The Ship Model Forum

My map reading doesn't show that most bad guys can be reached by a gun from sea. North Korea today is a different story from 60 years ago ... N-U-K-E-S on B-A-L-L-I-S-T-I-C M-I-S-S-I-L-E-S. Somalia? What are you going to bombarded? Iran? Their prime targets are well inland. China????

Look this is an exercise in "What-if", but the recommissioning of Iowa class battleships is being presented as a easy low cost option for today. It isn't. These ships would be very expensive to operate for several reasons. One they are manpower intense ... a major issue these days, two they have power-plants that don't exist on any other USN ships and spare parts are rather scarce, three finding/training crews (1,000 to 1,500 sailors) for ships that have not been in service for 20 years won't be easy, and many more reasons.

I don't know why the NAVSEA guys "think" that these ships can be reactivated in as little as three to six months. Maybe they can "de-mothball" them in that short of time, but they won't be able to operate until they have had very long modernizations. I'm not talking about any advanced weapons or flight decks or missiles, I'm saying that just updating communication and sensors will take a long-time just to operate with the fleet today. The warheads/weapons you talk about do not exist today and will need development ... the contractor that worked on a cancelled weapon from 20 years ago won't have a clue about how to build them today.

Even if they did recommission all four Iowa's, only about one or occasionally two would be on station somewhere with the rest being in overhaul and/or mod and crew training awaiting their turn to deploy. The effective range of the Iowa's would be how far they can travel to perform a mission once tasked and the radius of their weapons. An aircraft carrier doesn't have to be as close to a target to respond with their main weapons ... aircraft. The Iowa's could be equipped with cruise missiles (again), which would expand the strike range, but a Cruiser/Destroyer is better suited and better equipped to deliver them with more available to cover more targets. The battleships may withstand cruise missiles well enough to avoid a "hard-kill" (sinking), but they will be quite vulnerable to "soft-kills" to their communications and sensors. Effectively putting them out of action as they limp home for repairs. A determined enemy with a couple of subs could so limit the battleship actions and require a large escort force. Maybe even need an Aircraft Carrier Task Force to protect them. They would become target number one.

Aa a comparison, we could re-activate all 45 B-25's that can still fly in the world and fit them for close support missions, but why and to what expense to the crews?

So super sweet. I have someone to beat up on tomorrow. If you want answers to your questions in the meantime, just read the proceeding thread. All of the answers to your questions are in there. All you have to do is read 8 or so pages of forum notes.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Rick, like I have said a number of times, all of this is covered in the thread. However, I will expand on your statements. You asked some good questions, but there are a lot of battleships myths out there, and you used some. I hope this helps you understand a little better!

Most maps don't have 16" gun ranges laid over them. However, like I said before 80% of all Third World targets of interest are within 20nm of the coast, and 86% are within 21nm of the coast. This is a stat that was pulled from US Battleships, and earlier this year the CNO quoted a higher number when talking about the importance of amphibious warfare at the 2010 Surface Navy Association Symposium.

North Korea has a lot of AAW capability within the country, and a lot of conventional fighting would be done within 40 miles of the coast line, so naval surface fire support (NSFS) would be critical to on going land operations. TACAIR would be under great threat. Why not keep those very expensive aircraft out of harms way if you can? Why insist on them flying into high threat areas when they do not have to?

I don't know what N-U-K-E-S on B-A-L-L-I-S-T-I-C M-I-S-S-I-L-E-S has to do with battleships. This is a threat any ship faces. Battleships would face the same danger as a carrier or any other force would, and the battleship would have the same ABM ships with it as a carrier...so I don't really get your point. The argument of N-U-K-E-S on B-A-L-L-I-S-T-I-C M-I-S-S-I-L-E-S is actually a case for not having a Navy at all. N-U-K-E-S on B-A-L-L-I-S-T-I-C M-I-S-S-I-L-E-S is a threat we have faced since the 1950s, so I don't understand why you would want to bring it up when specifically talking about battleships. Can you clarify?

