Nuclear shells for the Iowa Class

it's a nuke. you could use it for anything. Imagine the effect of anti-air firing with nuclear warheads.

>>33901499

>Imagine the effect of anti-air firing with nuclear warheads.
Silly anon, that's what Genie was for.

>>33901490
>Do you think the Iowas ever actually cruised with them onboard.

Yes and it was the worst cruise of my life. I wouldn't recommend it.

>>33901499
I don't they were capable being fused for that. There were no AA fuses for the 16's.

>>33901522
Why did it suck?

>>33901531

They could be fired for AA purposes. A nuclear shell's large area of effect could prove very useful for interception of missile attacks or aircraft, knocking out a whole wing of strike craft or anti-ship missiles in one blow.

>>33901898
Assuming an AA fuse is not an option, I guess a timed fuse would be used?

>>33901490
>The 16" guns had a 20 mile range which means the ship wouldn't be all that far away from the blast.
It would be about 15 miles from the blast.
>Any thoughts on what the other applications of these weapons might have been?
Doing tactical nuclear strikes for amphibious landings.

>Do you think the Iowas ever actually cruised with them onboard.
Yes

File: 1324670183370.jpg (526KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 1500x1000px

>>33901490
Knowing all the crazy shit we did with nukes back in the 50's and 60's I'd be more surprised if they DIDN'T have nukes on the ship and ready to go at some point.

>>33901490
yes and now all the battleships lay rusting on the sea floor or in disrepair as museum ships, awaiting their inevitable death in the scrapyard as history erases their memory from the annals of time

such is the fate of all ship girls

>>33901522
What happened? Did Ron Paul almost start WW3?

>>33901531
The considerable armor on a BB means fusing the nuclear warhead could be made to permit close in defense against missiles.

>>33903093
well, I mean, there are a couple still afloat

>>33903111
too bad it would fuck up a lot of the electrical systems

better hope everyone died, or you'll be sitting ducks for any enemy that can damage a bb

>>33901898
Wouldn't EMP be an issue in this case? And while we're at this subject, is there a formula to calculate EMP range based on detonation altitude, KT yield and blast radius?

>>33901490
And? Remember, the Army gave highschool dropout grunts the Davy Crockett portable nuke launcher. No point in having weapons that kills your own troops as well.

>>33903222
>No point in having weapons that kills your own troops as well.
Davy Crockett didnt kill its crew

>>33903135
>what are hardened electronics

>>33901554

Not anon but I'm guessing something like this requires "more" security procedures be followed making crew life monotone and stressful.

>>33901499
> Imagine the effect of anti-air firing with nuclear warheads.

Go read up on the Nike missiles. They were meant to be fired above and in front of big nuclear Tu-95 squadrons in order to smash them into the pacific with a nuclear shockwave.

>>33903722
apparently something never mentioned at the same time as the Iowa class, since google gives me nothing.

>>33903212
EMP is highly dependent on atmospheric conditions. Hint: if it isn't detonated in the thermosphere, the EMP signal is only powerful inside the blast radius, because the high energy particles that cause the pulse are damped by the other particles.

>>33903789
Emp hardening is a meme, it's really only a threat to electronics attached to miles long ungrounded antenna (like copper phone lines), and micro electronics at contact distances.

>>33903868

Starfish tests caused EMP damage to Hawaii and they were very far away. In space.

Not catastrophic damage, but damage none the less.

File: Why don't we try to destroy tropical cyclones by nuking.png (74KB, 741x618px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 741x618px

>>33901490
>Any thoughts on what the other applications of these weapons might have been?

>>33904132
Yes, very good. Now go back and re-read which parts of the streetlight string were damaged, and why that happened.

Take the time to educate yourself on the subject.

>>33904132
Starfish was detonated in the thermosphere and it damaged only things attached to gigantic long antennas (phone lines and mechanical switch boards, mostly).

>>33901490
Well yeah, it's the precursor to fleetkiller/CBG killer missiles which are common place nowadays.

