What if Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

[Sr. Gopher]

After some deep thought inspired from my current project, I can't help but wonder: Should the Battleship be returned to the front lines? Today's vessels are nice and all, but can they really match the power of a truely modern battleship? Especially considering that the missile pods held by each DD are worth millions, and the actual ship costing nearly as much as a CV? Each missile is $1 million+. Each big gunshot is a few thousand. And if the missiles are still desired, put a pod on the battleship,but only 1. The BBs would peform shore bombardment, carrier escort...everything a DD could do, but with fewer Hi-tech gadgets.

Okay, the idea sounded better in my head, but I still want to hear everyone's thoughts

[Admiral John Byng]

I think the time of the battleship is well and truly past.
The cost of manning such a ship which would have the limited function of a big gun platform would be too high.

The US has plenty of destroyers to provide escorts for the carriers which are more effective than putting everything on the big battleship. The TLAM can do most of the jobs of the big guns more effectively.

The only thing I can think of that would be better done by the BB would be the bombardment of troops in positions/bunkers. Shock and awe - but it would be an expensive way to do it!

[Sr. Gopher]

Okay, new idea: A specialized shore bombardment ship. Low tech, high powered guns. In other words, a modern monitor. Also a few odds and ends like the CWIS, SAMs...

[Sean Hert]

That's how the idea for the Arsenal Ship started... and now we have the Zumwalt, AKA USS Boondoggle.

[Sr. Gopher]

That's how the idea for the Arsenal Ship started... and now we have the Zumwalt, AKA USS Boondoggle.

I guess, but BIGGER GUNS!!!

[TexasBB35]

From Robert F Sumrall's Iowa Class Battleships:

"1. Nimitz Class carriers can deliver approximately 75 long tons of ordnance per strike. At an average of three strikes per day 225 tons of ordnance can be delivered per day. Iowa class battleships can deliver 229 long tons of high explosive and steel in a 30 minute gun strike.

2. Nimitz Class carriers have an aviation ordnance payload capacity of approximately 3000 tons. Iowa class battleships can carry an ordnance payload of 1034 HE long tons or 1470 AP long tons. A mix of 3 HE to 1 AP rounds is assumed per gun strike involving some hard targets of reinforced concrete. Aviation ordnance is assumed to have the penetration of the 1900 pound HE projectiles.

3. The cost to deliver ordnance on target is estimated to be $12000 per long ton of aviation ordnance from a Nimitz Class carrier and $1600 per long ton of gun ordnance from an Iowa Class battleship." *Book was published in 1988, so assuming the cost ratio is still the same, the nominal gap would be even greater.

So in 30 minutes an Iowa can equal the daily output of a Nimitz, and do it for only 13% of the cost. Add that to the fact that all four Iowas have the same manpower requirements as 1 Nimitz, the fact that only the Iowa's can keep up with them in rough seas, how relatively cheap they would be to reactivate and there really isn't a reason to have at least 2 in the fleet. They've proven their worth in 5 different decades, and only missed the 70's because NJ was "detrimental to peace". Imagine that, a warship being detrimental to peace during a war.

[Sr. Gopher]

Maybe we can kid of re-work the Iowa design to be a completely modern design. I'll see what possibilities I can come up with, but I have little experience with modern systems, so if anyone can help or try it too; that would be great.

[Secondo]

So in 30 minutes an Iowa can equal the daily output of a Nimitz, and do it for only 13% of the cost.

That's perfect, hoping that you'll never have to shoot a target farther than 30 Km inland

[doog_k]

Maybe we can kid of re-work the Iowa design to be a completely modern design. I'll see what possibilities I can come up with, but I have little experience with modern systems, so if anyone can help or try it too; that would be great.

Wasn't that seriously suggested in the 70s/80s? The addition of a flight deck & ski jumps for Marine harriers while retaining the forward turrets? The marines liked the long and short range shore bombardment thing I believe?

[doog_k]

So in 30 minutes an Iowa can equal the daily output of a Nimitz, and do it for only 13% of the cost.

That's perfect, hoping that you'll never have to shoot a target farther than 30 Km inland

Yeah, probably wouldn't have helped a lot in the first strikes on Afghanistan.

[Sr. Gopher]

Yes, but that was for...oh, actually, that isn't such a bad idea. I have here a model built by Rusty White.

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

Very nice, but is it really ideal to have your guns and troops on the same platform, considering that both would be capital targets for an enemy air force or navy?

[Philip LaVoie]

I�ve often wondered this myself. The other day I watched a special on the USS New Jersey and her role during the Korean conflict. They talked about the devastating power from her main guns bombarding shoreline targets and how much less expensive it was compared to bombs, plus how accurate the strikes were. I would think with today�s technology that would be vastly improved, and if we designed larger and more powerful guns that could fling shells 30 or more miles they could strike significant targets while eliminating exposing aircraft to hostile fire. I�d love to see a modern warship with some twin turret 20 inchers or larger.

[Russ2146]

And wasn't it a North Viet Nam demand that the BB be taken off the gun line or they wouldn't go into the negotiations? Why wouldn't they have demanded that the carriers be pulled out?

Also, projectile technology has come a long way since then.

BTW, has any testing been done on the effect of anti-ship missiles on BB armor?

What would the effect of the attack on the Cole been on a BB?

And, arising from a conversation with an MM1 many years ago, what would the effect of shortening the length of the prop shafts be on the max speed of an Iowa hull? According to him, the shorter, and thus truer a shaft, the less vibration there is, of the shaft, at higher speeds. The max vibration that the shaft bearings can tolerate thus determining what Flank Speed is set at.