Do some looking into Somalia…..you’re a little behind the power curve if you don’t know about the significance of Somalia. For instance, SOCOM is very active in Somalia. Somalia is one of the biggest hotbeds for terrorist training, hosting, and basing in the world. Also, all these pirates you have been hearing about are coming from the coast of Somalia. They don't live further inland, nor do they operate inland. Very little is based inland. There is a huge list of very important targets all along the coast that are used by both the terrorist we are “at war” with, and we watch it very, very closely. If we wanted to entirely take out the pirate problem, that is where we would strike, and a battleship would be ideal. Somalia is actually one of the most perfect places for naval gunnery.

Also keep in mind, the only NSFS the US Navy has performed since the Gulf War has been in Somalia. However, 5inch is not very effective, but because it is all we have...we have to use it, and we have used it a LOT of times lately.

The Prime Targets are but where is their commerce? Where does 60% of their money come from? Their ports in the Persian Gulf.

If we have to invade from the coast a heavy support platform that could be used in a heavy AAW environment would not just be important it would be critical. We would not be able to perform an amphibious landing anywhere in China without a battleship. When facing a land force like China has, anywhere a battleship could reach it would be called on all the time.

Keep reading

As they are now (without being modernized requiring significantly fewer people) would be $107million yearly while a carrier is $406million. With reduced manning, the cost would be a lot lower.

They are man-power intense in comparison to what? The only comparison you can make is to a ship of similar capabilities. The only ship with similar capabilities is a nuclear powered aircraft carrier...that goes to sea with 5,000 people. So the battleship is quite a good deal even with a 1,000 man crew.

The 600lb and 700lb boilers used aboard the Tarawa and Wasp-class amphibious ships are very similar to the 600lb Babcox Wilcox boilers used aboard the battleships. So, there is a rather large knowledge base on boilers actively in the Navy.

for the boilers or the battleships themselves? I have heard this a lot. Why do people think this? Is it just because the ships are old? There are more spare parts for the battleships than we could ever use. FY88 all parts that were not readily available were manufactured to maintain a stock. One thing that might confuse people is when Long Beach had to scavenge parts for New Jersey’s reactivation. All parts that were salvaged off the museum battleships and mothballed heavy cruisers were all remanufactured and replaced. The reason why we pulled things from the museum battleships in the first place was because we did not have the spare parts catalogued in 1981. They had in effect been lost. Even 16inch barrels started showing up places. By the time Missouri was being reactivated, however, all the spare parts were consolidated, catalogued, and centralized for ease of distribution. Remember, all four Iowas were slated to receive the Warfighting Improvement Upgrade in 1993-1996 and would have served until 2010 before their next SLEP. The Navy was planning to have the battleships around for a long, long time.

This same issue was overcome in only a few months in 1981 with New Jersey. Today there exists a roster of battleships sailors that are willing to return to active duty to train the plank-owner crews of every ship and man any C-schools that would be started up. The curriculum for the 16" C-school still exists at the Combat Systems building at Great Lakes Training Command and Dam Neck in Virginia. So, the knowledge base is still there. So, today, after the initial crew gets trained, the 600-ship fleet guys could go home.

It's because Iowa and Wisconsin have been held in the highest preservation state since 1992. NAVSEA does in depth inspections of them twice a year. The one I went on lasted all day and focused on the propulsion plant only. I would take their word for it.

A full modernization with VLS and new 5" battery has been stated as a 10 month process.

All of the ones I have sited here do exist and are in inventory.

The schematics and design instructions exist, so sure he would!

Yes. For 1 ship to be out at all times you have to have 3 in service. What's wrong with that?

Money. The most expensive way to do something is with an aircraft carrier. Sometimes you have to use one, but why use it when you don't have to?

The Iowas would be armed with between 96 and 128 VLS tubes. If going on a strike mission the ship would have nearly 100 TLAMs on board. Let escorts be escorts. A battleship is an offensive ship. Let the offensive ship be an offensive ship.

Seasick brought this one up, too, and again it was addressed earlier in this thread. This threat is not unique to battleships. This is true with any ship. Battleships are just a lot more resilient than any other ships and can withstand a mission-kill a lot more than any other ship.

