Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: USS Iowa explosion Keywords: Iowa Message-ID: <6456@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 11 May 89 01:25:22 GMT References: <6272@cbnews.ATT.COM> <6322@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 32 Approved: military@att.att.com From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) In article <6322@cbnews.ATT.COM> rti.uucp!duncan@rti.rti.org (Stephen Duncan) writes: >To replace the bombardment capabilities, the 203mm upgrade to the 127/54s >could be resurrected, replacing the twin 127/35s currently left. At >20 rounds per minute, 3 of these could approximate the 3 406mm lost. With >the Army's 203mm rocket assisted projectile, its range would also Yeah, but they scrapped the project. It would be difficult to bring it back now, and expensive. I do like the MLRS idea below, but it has a problem... >approximate the bigger guns. A second alternative is to use the 225mm >MRL of the Army. These fire cluster munitions out to about 30,000 yards. >About 10,000 yards less than the 406s. This would, of course, require a whole new loading and launching system to be designed. It might be easier not to, and put any improvements into somethin like MLRS on small yachts, a cheaper and easier to deal with idea than working it into a battleship. >On a different note, why have the 40mm guns been removed from the BBs? >I would think that replacing them with newer guns, such as the twin >40/70s in the DARDO ciws, would be in line, but wouldn't any extra >firepower help against incoming missiles? No reason to. They won't stop reliably anything that the armour won't and they require lots of crew, something the navy is running low on. If they were going to do it, they's add more Phalanx, but they allready have 4 and don't need any more.