[drdoom1337]

This comes to mind:

"Rest well, yet sleep lightly; and hear the call, if again sounded, to provide fire power for freedom."

The day of the battleship is far from over my friends.

[Timmy C]

I think navydavesof is face-palming himself somewhere out there, as this is a subject that he's wrote a lot about over in the What-if section and elsewhere.

[Seasick]

I talked about this in another forum once. In Vietnam the USS New Jersey used its 5 inch/38 guns for fire support most often. In fact the fire missions that were most effective were nearly all 5 inch only bombardments. The 16 inch HC (high explosive) guns were used mainly for daisey cutter missions. The battleship in the encarnation as a big gun ship is finished. Fire support isn't the primary mission of a battleship. When the Iowas were reactivated they acted as gun boats and over glorified monitors. The Harpoon missiles were for self defense more than anything else, they had at best a marginal AAW capability.

[navydavesof]

I think navydavesof is face-palming himself somewhere out there, as this is a subject that he's wrote a lot about over in the What-if section and elsewhere.

Thank you, Timmy. Indeed I did face-palm myself pretty hard. All of the questions, comments, and ideas included here are covered in that thread.

I have done a lot of looking into the whole Iowa-class battleship reactivation thing with everyone from authors of the battleship books, THE guy who planned New Jersey's modernization and over saw hers and Missouri's, did inspections on the quality of work Iowa and Wisconsin got, and NAVSEA (Naval Sea Systems Command). NAVSEA is where SHIPALTs (ship alterations) come from. They gave me their official opinion on the mods I have in mind. As of January both Iowa and Wisconsin could be reactivated in 90 days and New Jersey and Missouri in 180. Modernization is another issue. This is where the real labor of research came from.

I made a 1/350 model of the USS Iowa modernized to 2009 technology, and she is stored in parts in her box. Because of scheduling and various USN trainings, I have not been completing much latley. However, anyone wanting to see the most likely (cheapest and most capable) modernization scheme an Iowa would achieve today, check out the thread:

viewtopic.php?f=67&t=46033

If you read the stuff in there, you will see the line of logic, the missions the ship would perform, lots of little or unknown facts about the Iowas, how much life the ships actually have left in them, weapon systems, additional armor emplacements, munitions, lots of etc. Plus if you have any questions I think I could help.

Check it out!

[Rick E Davis]

Let's see ... return Battleships to service and strike only targets within 20 miles of a shoreline. Or likely less inland since the Battleship would have to go out to sea or worry about the mini NK subs that will be sold to every small country with the money to buy one.

Battleships off Korea in the early 1950's and Vietnam in the 1960's made sense when Aircraft were dropping mostly dumb bombs and a good chuck of the important targets were within range of their guns.

Face it, this is the era of real-time surveillance and precision strike weapons that can cover a whole lot more surface area of the Globe than an all gun ship off shore that requires a 1500 man crew.

[navydavesof]

Let's see ... return Battleships to service and strike only targets within 20 miles of a shoreline. Or likely less inland since the Battleship would have to go out to sea or worry about the mini NK subs that will be sold to every small country with the money to buy one.

As of this moment the battleships can fire laser guided 11" sabot rounds to 47nm. ERGM round was in the works and can be finished pretty fast [NAVSEA].

Battleships off Korea in the early 1950's and Vietnam in the 1960's made sense when Aircraft were dropping mostly dumb bombs and a good chuck of the important targets were within range of their guns.

Volume of fire, immunity to AAW, on station endurance, and rapid response for call for fire are only a few unique qualities a battleship brings to any tactical situation within a battleship's gun range.

Face it, this is the era of real-time surveillance and precision strike weapons that can cover a whole lot more surface area of the Globe than an all gun ship off shore that requires a 1500 man crew.

Battleships would go where carriers do not need to go but have to go, because there is no ship that can deliver the volume of ordnance necessary to address most targets. Carriers make a huge jump in capability from the next best ship, the Ticonderoga-class CG, so much so that to address a lot of situations a carrier has to be deployed, because a small surface group of CGs and DDGs cannot do what is needed. A battleship way out does a CG or DDG in delivering ordnance onto land and even out performs carriers in a lot of very important areas with far fewer people than a carrier. Employment of a battleship in place of a carrier in this kind of situation, which is a very, very common situation, saves a ton of people, money, and resources. A modernized battleship would only require a crew of 840-870 people depending on the size of the modernized 5inch department.

Real-time surveillance makes battleships even more effective. A UAV/a team of UAVs can designate a target to lay GPS plots for a 5" gun strike or you could erase the target with a 16" strike. The precision missiles or bombs you are talking about come from very expensive aircraft burning extremely expensive fuel and risk getting shot down while on mission. If the targets are inside gun range of the coast (80% of all Third World Targets of Interest are within 20nm) the battleship is the most cost effective and reliable means of delivering ordnance.

There are lots of reasons to have battleships. Check out the thread. There is a lot of information in there.

[drdoom1337]

I think navydavesof is correct by stating that most hostile nations are within the range of the big guns. Pulling out my atlas I can note that North Korea, "technically" Iraq, Venezuela, Somalia, etc are all coastal countries. Why should the US waste millions of dollars and the 5000 man crews of carriers when a battleship could patrol each of these 4 hostile countries from a distance. Send Missouri to patrol the far east, NJ to the Mediterranean, Wisconsin to the Indian Ocean and Iowa to the Caribbean. 800-1200 man crews with newer 5" mounts make this seem like a no brainer? Carriers like the Kitty Hawk, JFK, and even some of the Forrestals have more miles on them then the battleships, except perhaps NJ.