Battleships would have the same escort as a carrier. Remember, the battleship is a capital ship, a center piece of a strike group. It will be very well protected one way or the other.

Rick, I don't think you are understanding what a battleship is. A battleship is ship that uses guns to deliver ordnance instead of aircraft to a range of 47nm, and to 120nm if the 16" ERGM round would be finished. Battleships are offensive ships and provide the most economical means of delivering ordnance to the most common areas of interest (remember...86% of the targets of interest in Third World countries at 21nm. 46+ is even more). All of the munitions on the battleship are very low-cost in comparison to munitions delivered by aircraft, and in most cases they are more effective.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I'm not sure why battleships generate such emotional responses but let me try add a little perspective to this.

If money, in the form of manning, spare parts, maintenance, etc., were not an issue (i.e., the ships were magically "free"), would you want (just to pick an example, for no specific reason) some additional Adams class ships? Most people would probably say no because the capabilities they offer just aren't that useful anymore. Would you want a "free", modernized battleship? Any reasonable person would eagerly say yes. The capabilities are self-evident and overwhelmingly useful. So, it really just boils down to a cost issue which is a completely valid point, just as it is for carriers, the LCS, more Burkes, or any other ship. Remember, cost is relevant only when balanced against capability; the cost-benefit ratio, in industry.

Again, perspective... Many people have made the argument for a small/light carrier. What if a ship designer could come up with a new, light carrier that could operate with 1/5 the crew size, 1/4 the operating costs, deliver more ordnance tonnage than "heavy" carriers, was many times more survivable than existing carriers, had magic aircraft that could never be shot down and whose time over target was unlimited and were immune to bad weather, and the only downside was that the range of the aircraft was limited so that you could only reach 50% (to be ridiculously conservative) of the likely potential targets in the world, would you want it? Again, any reasonable person would say yes. Well, that's what a battleship is, just not normally expressed in those terms. Again, cost would be the only issue. [I used navydavesof's numbers. I don't have any better numbers and I have no reason to doubt them]

Cost is ultimately a political issue arising from the pressures of a limited budget. With a limited budget, battleship opponents don't want to risk carrier (or LCS or whatever other pet project) funding and so are opposed to battleships. Quite understandable. But, by all accounts, we could reactivate and operate four battleships for several years for the cost of one or two LCS's. Would you rather have the next LCS ($700M basic ship + $200M module = $1Billion) or a battleship?

More perspective... the carrier force is most likely going to drop from 11 to 9 carriers in the relatively near future. What is going to replace the strike capability of two full carriers? If not a battleship, then what?

Regards,
Bob

Well said gents, well said! Frankly, when it boils down to cost effectiveness the BBs definitley give you more bang for your buck when compared to the other options currently available. You just have to have make the ones in power realize that the BBs ARE the most cost effective and that won't happen until a new administration gets in. Even with that change in power the top decision makers in the Navy need to be convinced as well. The BBs look like the best option on paper yes, no arguement from me, but in the end its still a political decision sadly and that will more than likely keep this from happenining anytime soon. Not trying to rain on the parade but politics suck. I'd love to see the BBs back in service and I hope it happens. If we are going to lose several CVNs the BBs are the best replacement option. What else will make a similiar statement if parked off an enemey coast, an LCS, a Burke, or a BB?

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

I did a policy paper on combating Somali piracy and one of my suggested solutions was the reactivation of warships that actually have visible guns, notably the Iowa's. The Iowa's have a significant deterrent effect that carriers do not. Take Vietnam or Venezuela in 1984. The NJ was able to harass the Vietnamese more than the entire carrier fleet, and in Venezuela the NJ helped secure negotiations to the hostilities between that nation and the US. It's called gunboat diplomacy for a reason people.

With carriers, the weapons of choice are aircraft, but a battleship has very visible weaponry. Think of a battleship as a 6'5" big brother there backing you up. Somali pirates have attacked warships belonging to both the US as well as other countries. Do you think for one second a Somali pirate would attempt hijacking an Iowa class? There is no mistake that the Iowa is a warship, unlike many of the vessels that are in the navy today.

