Forum: F-22A Raptor

Wrong again.. The Yamato had 190 in 1945:
24 × 127 mm (5 in)
162 × 25 mm anti-aircraft (52×3, 6×1)
4 × 13.2 mm AA (2×2)

The Bismarck had 52:
# 16 × 105 mm/L65 SK-C/37 / SK-C/33 (8×2)
# 16 × 37 mm/L83 SK-C/30
# 12 × 20 mm/L65 MG C/30
# 8 × 20 mm/L65 MG C/32 (8×4)

And the Iowa had 149:
20 × 5-inch (127 mm) / 38 cal. Mark 12 guns
80 × 40 mm / 56 cal. Bofors anti-aircraft guns
49 × 20 mm / 70 cal. Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns

The Bismarck was crippled by a freggin biplane!!!

F-16.net Sponsor

sorry...so an iowa had 3X the AA as the Bismark, not 5X. Didn't look it up, was going by memory. Either way, the Iowa's AA was effective. Maybe it was the placement and quality of guns, training of crew, better protection for the gunners, the fact that the enemy never caught an Iowa without escort or aircover from an escort carrier? Not sure.

Still doesn't alter the fact that in every battle that battleships participated in, it was the battleships that decided the winner, and in every amphibious assault, it was the battleships that provided the majority of the fire support, not the carriers. Battleships are critical to Marines in an amphibious assault. Neither B-52s or carrier bombers can provide the firepower. A single Iowa could fire as much ordinance on shore in an hour as 120 B-52's, and there is little risk of getting shot down by a SAM while doing it. This is why they've always been called back to service in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War...

It's critical that we build at least a couple of modern battleships. We can delay building a couple Fords a few years to do it.

machi wrote:

Still doesn't alter the fact that in every battle that battleships participated in, it was the battleships that decided the winner...

Umm... seriously? Have you actually read the history of the Pacific war, or just books on the Iowa class? Have you ever even heard of the Prince of Wales and Repulse? It's not really a disputed fact that battleships were superseded by the carrier because of the rise of air power as a maritime force. Battleships were useful as picket air defense units and as fire support platforms, not in ship-to-ship combat. It was established (learned the hard way) that aircraft could take out any ship from much greater range than large caliber guns could.

If I have time, I'll write a longer-winded painfully specific post later.

machi wrote:

fiskerwad wrote:

Is there an F-22 Raptor post in here anywhere? When did we become Battleships R us?
Fisk

Sorry there Fiskerwad. I got onto this because I think the best use for a F-35B is to use them as battleship observation, firecontrol planes, like they used to use seaplanes back in the day.

So, since the forum is titled "F-22A Raptor" could someone move it to the F-35 forum? Or create a new forum of

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Thanks,
Fisk

Prinz, of course I've heard what you are saying, why I'm writing what I'm writing. I think the "undisputed fact" that battleships are a thing of history may be wrong. I've stated this for a number of reasons. Lemme resummerize.
The most advanced WW2 battleships were designed in the 30's, defense against airpower wasn't really part of their design, just later add ons.
The armor technology of the period was lightyears behind what we can do today. There is no comparison between a 1930's mild steel tank armor and a modern Abrams depleted uranium composite.
All battleships lost in WW2 were lost under unusual circumstances, alone without escort, in port, greatly outnumbered, on a kamakizi run into the fleet..ect.
The navy's new AGS revolutionizes guns, extending their range and accuracy. There's no reason to think they won't become even more powerful.
A 16" version of this gun could possibly have a 150nm range, on par with cruise missiles. An AA version of the AGS rocket assisted shell could also be a game changer when it comes to defense against air power.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

RAND China-Tawain analysis