littoral stealth frigates will be taking some of that role on).

[Azumazi]

The other reason is that for what they are, we would rather have them and not need them then need them and not have them. Now you're thinking, well why would we need them? It's the age old argument of some naval admirals that sometimes those ships serve a purpose that we can't fill with other ships and to be honest we don't need them on active service all the time until those mission critical issues come up, so we keep them mothballed as its a lot cheaper to temp convert them into a museum and maintain it that way than to keep an active roster on the ship not to mention there is a lot less wear and tear if its in mothball status and not in use.

 

While in the USMC, my roommate was a forward observer. They still train and have the grid charts for use with the Iowa class's 16/50 guns for fire support missions and they still train with them. I mostly know this since I was Recon and we usually had an FO attached to us since a standard RO can't call or direct that much fire power on target that well, and its better to have an actual FO to lay fire missions with multi-mission support indirect fire.

[cyond42]

EJ_TANK, on 14 March 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

i was messing around on the interwebs and i came across something that said that in 2006 congress invoked an act that would permanantly keep 2 of the Iowa's in "ready" condition. Meaning that while offically they are in the reserve fleet, their engines, systems, componants, and ammo will be properly maintained. Now im history buff who absoutly loves battleships, and sometimes its nice when history repeats itself, it be pretty awesome to see the Wisconsin and Iowa, (those are the 2 that were selected to be in the ready program) take the seas for the 5th time.


im sure i have many spelling errors and i apologize in advance

as of  2012 all the iowa class [edited] have been turned into museums. the Iowa was towed from Richmond and San Francisco Bay on 26 May 2012, to San Pedro in Los Angeles Harbor to serve as a museum ship and opened to the public on 7 July 2012.
New Jersey oct 2001
mighty mo 1999
Wisconsin march 2006
now i'm not sure if they are kept ready to sail but all are museums :(