_________________

I'm thinking instead of using 16 inch guns, how about RF 8 inch guns? Like the Oregon City? Not really as costly as making whole new ships, and huge, slow-firing guns.

_________________
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines

Well from my Debate class I learned that you can not convince anyone who is a true believer. No matter how farfetched their facts.

This will be my last posting on this subject.

First off I'm 58 years old and I remember when USS NEW JERSEY was recommissioned during the Vietnam War and cheered.

Then in 1971 I got a chance to go onboard USS IOWA and see USS WISCONSIN tied up alongside her at Philadelphia Navy Yard. The USN personnel let us crawl all over IOWA, fun. At that time we all thought that the four battleships would be stricken within five years and save for USS MISSOURI, scrapped.



A few years latter I got to visit USS MISSOURI at her Puget Sound Navy Yard berth where she was open to the public. I could just see the bow of USS NEW JERSEY. Also, there were a couple of heavy cruisers ready to be towed way for scrap.

I remember well in the 1980's when the IOWA's were recommissioned as part of the 600-ship navy, and thought by then that was interesting. I was not sure just what the USN expected to do with them against USSR. I was sad that they didn't leave MISSOURI in her WWII configuration for her eventual museum mission. The action off Lebanon didn't exactly demonstrate that gunboat diplomacy was effective in the late 20th century. Then the USS IOWA had her turret explosion and the Evil Empire collapsed. With the call for a Peace Dividend, they were about the first ships the USN decided to retire. The last two IOWA's lucked out to be used in the GULF WAR before retiring. The modest cost estimates then as to how long it would take to modernize them and recommission them (they would cost less than a FFG) proved to be just a "little" off. so for all the expense to bring these ships back to service, three took part in two operations where they fired their guns in anger.

As for your HIGH BALL estimates of how much of the earth the guns of a battleship they can hit with their guns. Cough.

Just what you expect to accomplish in bombarding Somalia to stop piracy is beyond me. A whole host of "VERY IMPORTANT" targets? The country has been beaten to piles of rumble in a series of Civil Wars. No matter how big your gun boat is, the desperate people there will continue to do what they can to get by. An IOWA off Somalia will be as effective as NEW JERSEY off Lebanon. The answer to Somalia that none of the world "powers" want to deal with is to occupy the place and restore order by boots on the ground. You wouldn't need a massive bombardment to accomplish that. The Special Ops guys are on the ground for a reason.

As for North Korea, the point is that the brilliant leader in North Korea has a Nuke Bomb or more and will use it (them) as he sees fit, likely on his deathbed. Heck they may even stick one in a Silkworm. If a war breaks out there again, the opening campaign of artillery duels will be horrible on the civilian population. The NK Air Force barely exists or train and the USAF and on yes the USN aircraft and cruise missiles will strike at will until the nukes go off ... unless we get to them first. Waiting for an IOWA to steam from the West Coast to take part will be too late.

Iran has subs and I suspect is putting in their order for a few NK mini-subs. You can blow-up their oil facilities and ports, but then what? How are you going to get out of the Gulf?

INVADE CHINA!!! Are you kidding. We could end up in a shooting war with China. But neither of our countries are in a position to invade the other. Unless the war goes nuclear, there will be a lot of air warfare back and forth with ballistic missiles going one way (likely at Taiwan and Japan and Guam) and cruise missiles and B-2's the other way.

I don't believe any low ball cost estimates by advocates for their pet programs in DoD ... multiple them by five or ten and then we will be closer to the truth. The contractor who had drawings and specifications 20 years ago, has destroyed them and retired, laid off, or otherwise gotten rid of 97% of the people that worked on a DEAD (no profit) program. Any weapons NOT in continuous production will take a LONG time to restart. Use the few in storage, it will be a long time before replace them. Ten months to complete a major mod ... make that 30+ months and I'll start to believe it. I know how DoD and Congress work, the source selection process to pick WHO and WHERE the work will be done will take one to two years ... come to think of it 30 months is too short.

The manpower resources to crew and maintain these two or four ships would be too great on a USN hard-pressed to man the ~300 ships they have now. Manpower costs a LOT of money to keep and the USN would rather put 4,000-6,000 sailors on more hulls.

