Future:
Future:
Past:
New ships are stealth and designed from the ground up to be efficient.
The Iowa no longer has purpose. Smaller, lighter ships, that are faster and harder to hit can do the same jobs, from further away, more effectively.
Where on earth did you get the idea that an Iowa can outrun torpedo's?
It can outrun some. Hell, they made torpedo's in the early 1900s that were faster than Iowa class boats. They now make torpedo's capable of well beyond 100 knots. But sure, let's just make a blanket statement saying it can outrun torpedo's to try and add credibility to your argument. Or are you saying that the Iowa class is capable of nearly 200 knots?
The point is that the Iowa is a legacy ship.
Have you noticed how he is only willing to compare the Iowa strike ability to that of a carrier, as if that is the only alternative boat at the navy's disposal?
what happened to syria?..everyone was soooooooo concerned?
It can outrun some. Hell, they made torpedo's in the early 1900s that were faster than Iowa class boats. They now make torpedo's capable of well beyond 100 knots. But sure, let's just make a blanket statement saying it can outrun torpedo's to try and add credibility to your argument. Or are you saying that the Iowa class is capable of nearly 200 knots?
That's like trying to argue a plane is a stealth bomber because it can't be picked up by ww1 radar
| VA-111 Shkval | |
|---|---|
 VA-111 Shkval | |
| Type | Supercavitating Torpedo |
| Place of origin | Russia |
| Service history | |
| In service | 1977-present |
| Used by | Russian Navy |
| Production history | |
| Designed | 1960s-70s |
| Specifications | |
| Weight | 2,700 kg (6,000 lb) |
| Length | 8.2 m (26 ft 11 in) |
| Diameter | 533 mm (21 in) |
| [HR][/HR] | |
| Effective firing range | Shkval: 7 km (4.3 mi) Shkval 2: From 11–15 km (6.8–9.3 mi) |
| Warhead | Conventional explosive or nuclear |
| Warhead weight | 210 kg (460 lb) |
| [HR][/HR] | |
| Engine | Liquid-fuel rocket (HTP and kerosene) |
| Speed | Launch speed: 50 knots (93 km/h; 58 mph) Maximum speed: in excess of 200 knots (370 km/h; 230 mph) |
And over 16 times the range of the example he chose to try and make his point
VA-111 Shkval
VA-111 ShkvalType Supercavitating Torpedo Place of origin Russia Service history In service 1977-present Used by Russian Navy Production history Designed 1960s-70s Specifications Weight 2,700 kg (6,000 lb) Length 8.2 m (26 ft 11 in) Diameter 533 mm (21 in) [HR][/HR] Effective firing range Shkval: 7 km (4.3 mi)
Shkval 2: From 11–15 km (6.8–9.3 mi)Warhead Conventional explosive or nuclear Warhead weight 210 kg (460 lb) [HR][/HR] Engine Liquid-fuel rocket (HTP and kerosene) Speed Launch speed: 50 knots (93 km/h; 58 mph)
Maximum speed: in excess of 200 knots (370 km/h; 230 mph)
230mph, 460lb explosive... that'll do some damage.
and he wonders why people question his opinion
VA-111 Shkval
VA-111 ShkvalType Supercavitating Torpedo Place of origin Russia Service history In service 1977-present Used by Russian Navy Production history Designed 1960s-70s Specifications Weight 2,700 kg (6,000 lb) Length 8.2 m (26 ft 11 in) Diameter 533 mm (21 in) [HR][/HR] Effective firing range Shkval: 7 km (4.3 mi)
Shkval 2: From 11–15 km (6.8–9.3 mi)Warhead Conventional explosive or nuclear Warhead weight 210 kg (460 lb) [HR][/HR] Engine Liquid-fuel rocket (HTP and kerosene) Speed Launch speed: 50 knots (93 km/h; 58 mph)
Maximum speed: in excess of 200 knots (370 km/h; 230 mph)
230mph, 460lb explosive... that'll do some damage.
With what? Certainly not guns.
Planes have radar and computer systems. How do you think planes land on carries when they can't see the meatball?
Also hsveing a far smaller crew allowing it to be put into more risky situations without such a massive potential loss should all go wrong. Guy can't argue to save his life.