Just, no one has tried the justification yet - the idea being that a low yield, low fallout nuclear weapon could be used tactically against a surface fleet without sparking a strategic nuclear war.
The only situation I could see it happening in today's world is Russia fighting a defensive war against US CBGs.

>>33903789
The ships itself is a Faraday cage

>>33901490
no thanks

>>33903135
>Iowa Class gets EMP'd.
>Lights flicker
>Comms and radar go down
>Commanding Officer grimaces and lights another cigarette.
>Fire controlmen in Main Plot switch to optical ranging
>Steam propulsion system continues uninterrupted.
>Source of EMP determined and sighted
>Mechanical gun director lays target
>16" reply sent
>Source of EMP sunk

>>33903135
>EMP in atmosphere

You're an idiot.

>>33906234
very good until
>16" shell sent to destroy the nuclear detonation

File: hYR7m0h.jpg (847KB, 2775x1860px) Image search: [Google]

847KB, 2775x1860px

>>33906240
I meant whoever launched the nuke, assuming it's a surface vessel. If it's a sub or an aircraft then the Iowa's got other problems. If sub, then her best option is to go ahead flank and turn for 35 knots. At that speed she can outrun most torpedoes and subs in use when the Iowa was deployed. If it's a diesel boat she's basically home free. If it's an aircraft, and we've been EMP'd, then we're in real trouble. We can't use radar ranging, our missiles our probably screwed. Best option is death blossom of manually aimed AA fire from the lighter guns and run toward known air cover (friendly coast, carrier group, etc.)

>>33904435
>needless to say, this is not a good idea

kek

>>33903777
Not just the pacifc. They were ringed around major cities like Boston, New York, and DC. There's one by my house (well, the remains of one)

Nuclear strategy prior to the mid 1960s didn't see the use of nuclear weapons as being exceptional. The idea of nuclear shells was a natural progression

>>33906785

We have some scattered around Pittsburgh Pennsylvania area also, we're pretty far inland from the coast.

>>33903689
Only because we never had to use it. It was a weapon of last resort to slow advancing soviet tanks. Anyone who would have fired a Davy Crockett in anger was almost guaranteed to get cancer, assuming they survived the conflict.

>>33906238
>what are gamma rays
you are the idiot anon, being in proximity of a nuclear explosion will fuck your electronics

>>33901490
Maybe, but the later refits also included Tomahawks and they might have also been able to carry the TLAM-N, which is a fairly big bang of around 150kt at full retard setting

>>33901490
One thing they had played with were sub-caliber sabot rounds using leftover shells from the M65 atomic cannons. They could achieve some pretty impressive ranges with them but testing was canceled after Vietnam.

>>33908724
>Anyone who would have fired a Davy Crockett in anger was almost guaranteed to get cancer, assuming they survived the conflict.
100% false.

File: iowa33.jpg (144KB, 806x1027px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 806x1027px

>>33901522
>Yes and it was the worst cruise of my life. I wouldn't recommend it.
Coulda been worse.

>>33909641
fug

File: 1468968079094s.jpg (3KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x125px

Imagine a nuclear broadside

>>33909693
9 15-20 kiloton nukes traveling 20 miles

File: b11d909b25f789e47eba4eeb212e5c99.jpg (1MB, 3508x2480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3508x2480px

>>33909693

>>33909713
>>33909713
>>33909731


if you get all 4 iowas, you can have a rolling broadside with 72 rounds per minute

>>33909693
>>33909713
>>33909731
>>33909745
STOP I CAN ONLY GET SO HARD!

Imagine if we could put nuclear cannon on the HMS Victory and have a 50+ nuclear broadside?

>>33909693
>>33909713
>>33909745
Quick, someone send this to Matthis, and find a very large uninhabited island for gunnery practice.

>>33901490
didnt they get nuclear cruse missiles at one point or am i just remembering the plot of Undersiege?

File: ian.png (650KB, 2400x900px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 2400x900px

>>33909830
It wouldn't be the entire nuclear arsenal, but it would be a good start.