The nature of warfare has changed dramatically over the last decade or two. Smaller precision weapons delivered by Stand-off manned Aircraft and UAV's of all sorts of sizes and right on the target of interest with minimal collateral damage is how warfare is being exercised. Aircraft Carriers as floating airbases give the US flexibility to strike over a large area on relatively short notice. Long-range bombers from the USA can strike almost anywhere. A large 16-in or even an 11-in shell maybe could take out a terrorist leader, but it will take out a whole block as well ... News at 6 on CNN. It is hard to see how we would get into a large scale war between large armies that didn't risk a nuclear war.

Yes I know what a battleship is, I have been on several (I think five) and they are nice to visit, but I don't think they are cost-effective weapons today. It makes more sense to buy more BURKE class DDG's and a real CG or CGN.

Now continue the discussion without me.

First off, great pictures! Thanks for sharing.

True enough. Of course, there are true believers on both sides of any issue. Are you a true believer or do you have an open mind? You say this will be your last posting... Maybe I can convince you to continue the discussion as a debate - with facts, rather than "beliefs", either pro or con.

You don't believe that estimate. Fair enough. Navydavesof cited a source for his number. This is a chance to do some research and come back with a different or better source and prove that his number is wrong. If you can prove that only 5% (to make up a number) of targets are in range, you'd go a long way to changing a lot of minds. Conversely, if you find that his number is correct, you might change your own mind. Either way, it would be based on fact.

For the sake of discussion, let's say your assumption that there is nothing worth shooting at is true. OK, but that is no more (or less) a reason for not having battleships than it is for not having Burkes or carriers.


Again, nukes are no more a reason to not have battleships than they are a reason to not have Burkes, carriers, tanks, Air Force planes, or soldiers. In this day of satellite imagery (among other intel sources), wars don't just happen instantaneously. It takes days/weeks to build up and relocate sufficient forces. There would be as much time to position a battleship as any other naval vessel. Again, not an argument specifically against battleships.

I assume you're referring to the threat from subs when you ask about getting out of the Gulf? Well, the Navy is in the business of standing into harm's way and fighting subs. ASW is not the job of a battleship just as it isn't the job of an amphib and yet we don't get rid of them. The Navy has ASW platforms whose job is to protect the other vessels. Again, the sub threat is no more an argument relevant to battleships than any other vessel.

DoD procurement history supports your contention.

Industry does this all the time. Obsolete machines and parts are remanufactured all the time. That's what keeps machine shops in business.

A valid concern. Remember, though, that the real question is what capability you get for each manning slot. If 800-1000 sailors on a battleship gets you more capability than 800-1000 sailors scattered across various other ships, than a battleship is a good use of manpower. If the reverse is true, than the battleship is a bad use of manpower. Make your case with specifics. What would be a better distribution and use of manpower, specifically?

Then explain why the Marines (boots on the ground) are continually asking for more gun support from the Navy? Also, explain why risking pilots is better than risking collateral damage.

You mentioned a debate. This is your chance to conduct one with facts rather than generalities. Rather than walk away, dive in and convince those of us with open minds. But do it with facts and specifics. Use your debate training!

This forum is also about enjoyment. Enjoy a good discussion rather than get mad at it. Hope to hear from you some more!

Regards,
Bob

Facts are stubborn things.

What I learned in my "Debate Class" is that Facts are objective; they are truthes, and debate is subjective; debate can be manipulated. What engineering teaches one is how important facts really are. There are limits you have to work in, and those are facts. Far fetched or not, a "fact" is still a "fact". The fact is the truth (or as absolutely close as it can be). If it is not correct, then it is not a fact. When one sees that his "facts" are discredited, such as a discussion I have been having with Carr lately, you research your position and change it if you see the other person is right. Only then can one be as close to the truth as possible, and there is no other place to be. So after you go through all the information and you finally find the facts, then you can go to the debate table and make what is subjective as objective as possible. That is what I have done here, and my mind is never made up. Even Seasick, who makes a number of the same kinds of comments you do, gives me new inputs to either counter or adopt.

