2012-01-13, 02:12 | Link #19021 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Let's go this way really, really fast! If there is something in our way, shoot it!
__________________
|
|
2012-01-13, 02:25 | Link #19022 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Before they were modernized, sure. Or the South Dakota-class battleships before them. Shorter, not quite as fast, but just as armed and armored.
When the Iowa's were modernized in the 1980s, pretty much all of their AA guns were removed. What remained of what was once over 150 guns ranging from 49 x 20mm, and 80 x 40 mm to 20 x 5" and 9 x 16" guns...to just 21 guns (9 x 16" and 12 x 5") and 4 robotic 20mm gatling guns....well and 48 missiles (16 Harpoon and 32 Tomahawk) The older form, if the AA guns could be fitted for anti-boat duty...would rip pretty much anything in range apart in the Straits.
__________________
Last edited by Ithekro; 2012-01-13 at 02:44. |
2012-01-13, 02:32 | Link #19023 |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
What I can remember is that they have plenty of 20mm oerlikon guns which could make short work of any gunboat that tries to get close. Any ASM launchers detected by drones or spec ops could instantly be demolished by those 16-inch monster guns.
__________________
|
2012-01-13, 02:44 | Link #19024 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Of course the basic problem is that Iran is using small MISSILE boats. Something like 100+ of the things (Bavar class and others). Each with 4 (subsonic) Silkworm missiles, Exocet or Kowsar AShM (Chinese C-701). They out range all the guns on any battleship or cruiser. Or most of the guns that would be used on small targets at least.
__________________
|
2012-01-13, 02:53 | Link #19025 |
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
Comedian Stephen Colbert removed the one major obstacle standing in the way of his running for President of the United States tonight by turning over control of his "SuperPAC," Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, to fellow comedian and business partner Jon Stewart. Colbert's attorney, a former Chair of the Federal Election Commission, pronounced this arrangement as complying with America's new laws governing SuperPACs.
Colbert has yet to declare his candidacy, but if he chooses to do so now, he won't be violating Federal election law. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/us...president.html The Huffington Post reports that, "Unfortunately for Colbert, a presidential run may not be a possibility this late in the game. Colbert missed the November 1 filing deadline to get his name on the GOP primary ballot in South Carolina, and according to the South Carolina Election Commission, there's no write-in space on the electronic and paper primary ballots." Even if he can't make the ballot in SC, there are still quite a few states where the filing deadline has not yet passed.
__________________
Last edited by SeijiSensei; 2012-01-13 at 03:04. |
2012-01-13, 03:05 | Link #19027 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-01-13, 03:09 | Link #19028 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
I recall Pat Paulsen. And his "run" against Ronald Reagan (and about the only time he broke character because he couldn't not laugh at his own joke. He recovered fast, but he still laughed.)
"...an actor running for the White House. Who said he could act!?"
__________________
|
2012-01-13, 03:14 | Link #19029 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-01-13, 03:44 | Link #19030 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Or maybe have the Japanese design some mecha based on American aircraft for the Carrier Air Wings (Itano Circus!). That would be amusing.
(The US did have Pegasus hydrofoils that were for that purpose...they were expensive to operate, and probably didn't work as well as advertised (scrapped 1993), And the current Cyclone-class Coastal Patrol ship are gunboats, not missile boats)
__________________
Last edited by Ithekro; 2012-01-13 at 04:09. |
2012-01-13, 04:20 | Link #19031 |
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 43
|
Goalkeeper, GDM-008 Millennium, Phalanx, AK-230/630 and other CIWS (RAM) ... if they are realy worth it, they should keep an attacking ship safe from subsonic weapons fire. However, usually you would not field the heavy destroyer classes against speedboats. Aircraft carriers provide excellent tactical capabilites against such threads as well as fast light corvettes and speedboats.
__________________
|
2012-01-13, 04:31 | Link #19032 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
The problem is still numbers. A few dozen boats with 4 missiles each against a Task Force of maybe a dozen warships (probably half a dozen). Their defense systems can only intercept so many missiles at a time.
Though I suppose it would be a good "test" to see just how good the systems actually are under full combat conditions. I'm not entirely sure how often they have been used to engage multiple targets in a fleet action...since it is kind of rare for the Navy to engage any other navy in a surface action anymore.
__________________
|
2012-01-13, 05:46 | Link #19034 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Well, it could be a repeat of Operation Preying Mantis.
The article just suggests that the Navy is worried about it. Though that could just be to get the Iranians to try something, get wiped out and give cause for other actions.
__________________
|
2012-01-13, 06:26 | Link #19035 |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
All this discussion of boats is a bit foolish. Sea power is fairly dead, it's all about air power now. Those speed boats won't be able to do a damn thing against a Jet Fighter.
And while the speed boats are out harrassing your cruisers, you bomb his docks back to the stone age. |
2012-01-13, 06:31 | Link #19036 | |
He Without a Title
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The land of tempura
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-01-13, 07:01 | Link #19037 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
|
Quote:
US Carrier "Enterprise" seen through the periscope of the German U 24 (now decommissioned 206 class) during a maneuver in which it broke the security perimeter of the carrier unnoticed, ready to fire torpedos. |
|
2012-01-13, 07:18 | Link #19038 | |
He Without a Title
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The land of tempura
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-01-13, 07:38 | Link #19040 | |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
However you are correct about Carriers, but the point is you don't need sea power at all if you've got land based air power, which is far superior to naval aircraft in size and capability. They can take out any flotillas of speed boats with swarms of Drones, and not even use their naval force. It's all about Victory Through Air Power (skip to ~4:50). |
|
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
|
|