>boomer senate ordered the navy to keep obsolete hunks around cause muh battleship >muh 20km gun range vs 500km carrier strike range >b-but we save money goy it's only 50k per shell heh heh doesnt matter we only fired 50 times so the total platform cost is 5m per shell
The Iowas were re-activated because Reagan wanted a 600 ship navy. Reactivating old ships was both quicker and cheaper than building new ones. They didn't even make any new shells for the ww2 era guns, they were all old stock. The main reason the Iowas were picked over smaller ships like cruisers or destroyers was there surplus buoyancy, they could simply fit more refits than any of the rest of the mothballed ships.
The Iowa was taken back from retirement because everyone was scared shitless of the new nuclear powered soviet battlecruisers and the tards genuinely believed only a comparable ship in size and mass could engage them, like it's a fucking boxing match.
That's what the navy wanted them for, yeah, but they certainly took absolute advantage of the BIG IRON BIG DICK BIG COOM crowd in congress to get the money for that
If I remember correctly it was part of the Reagan era military buildup. His administration mandated a 600 ship navy, which included modernizing some older hulls, including the Iowa class. It was both symbolic dick measuring but it also created some pretty functional and badass fire support platforms. The plan also included ramping up production of Ohio and LA class subs and Nimitz class carriers.
Didn't they put them back in service because it was a cheap stop gap to put loads of tomahawks on
>32 × BGM-109 Tomahawk launchers >16 × RGM-84 Harpoon launchers
It's not nothing, but the size and cost to operate these things it's not really impressive either
>Making an obviously capable platform into a missile spam barge?
I don't think so. I would suspect you could maintain and operate 2 Burkes for the cost of a Bubba'd Iowa
1 month ago
Anonymous
The Burkes didn't even start construction until a few years after the Iowa class had been reactivated. Even then, refitting them was way cheaper and faster than building two brand new destroyers.
That's what the navy wanted them for, yeah, but they certainly took absolute advantage of the BIG IRON BIG DICK BIG COOM crowd in congress to get the money for that
>That's what the navy wanted them for
they also made great auxiliary tankers
basically, the Iowas' proper description in 1985 is more like Monitor / Fleet tanker
Turns out if you have naval supremacy and the enemy lacks ASMs you can bombard delete cities cost effectively.
Israel is kind of proving it once again.
no, the technology is still not where it needs to be. fossil fuels will continue to be dominant well into the 22nd century
fossil fuel lobby bot?
I can't do that, Dave.
Ha. Ha. Ha.
Heh
we will reach peak oil in 6 months
It's almost like the Iowa classes did things from 1982 to 1992
Yeah, shell sand people in Lebanon with minute of municipality accuracy and then have a turret blow up.
and navy tried to blame it on a seaman who died in the incident
You mean he didn't do it because his gay lover wanted another semen?
well they did find semen in the turret.
>boomer senate ordered the navy to keep obsolete hunks around cause muh battleship
>muh 20km gun range vs 500km carrier strike range
>b-but we save money goy it's only 50k per shell heh heh doesnt matter we only fired 50 times so the total platform cost is 5m per shell
The Iowas were re-activated because Reagan wanted a 600 ship navy. Reactivating old ships was both quicker and cheaper than building new ones. They didn't even make any new shells for the ww2 era guns, they were all old stock. The main reason the Iowas were picked over smaller ships like cruisers or destroyers was there surplus buoyancy, they could simply fit more refits than any of the rest of the mothballed ships.
The Iowa was taken back from retirement because everyone was scared shitless of the new nuclear powered soviet battlecruisers and the tards genuinely believed only a comparable ship in size and mass could engage them, like it's a fucking boxing match.
Didn't they put them back in service because it was a cheap stop gap to put loads of tomahawks on
That's what the navy wanted them for, yeah, but they certainly took absolute advantage of the BIG IRON BIG DICK BIG COOM crowd in congress to get the money for that
If I remember correctly it was part of the Reagan era military buildup. His administration mandated a 600 ship navy, which included modernizing some older hulls, including the Iowa class. It was both symbolic dick measuring but it also created some pretty functional and badass fire support platforms. The plan also included ramping up production of Ohio and LA class subs and Nimitz class carriers.
Were the tomahawk Iowa's the same as what is happening to the F15-EX? Making an obviously capable platform into a missile spam barge?
>32 × BGM-109 Tomahawk launchers
>16 × RGM-84 Harpoon launchers
It's not nothing, but the size and cost to operate these things it's not really impressive either
>Making an obviously capable platform
Well no, the Iowa case is not like the EX
>Making an obviously capable platform into a missile spam barge?
I don't think so. I would suspect you could maintain and operate 2 Burkes for the cost of a Bubba'd Iowa
The Burkes didn't even start construction until a few years after the Iowa class had been reactivated. Even then, refitting them was way cheaper and faster than building two brand new destroyers.
No, because the F-15EX is getting a whole new body which is much more up to date and should by right get a new F-number
this
>That's what the navy wanted them for
they also made great auxiliary tankers
basically, the Iowas' proper description in 1985 is more like Monitor / Fleet tanker
It was for shore bombardment, anon.
WAR CRIME
Sounds like someone fucked around and found out
They are to troops landing on beaches.
A musket is obsolete until someone shoots you with it.
A Seleucid infantryman could kill a Navy SEAL with a pike but that doesn’t mean it isn’t obsolete.
No since I'm a tech era above them the musket ball does a reduce amount of damage per hit.
Turns out if you have naval supremacy and the enemy lacks ASMs you can bombard delete cities cost effectively.
Israel is kind of proving it once again.
Imagine surviving Pearl Harbor just to get torpedoed while crewed by a bunch of thirdies
Grim
>Were main batteries still a viable offensive option in the 80s?
Not against subs and torpedos obviously.
worked against iraq, so yes