• FocusFire@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    A 1980s modernization lead to the Iowa class actually being equipped with some modern toys too

    Sensors

    • Mark 13 fire control radar
    • Mark 25 fire control radar
    • AN/SPS-49
    • AN/SPS-67

    Electronic Warfare and Decoys

    • AN/SLQ-32(V)3 electronic warfare system
    • AN/SLQ-25 Nixie acoustic decoy
    • Mark 36 SRBOC chaff rockets

    Armament

    • 9 × 16 in/50 cal guns (3 Mounts x3)
    • 12 × 5 in/38 cal guns (6 Mounts x2)
    • 32 × BGM-109 Tomahawk launchers (8 Launchers x4)
    • 16 × RGM-84 Harpoon launchers (4 Mounts x4)
    • 4 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS

    and 5 UAVs

    https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa-class_battleship

  • audin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s not “outdated” materiel if the entire arsenal of your opponent is outdated.

  • Mikufan@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    They are cool but sadly very vulnerable to airplanes and submarines.

    They are basically sea based mid range artillery

    • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      2 months ago

      Longest range cannons we had while they were in service, but yeah, rockets and such go further. Would have been interesting to see what partially self-guided and rocket-assisted shells in Battleship size could manage though.

      • Mikufan@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think the highest range Canon my country had was The Gustav, with accuracy just barely high enough to hit somewhere within a city.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 months ago

      What with the advances in guided and rocket-assisted artillery lately, I am unironically (and, considering the sub, I should also say credibly) convinced that there will be a naval gunnery renaissance in the next couple decades.

      • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        Not only that, VLS cells can’t be reloaded at sea, you have to go into port for that. Artillery shells don’t have that problem.

        I also wonder how well anti-missile systems would work against artillery. I think it’s feasible to have some artillery on board vessels as a secondary to fall back on after spending all of the anti-ship missiles. Or you could fire the artillery alongside missiles to increase the variety of threats the target has to respond to.

        • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 months ago

          Consider C-RAM (Army Phalanx) stands for Counter Rocket, Artillery, Mortar: I would assume it works perfectly fine against most artillery. But also, I suppose it would depend on the size of the artillery and type of the round. I wouldn’t expect a spray of 20-30mm rounds to do much at all to the trajectory of a 406mm Mk. 8 APC shell, for instance… but none of those are in service anymore.

    • Technus@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      Massive, inaccurate guns just aren’t relevant to warfare anymore. A Tomahawk missile can hit a target with high precision and comparable payload at 50x the range of the Iowa’s 16 inch guns. And for sustained bombardment, Arleigh Burkes have 5-inch guns that can fire 20 rounds a minute.

      • FocusFire@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        2 months ago

        Good news they also have Tomahawks!

        As part of their modernization in the 1980s, each of the Iowas received a complement of eight quad-cell Armored Box Launchers and four “shock hardened” Mk 141 quad-cell launchers. The former was used by the battleships to carry and fire the BGM-109 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) for use against enemy targets on land, while the latter system enabled the ships to carry a complement of RGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles for use against enemy ships. With an estimated range of 675 to 1,500 nautical miles (1,250 to 2,778 km; 777 to 1,726 mi)[103] for the Tomahawks and 64.5 to 85.5 nautical miles (119.5 to 158.3 km; 74.2 to 98.4 mi)[103] for the Harpoons, these two missile systems displaced the 16-inch guns and their maximum range of 42,345 yards (38.7 km; 20.9 nmi)[36] to become the longest-ranged weapons on the battleships during the 1980s; the ships’ complement of 32 Tomahawk missiles was the largest until the Mk 41 VLS-equipped Ticonderoga-class cruisers entered service.

      • Mikufan@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I mean you can still use them when you have a area you don’t need and where the bad people are…