Say if you upgraded our 16in shells?

Question

if you upgraded our current 16in shells for the USS Wisconsin and the USS Iowa by replacing the explosive inside thier warhead with HMX or RDX from TNT, how much explosive force in pounds would you get since:
1. HMX has a 9,100 m/s explosive force.

2. RDX uses 8,750 m/s explosive force.

3. TNT uses 6,900 m/s explosive force.

And TNT in the 16in projectile currently has a 145lb explosive force

Mathematical anwsers please, not psychological.

Thank you!

if you wish to find out what these thing are getting shot out of follow this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armament_of_the_iowa_class_battleship

I am talking about just this question please so please respond in a mathematical sense with correct anwsers, thank you!

plus i am already asking another question that would be to a BB's range so do not worry about that for now once i get both anwsers awnsered, i will respond.

Well true the iowa's are mothballed but they can still be saved if this case were to be checked in by the public instead of the military as much since they ususally aim for contracts.

here I will re-open this topic about the iowa class battleships and i will list many reasons to keep them, and point out thier less good's and better good's at doing.

Answer 1

Well, since the Congress foolishly forced the retirement / mothballing of the Iowa class boats, the point is moot.

At the point of the Gulf-war, the 16-inch guns were VERY accurate, and the Navy WAS researching using "smart-shells" not unlike what the Army has developed for the 155mm howitzer.

Now adays, MOST research isn't going to BIGGER explosive force, but rather hyper accuracy so you don't NEED as much "boom" and therefore generate LESS collateral damage.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see them upgraded with Gas-Turbines, remove one turret for hangar space or VLS missiles... and park ONE off a "bad-country".

Some terrorists try to pull a "USS Cole" on an Iowa class BB, and they just sweep the debris, paint the burn marks, and level the offending city.

Answer 2

the "old" shells make a hole the size of a basketball court. considering that they land within 10 feet of the target- what would be the point of making a bigger hole?

The main problem is the range- a BB cannon fires a shell at app. 40 kilometres- meaning there has to be deep water within 40 kilometres of the target- deep, swept clear of mines and free of enemy submarines.
It is simply easier to use a cruise missle which flies for 2000 kilometres, or send off a B2.

Answer 3

The math is pretty simply but why would you want to do that? Or put another way, what would you shoot them out of?

As early as WWI, but certainly in WWII, the Germans, who LOVE big guns (and who produced the largest conventional guns) realized that they are more of a liability (logistics) than an asset. The crew sizes were too large, and they are easy to find. We figured that out soon as we produced Big Bertha, our atomic cannon.

Answer 4

How about we adopt an old Japanese idea and convert the 16in Naval shells into bunker buster bombs??