>>33909745
im so hard rn

>>33909966
allegedly they only made 50 16in nukes

>>33909991
Maybe, but the B-61 is lighter than most 16" shells (700 lbs) and has a diameter of 13", so perhaps you could modify them to be used as nuclear battleship artillery. They also deliver between 3 and 340kt of fire, compared to ~15kt.

>>33909952
AFAIK the Iowas were never given TLAM-Ns

>>33909830
16" nuclear Excalibur shells when

>>33910032
Cant withstand the acceleration of being fired.

>>33909641
Worst job

>>33901490
Business Plan

1) Steal the Iowa
2) Scuttle it over the mariana trench
3)???
4) Profit

>>33910057
I don't see why a small number wouldn't be fitted to the Iowa class when they were reactivated. I just looked it up and the TLAM-N's had a 1500nm range, jesus thats nearly double the current range.

>>33901490
>It's supposed that shells would have employed as fleet killers

You can't be serious. World War II naval battles were fought at longer distances. Getting within 20 miles is suicidally close for all modern navies that use sea-skimming anti-ship missiles. Battleships are just floating artillery for shore bombardment.

>>33902794
Up to 27 on target, that's the record (by Wisconsin)

23 is the usual quoted number

>>33909818
pussy man

>>33909641
>all those dead Gunner's Mates
;_;7
And fuck big navy for covering it up by blaming the crew

>>33901490

One one hand, it would mean that anything that got into shooting range of the Iowa was dead, no questions asked. On the other hand, the entire reason the Iowa was retired in the first place is because its guns are too short ranged.

>>33903093

The Iowa awaits a scenario where all her modern successors do something stupid that gets them mass-sunken a-la the Battle of Jutland or the state of the Japanese and Chinese navies post WWII, forcing the USN to reactivate them if only to say that it still exists.

>>33909641
I think I'm seeing a pattern here--- there's a serial murderer aboard the ship.

>>33908778
The amount of gamma required to kill electronics is many times greater than the gamma required to kill a person. If you're that close to a nuclear explosion your ship is getting ripped apart by the explosion.

You're still a retard.

>>33910057
>citation needed

They had launch tubes for tomahawks and nuclear tomahawks existed in the era.

File: ivymike.jpg (135KB, 1280x962px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1280x962px

>>33909745
>72rpm consistent on a single target, perhaps a city
>15-20kt per shell
>average of that is 17.5
>17.5x72=1260
>1.26mt per minute of fire
>~1200 shells per iowa total, divided by 3 shell types
>400 nukes per iowa
>1600/72
>22 minutes of nuke bombardment
>22x1.26=27
>27mt over 22mins on a single target utilizing 1200 total nukes from all the iowas
>multiply both of these effects by 4 if all of the iowas main battery shells were katies

>>33913556
fuck, forgot to say that its 1.26mt per iowa per minute, therefore
>5.04mt per minute total
>22x5.04=110
>110mt over 22 mins on a single target if each iowa uses a third of its magazine for nukes, 440 if each uses its full magazine for nukes

>>33903111
The 16" Mk7 guns had a range of 20 miles. I don't think that counts as close in anymore.

>>33903789
The steel hull is electrically conductive and grounded with the salty sea water. It's functionally a faraday cage. The radar and radio can't be isolated but a few breaker boxes would keep the electronics from frying and you'd need those in case of a lightning storm anyway.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 2448x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x2448px

>>33903093
I can practically see one from my house. I've been aboard it and it's fucken sweet. It's still in good condition. We also have the carrier JFK and a shitload of other ships.
t. Phillyfag

>>33909830
Well, there's always those "reefs" in international waters in the South China Sea.

The Chinese deny having military facilities there, so they shouldn't mind a little target practice.

>>33903093

Good luck, I'm behind seven bilge pumps.

>>33903835
Hint, you don't know how EMPs work.

So shut your face.

>>33911775
ww2 over 20 miles...

>mk dude what ever you say

>>33901490

Definitely not Missouri. She didn't have the specialized storage refit for nuclear shells installed in her magazine.

>>33917586

Planes, anon.

>>33919452

Safety precautions are for pussies.

ALL NUKE ALL THE TIME.