There has proven to be only a few greatly credible sources when dealing with factual costs to the US Government. One of those sources is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and another is the Government Accountability Office (GAO). NAVSEA has been extremely honest with its estimates of a number of programs...including the dying LCS program. Even though these sources are usually very close to real end-costs, you still check their facts to make sure they are indeed facts and not statements that were formulated with only selective information.

That's too bad. If there is only one thing to learn from SEAL training, it is: Quitters never win.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Man, that navydave guy is a real jerk.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Yeah, he doesn't debate fair! Uses sneaky things like facts. He'll never get a job as a journalist!!

_________________
Russ

Just thought I'd try to mention something about the manning problem that everyone seems to always bring up. Dave I believe is talking about reactivating/modernizing the BBs as a way to replace the CVNs were are about to use. If you're not Dave please clarify. Now how many people are on a CVN? I'm not talking about the air wing personnel, just the actual crew needed to run and fight the ship. Isn't it around about 3,000 men and women? If an Iowa can be run on 1,000 then there is a LARGE chunk of your new crew. If we decomm 2-3 sailors we'll have more than enough to crew the BBs. Now I know running a CVN and a BB are two completely different types ships with different manning requirements but they still share a lot of common ratings and officers that could easily make the transfer. Your Engineers would need to learn boilers. Fine, they're still in the fleet. All of the LHAs and LPDs that are still left all have boilers as well as most of the LHDs. I think some of the older Auxiliaries do as well. The knowledge base is still there. When it comes to the guns, all of the written material on how to work and service them still exists as well as a large group of former sailors that are willing to come back and train to the new guys, as they have done each time they were brought back into service in the past. If you wanted to significantly cut down personnel AND save operational costs you could replace the entire 5" battery and either re-task or cut several hundred sailors. I can't remember the exact amount needed for each mount, Dave could you elaborate please. Not to mention that would cut down on the amount of sailors you'd have to train to work the old 5" guns.

Manning is NOT that big of an issue with these ships. It takes more money and sailors to man a CVN than 2-3 BBs and if we're going to be losing the CVNs we need a replacement! More Burkes or God awful LCSs will NOT do it.

I too hope we can continue this debate. I know how to admit when I'm wrong. Please correct me if any of the above statements are in error.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

Alright i Know ya'll have the discussion goin already but I would like to add what I think.

Cliffy:
If i remember correctly there is about 2,000-5,000 personell on a CVN before aircrew. Alot compared to the 1,000 on a Iowa. Today with all the automation technology, the number of personell could be greatly reduced. But those 'manning' problems were something of the 80's, now we just use technology we have and seriously refit the Iowa class. refit the 5' and 16' to use automation. I mean use the systems we have on our current ships to remove the need for people to man those guns. It would take alot to refit them but it would reduce the cost in the long run.

I saw for one Zumwalt class destroyer its $9 billion, and this is the same with most future USN ships. It would be expensive to modernize the Iowa and Wisconsin, but it would be alot cheaper compared to comissioning a brand new multi billion dollar aircraft carrier, or destroyer. So I really think modernizing the Iowa and Wisconisin is a good thing. Make them our flag ships again!

So this is what i have come to the conlcusion on doing:
I would first refit the bridge with new computer systems, remove the steering column and make it computerized even if it means re wiring it. remove the old sensor gauges and wire it so it could be viewed on monitors. In a sense like the comand center on a destroyer or aircraft carrier. I was running the option of removing the current mast and replacing it with a AEM/S(advanced enclosed mast/sensor) system. I'm still working out how it would work where the main mast is. But i know it would work in conjenction of removing the directors and sights, cause it would all be done electronically. In the spots where the directors were i would place CIWs systems, that would be 4 more CIWS with the current 4. in place of the forward and aft sights im thinking of adding some type if radar dome or just for the aft sight making an small aft AEM/S or just a standard mast. I would also remove the mast on the front of the Iowa and Wisconsin and incorperate it with the main mast.

