"Battleships" Again: Could Israel Use One?
- Thread starter skunkum
- Start date
- Status
SigfanUSAF
Member
It worked before
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,510
The Israeli Navy could certainly use one. But we should not sell them one. They're ours, all ours and they should stay that way. Now, if the Israelis want a monitor built, they can contact one of our shipyards to build them one.
Geronimo45
Member
Battleships are probably a lot more cost-effective than cruise missiles. They're also a lot scarier. Instead of levelling one building, you take out a certain percentage of a block. But airplanes require bigger budgets, and big budgets are nice...
SigfanUSAF
Member
Diring their last retrofit during the 80s, their entire operating systems were replaced. All of the control systems, fire control systems, and radar sysyems were replaced with the most up to date at the time. The Ticonderoga class cruisers, the OHP class frigattes, Nimitz class carriers, to name a few, all still sail in 2006 with similar systems. These ships may be 60 years old, but they have the ability to keep up with anything currently in the fleet.
SigfanUSAF
Member
Very true, the 212,000 SHP steam turbine engines are old, but I wonder what their designed service life was?
Davo
Member
I wonder what these battleships could do that Israeli feild artillery cant do already. A single battleship would be quite expensive even if the cost per shell fired is much less than say a recoiless rocket etc. This is a big issue as Israel is a small country with a modest budget. Isreal is also attempting to fight a PC war, so smart weapons with minimum collateral damage are seen as important. I see armed UAV's being used more and more.
Im not saying that a battle ship would not be useful, just that it may not be the best way for Israel to go. That said I LOVE these old war pigs, and do not want to see them de milled.
Im not saying that a battle ship would not be useful, just that it may not be the best way for Israel to go. That said I LOVE these old war pigs, and do not want to see them de milled.
What in the world would Israel use it for? They aren't fighting battles against fleets of cruisers and destroyers. They already have an air force. The big guns might be nice, but they would be kind of limited in wars against Syria or Iraq. If they go to war against Iran what they will really need will be an aircraft carrier.
Manedwolf
member
Apparently, in the first Gulf War, the whistling roar of the Iowa-class 16" guns' shells coming in overhead was a major psychological weapon as well as physical.
After all, you never know if "the next one is coming for you."
After all, you never know if "the next one is coming for you."
Ivy Mike
Member
Israel doesn't need a battle ship, nor do they have a place to put such a thing.
There is nothing the battle ship could do for them, that their air force or ground forces couldn't do better considering the type of fighting they do.
Now, should they decide they want the Sinai back...
There is nothing the battle ship could do for them, that their air force or ground forces couldn't do better considering the type of fighting they do.
Now, should they decide they want the Sinai back...
Fosbery
Member
Why would Israel ever need a battleship? Israel (I hope) isn't about to invade some distant country. If it needs 18 inch guns it can build land borne 18 inch guns and save a lot of time, money and manpower that would otherwise be wasted on floating the damn things.
Crosshair
Member
Just have a smaller boat with one 16" gun on it. Make it more a few degrees side to side, but otherwise, just aim it by steering the boat. Much smaller and less manpower needed.
Geronimo45
Member
Sporting purpose - yes! Pop a band of penguins and you can feed the whole crew. Excellent anti-zombie abilities, too.
Ivy Mike
Member
I'm sure you can fish from a battleship.
Diamondback6
Member
"Sporting purposes"=inviting the tangos to come out and enjoy shooting:
"Oh, by the way... you're the targets."
"Oh, by the way... you're the targets."
Israel could use one, but only in limited ways.
Does any artillery have shells that are over a ton each? I really don't know, but I'm thinking not, so surely it adds more capability. I don't think missles from fighters have the impact. It would lack the precision though.
The speed is certaily equal to what else is out there. With a clean hull and engine, they have been recorded at over 33 knots. Since capital ships seem somewhat custom, the issue of having a dissimilar machinery seems minor. Factories often use older equiptment, so people can obviously learn.
But why would we give away a multi-billion dollar American platform? If they need a monitor, they can spend the billions we give them on one. Cost was not an issue brought up in the latest dust-up, nor was lack of firepower.
As a practical matter, it would insure that more civilians would be killed. That was an international issue. If a fighter can't get in the area to target a missle firing site before the crew moves on, I can't imagine a battleship would do any better.
In the modern world, the usage is limited anyways. They are big targets for missles.
Does any artillery have shells that are over a ton each? I really don't know, but I'm thinking not, so surely it adds more capability. I don't think missles from fighters have the impact. It would lack the precision though.
The speed is certaily equal to what else is out there. With a clean hull and engine, they have been recorded at over 33 knots. Since capital ships seem somewhat custom, the issue of having a dissimilar machinery seems minor. Factories often use older equiptment, so people can obviously learn.
But why would we give away a multi-billion dollar American platform? If they need a monitor, they can spend the billions we give them on one. Cost was not an issue brought up in the latest dust-up, nor was lack of firepower.
As a practical matter, it would insure that more civilians would be killed. That was an international issue. If a fighter can't get in the area to target a missle firing site before the crew moves on, I can't imagine a battleship would do any better.
In the modern world, the usage is limited anyways. They are big targets for missles.
p35
Member
IIRC the New Jersey's performance in Lebanon was unimpressive because they were using very old propellant and as a result accuracy was erratic at best. Besides, you can't build a ship based gun that can outrange an anti-ship missile, so the battleship would be a big, tempting target. Hizbollah has already zapped at least one Israeli Navy ship with a shore-to-ship missile in the latest flareup- didn't quite sink it but did a lot of damage. They would love to sink an Israeli battleship, and could probably do it.
- Status