I hate to tell you this, but those ships rendered the Iowa class obsolete, and what they replaced is irrelevant.
You may think that "bigger is always better", but I hate to break it to you -- it isn't.
$140,000,000 goes up in smoke in Californian desert
- Thread starter Deimos Anomaly
- Start date
You may think that "bigger is always better", but I hate to break it to you -- it isn't.
I hate to tell you this, but those ships rendered the Iowa class obsolete, and what they replaced is irrelevant.
The battlecruiser is a good example - packed pretty much the same fire power as a BB but with much lighter amour and faster flank speed.
In this day and age with missiles, armour piercing capabilities I'm not sure how much different it would make (and lets face, it some-one start lobbing nukes doesn't matter if your hull is battleship armour or paper thin - you're toast
I hate to tell you this, but those ships rendered the Iowa class obsolete, and what they replaced is irrelevant.
Incorrect.
The Ticos and Burkes are air defense ships.
They were not designed for shore bombardment or to sling antiship missiles like the Iowa's brought back into service in the 1980s were used for.
In fact, the Iowas actually had more cruise missile firepower normally carried than either of those class vessels (though it is possible to replace the Standard II SAM missiles aboard those ships with VLS with Tomahawks, but this is rarely done).
And the Iowas were actually brought back into U.S. Navy service AFTER the CG-47 (Ticonderoga) class cruisers began entering service.
Finally, the U.S. Marine Corps (according to Proceedings magazine) has never been happy with the loss of the Iowas given that their fire support for amphibious operations has never been replaced.
When it comes to fire support, missiles cannot replace guns.
I hate to tell you this, but those ships rendered the Iowa class obsolete, and what they replaced is irrelevant.
Incorrect.
The Ticos and Burkes are air defense ships.
They were not designed for shore bombardment or to sling antiship missiles like the Iowa's brought back into service in the 1980s were used for.
In fact, the Iowas actually had more cruise missile firepower normally carried than either of those class vessels (though it is possible to replace the Standard II SAM missiles aboard those ships with VLS with Tomahawks, but this is rarely done).
And the Iowas were actually brought back into U.S. Navy service AFTER the CG-47 (Ticonderoga) class cruisers began entering service.
Finally, the U.S. Marine Corps (according to Proceedings magazine) has never been happy with the loss of the Iowas given that their fire support for amphibious operations has never been replaced.
When it comes to fire support, missiles cannot replace guns.
OK, if that's what you want to believe, then you keep believing that. For all of the BS you sling, you have zero military experience and no nothing about any of the capabilities of the ships you're discussing. I will further mention the matter of how we go to war has changed, and as such everything you cite is incorrect.
I know you enough to have seen that you love to try to stir an argument just to argue. So, you keep going at it while I go on to other, more productive activities.
Looks like the first kill of a F-22 goes to the EA18G Growler. It's a variant of the F-18 Super Hornet.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/growler-power-ea-18g-boasts-f-.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/growler-power-ea-18g-boasts-f-.html
Sweet. Its always comforting to know even the top dogs aren't invincible.Looks like the first kill of a F-22 goes to the EA18G Growler. It's a variant of the F-18 Super Hornet.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/growler-power-ea-18g-boasts-f-.html
Is that from this incident or a "fake kill" from another exercise? If that's from the incident in which a US servicemen lost his life that decal is in incredibly poor taste and the dip-shit that's bragging about killing a rival branch's pilot deserves the ass-kicking he's likely to receive.
If you read the article you'll see that it was a simulated kill.
Also, the pilot killed in the F-22 was a civilian employee of Lockheed Martin. He USED to be a US serviceman, years ago.
It's always good when people take the time to read the whole article.
+1 JuanBolio
-1 Guartho
Gonna have to agree with that. READ!
True story: I was on deployment in 1988 when the USS Vincennes shot down the civilian airliner (she was in our battlegroup). For the duration of the cruise, the gun mount sported a silhouette of a passenger airliner until the end of the cruise. It was painted over before the ship returned to its homeport.
the article said:
I did read the article. We're talking about an F-22 getting shot down in a training exercise and then JuanBolio posts
and links to that article. If JuanBolio's intent was to deceive he certainly gets his +1, but not because I didn't read the article because I did.. twice before posting. You guys have got me for not reading the date though.
ETA: Ok, sorry for the rant. It's just that people commenting on articles they haven't read is a pet peeve of mine so I took it a little too personal. Also, I removed the word 'jackasses' as soon as I realized this was a misc thread. I honestly thought I was it was a TNZ thread. I sincerely apologize if you two guys saw that.
Last edited:
Looks like the first kill of a F-22 goes to the EA18G Growler. It's a variant of the F-18 Super Hornet.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/growler-power-ea-18g-boasts-f-.html
I know the article was dated last month, but was this one whose video appeared on Youtube a bout a year or so ago? Because I thought that was an F-18E.
Looks like the first kill of a F-22 goes to the EA18G Growler. It's a variant of the F-18 Super Hornet.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/growler-power-ea-18g-boasts-f-.html
I know the article was dated last month, but was this one whose video appeared on Youtube a bout a year or so ago? Because I thought that was an F-18E.
It's a variant of the F-18E, it's the EA-18G to replace the old and cumbersome EA-6B Prowler. It carries 3 1000+ pound electronic jamming pods along with missiles and bombs. This was from a training exercise last month at Nellis AFB in Nevada. It was a simulated kill accomplished with tactical pods.
Looks like the first kill of a F-22 goes to the EA18G Growler. It's a variant of the F-18 Super Hornet.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/growler-power-ea-18g-boasts-f-.html
I know the article was dated last month, but was this one whose video appeared on Youtube a bout a year or so ago? Because I thought that was an F-18E.
It's a variant of the F-18E, it's the EA-18G to replace the old and cumbersome EA-6B Prowler. It carries 3 1000+ pound electronic jamming pods along with missiles and bombs. This was from a training exercise last month at Nellis AFB in Nevada. It was a simulated kill accomplished with tactical pods.
Those old A6 and EA6 Prowlers could fly in the nastiest weather that would ground other aircraft.
What ship were you on? I was with VAQ132 on the Forrestal during that incident. We were in the Gulf of Oman at that time.
Carl Vinson.
I know what the Growler is. (You'll note I made reference to it in a post earlier in the thread.) I just remember there being a another simulated kill a while back of an F-22 and there was a video of it on youtube. I wondered if this was the same thing or if it was something different.
And for the record, the Growler is a modified F-18F; it's a two-seater.
These were two seperate incidents. No one shot down the F-22. It crashed. The EA18G scored a simulated kill on an F-22 in a totally separate, unrelated incident. No one ACTUALLY shot down an F-22. Also, I didn't link to ANY article except the one earlier in the thread where the pilot was confirmed dead.
Similar threads