Now to the main armenment. Going back to the maning issue, i would completely rework the 5 and 16" guns so all systems would be autmated(run by computer) We use these systems on all our current weapons, but it would take more work on the older weapons. The 16' may not work out so well, but it would be worth a try. All the targeting systems would be run by computer now, so thats why I would be dropping the directors and sights. I would upgrade the AGM-84 Harpoon launcher to the block III which was cancelled but would have been brought back for the Iowa and Wisconsin. I was debating on removing one of the 16" turrets, either #2 or #3(preferebly #3), and replace it with multiple VLS rather than use the Tomahawks in a ABL. I know either way the Tomahawks would be upgraded to the block IV TLAMs. Im still running the design and multiple designs in my head, but soon i'm gunna start sketching it all out.

The last thing would be with the Helipad. If the #3 turret is removed, I would think of adding a hanger building in that space. Another option i was thinking about is cuting out a large section of the helipad and replacing it with an elevator to a hanger section underneath the deck. But again I still need to draw out a few sketches of this modernizing plan i have

...someone made a drunk post!

USN Matt, take a look at the rest of the thread. A lot of this was covered on cost and practicality. HOWEVER, if you're just talking about a cool arrangement on the ship, hey, awesome, you might even want to think about what Seasick suggested and cut the entire WWII style structure off and build from the main deck up with a Burke DDG structure and stacks! That might be cool looking !

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I know it was all covered in previous posts, I just wanted to add what I thought. The design i posted isn't just for looks, It ws intended to be step on reducing the amount of personell on the ship, since people think it is an issue, and widening the roles of the batteship more.

I think the ballance is the kind of ship I have produced, a BBG. However, I think a realilistic modernization would instead the NTU ship being the exact same arrangement just without the WDS. It would still have the SPS-48G and the aft mast, but money, money, money. The battleships were reactivated AND modernized for a surprisingly low cost in the '80s. Today it would involve some serious cutting and reconstruction of the two missile decks of the super structure. The work would be relatively easy, but it would expand the roles of the ship.

I have thought about reworking the "bridge". The bridge really is nothing more than an observation center; there is not enough room to do much. What is in the ship, however, CIC, CEC, Strike, those were really upgraded to all the things you suggested in the '80s and would be upgraded to a CVN or LHD quality arrangement if it were a BBG or BB.

There is not much point to build an enclosed mast the size necessary to build up on the structure. The best thing they could do is reconstruct the mast with square bar instead of bar stock.

Why would it be a good idea to pull the optical range-finders from the ship? Those and the UAVs would be the best intelligence gathering tools, and if the electronics were destroyed by an EMP, you can still operate the propulsion, steering, and weapons without any electronics. If you remove the optical range-finders, which are very, very, very good and replace them with more electronics, you would be taking away from the capability of the ship, not adding to it.

If you read the rest of the thread you see why removing any turrets is a bad idea. Cutting into the aft deck for a hanger is a bad idea. These super modifications are cost prohibitive. They make for hot looking models, but this was an exercise in practicality and affordability. Simply removing a turret would cost an incredible amount of money, and then the ship would be out of trim, leaning forward. Unless you plan to stack all of Turret 3's armor and guts on the flight deck, fouling any flight deck you might have, to keep the weight aft where it needs to be...simply for ship stability, the ship would be terribly out of trim and would not drive right in the water. The ships are ballanced to have 3 turrets, 5,100 tones of material, possitioned in three places. Messing with that litterally screws the ship pretty badly.

The gunnery capability out weighs their replacement by helos and jump jets. Jump jets don't do much....at all...in any form in comparison to a 16" turret. The ship will not be operating alone, so helos can be borrowed from its escorts. For the cost of producing a helo capability, there is no reason for the ship to have its own helos.

I did, however, think of a neat way to put hangers on the ship while keeping Turret 3. I think with a new construction ship, a Des Moines-class style below-deck hanger capable of housing SH-60s, would be feasible and desireable. On the existing Iowas, however, I think that if you replaced the aft 5" mounts (Mt 55 and 56) you could build a single hanger forward of Turret 3 on each side of the structure. You would have to have a RAST track running all the way to the stern, but that's how you could have a helo capability without screwing up the ship by removing Turret 3.

Like was posted earlier in the thread in stead of finding some way to re-orient the existing 5"/38caliber gun mounts to be automated, it's a whole lot easier to pull the mount and magazine structure and replace it with a Mk45 gun. The Mk45 gun moudule fits DIRECTLY into the 5"/38caliber magazine slots. They just stick up 5' higher, and that's no issue.

So, yeah, man, please read the whole thread. It's great information and and extemely entertaining! It's only 8 pages. Not bad.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Using the navweaps.com site, it appears that the 3 16" turrets have a manning requirement of 94 each, total 282.
If you convert the 5" moints to 5"/62, Mark 45 Mod 4, you have 6 men per mount, total 60.
Total non-missile gunnery manpower of an Iowa Class is thus 342.

An Iowa Class can carry 1,210 16" projectiles and more than enough powder bags to fire them.

During her deployment off Vietnam, USS New Jersey (BB-62) occasionally fired a single HC (High Capacity) round into the jungle and so created a helicopter landing zone 200 yards (180 m) in diameter and defoliated trees for 300 yards (270 m) beyond that. (Which might explain why the North Vietnamese wanted her taken off the gun line before they would negotiate)

During the battleship reactivations during the 1980s, the Navy developed a new HC design that was the same length as the AP Mark 8 (4.5 calibers) and weighed 2,240 lbs. (1,015 kg). Several of these were test-fired from USS Iowa and at Dahlgren, achieving ranges over 51,000 yards (46,600 m) (29 miles)with a new gun muzzle velocity of 2,825 fps (861 mps).

Test shots were fired in 1968 and 1969 at Yuma and at Barbados, with the latter location using two 16"/45 (40.6) cm guns welded end-to-end and achieving ranges out to 83,850 yards (76,670 m) (47 miles) with a 745 lbs. (338 kg) shell fired at a muzzle velocity of 4,550 fps (1,387 mps).

Given the way things work, I suspect that nobody in the aero-missile indusrtries wanted this to be acted upon.

The 16" AP (Armor Piercing) round can penetrate 30 feet of concrete.

_________________
Russ

For her Vietnam deployment the New Jersey provided fire support for several battles, for all of them the primary weapon for fire support was the 5"/38 twins.

Converting the Iowas to the 127mm/62 Mk45 mod4 gun would be very expensive. First the Iowa would have to have major reconstruction internally, None of the compartments for the 5"/38 twins will meet navy standards for the current gun and will need to be removed and rebuilt. The barbettes for the 5"/38 are in the wrong locations for an efficient placement of a Mk45 mod4 gun. They will need to be removed and new infrastructure built in its place. The weight of the Mk45 mod4 gun is also larger than the WW2 era gun. In order that the ships weights remain in balance you will need rearrange parts of the ship which means more cutting through decks and armor plate. The ships berthing barely met standards in the 1980s and are totally inadequate now. Officer and enlisted berthings will need to be gutted and replaced. New diesel alternators will need to be installed and much of the equipment on the ship is long out of production and spare parts supplies are exhausted. The Sacremento class AOE used up much of the spare parts on their later deployments. Replacement parts would need to be produced in custom jobs by machine shops which is very expensive. There are also no training schools for the 5"/38 guns, 16"/55 guns, the Mk26 fire control system or Mk37 fire control systems. The Mk143 armored box launchers were retired in 1996 and have not been supported since.

With the comming of the JDAM, and JSOW the threat to aircraft making strikes on fixed locations has diminished drastically. The utility of the 16"/55 guns on the Iowas has in turn been drastically reduced.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝

Mark,

Why did the NVA want NJ off of the gun line?

Which naval aircraft can deliver a 2,000+ lb bomb at the terminal velocity of the 16".

Crew quarters. Hmmm, I sailed on a Buckley class DE and a Sumner class DD. Pull a Circle William, or Whisky these days, ad the radio ciruit boards began to smolder. My heart bleeds.

Repair parts, You're probably right. They can't even find good welders these days so there's no reason to believe that skilled machinists and pipe fitters could be found.

_________________
Russ