What if Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

[HvyCgn9]

R there any estimates of what a "new build Iowa class" (or even a Montana class) would cost ??
Although refitting an existing BB would still be cheaper.
I would use the same reactor/ steam turbine setup as a CVN that would be one fast BB !!

Cheers Bruce

[navydavesof]

R there any estimates of what a "new build Iowa class" (or even a Montana class) would cost ??
Although refitting an existing BB would still be cheaper.
I would use the same reactor/ steam turbine setup as a CVN that would be one fast BB !!

Cheers Bruce

I would spculate the first in a new class of nuclear battleship such as Montana would be nearly the cost of a carrier. Retooling the steel industry to produce battleship strength armor (large volumes and thickness of HY80, HY100, and HY110) and new barrels would be two of the only problems. Everything else is just building a ship. I don't think nuclear power would be a good idea though. Nuclear carriers always cost so much more over their lives than conventional carriers. The same would be true with a battleship, however maybe the endurance you only get with a steam driven system, boiler or nuclear, is the right way to go. If it were conventional, Bath Iron Works would have to build it. Quality is key.

But then again that's only my opinion.

[drdoom1337]

I'd be totally satisfied with the navy building NEW battleships, as long as one of them is named New Jersey. Personally, I'd prefer them to be built in Philly, but that's no longer a possibility!

Also, it appears that those who are against battleship reactivation just bash the current weaponry and computer systems on board the ships. It doesn't seem that these individuals are taking into account that if any of the Iowas were reactivated they would receive a full overhaul and modernization. I have been on board NJ several times, I see no problem with the berthing, but then again, I'm not claustrophobic or anything of that nature. Warships aren't meant to be luxury liners, if men in the 1940's could live on an Iowa in the heat of the South Pacific for months at a time, then I think modern sailors should be able to do the same. Over the last 70 years did people just magically need more amenities to fight a war?

[navydavesof]

Also, it appears that those who are against battleship reactivation just bash the current weaponry and computer systems on board the ships. It doesn't seem that these individuals are taking into account that if any of the Iowas were reactivated they would receive a full overhaul and modernization.

You're right, and that, one of the most basic of points, people don't understand. If they can't get past the first point, they can't go any further in the concept. There are a lot of arm-chair admirals who cannot understand anything unless it can be maped out with metrics or a mathamatical equasion. In the real Navy, the one I live in, these are impractical and dangerous people. When I call for NSFS from a DDG and I get a negative response, because they don't know how to read a grid map, or because I am too far inland for a 5" round to fire, it gets real very fast. When I cannot get fire from an AC-130 or an F/A-18 fighter, because the airspace is too hot, but I am within 8" or 16" range of the coast...and there is not a ship with those guns on station...it gets real again, and I have to fight my way out...with an M-4.

So, you're right. These guys don't get it. From the looks of it, because they are not thinking (and possibly cannot think) dynamically they cannot understand.

I have been on board NJ several times, I see no problem with the berthing

You are right. The berthing on board the Iowas is "up to standards". It is the exact same as 280 other ships currently in the US Navy.

Over the last 70 years did people just magically need more amenities to fight a war?

No, but the Navy is fully of sissies.

[Russ2146]

Whatever happened to canvas laced to pipe rail? I'll bet they don't even 'hot rack' any more!

Gunfire support? We don't need that anymore, the State Department will take care of everything. Besides, we'll always have air supremacy, maybe not where you are but somewhere. They'll be UAVs piloted from some airbase in CONUS.

[navydavesof]

Whatever happened to canvas laced to pipe rail? I'll bet they don't even 'hot rack' any more!

Gunfire support? We don't need that anymore, the State Department will take care of everything. Besides, we'll always have air supremacy, maybe not where you are but somewhere. They'll be UAVs piloted from some airbase in CONUS.

I am sorry, Russ, but, no. We do not air supremacy everywhere. Gunfire Support is possibly the most important important gap the USN is not filling. The Navy needs to understand that it cannot afford to focus on itself anymore. The Navy is critical to supporting troops on the ground. It's also the cheapest gap to fill. Anti-mine and ASW (the two other capability gaps the Navy has created) requires whole new ships to be built. NSFS is simply an equipment replacement and/or ship reactivation. Easy, cheap, and effective.

...the State Department will take care of everything.

Plese explain this. The only tactical influence STATE has is Blackwater, and those poor guys have been raped by news organizations, so they are not effective anymore. If you are talking about coordination with host-nation, you need to understand that the coordnation between a big slug like the State Department and the military is nearly non-existant. We have to do anything ourselves. NSFS is an integral part of support.

...we'll always have air supremacy, maybe not where you are but somewhere.

Please explain this. It seems you contradicted yourself within a single sentance. We do not have air supremacy everywhere. Somalia, Yemen, and Syria are only three examples of place where we might be active where we cannot send support aircraft. I have not tooted my own horn in the year I have been on this forum, but I am a meat-eater. I am a tactical guy...not a console watcher or paint layer. What I have learned is that the issue is that we need to have support 100% of the time. TACAIR is good, but in times where response is time-critical (most of the time) or where TACAIR cannot reach you, NSFS is critical. A "critical need" means you need to fill it immediately. NSFS is so easy and cheap to fix there is no reason not to. The tactical situation does not just suggest but dictates that we have overwhenming NSFS. Ordering a single type of gun mount, the Mk71 Mod2, or reactivating ships, battleships, will correct this error for surprisingly little cost and extreme benefit

Just so you know.

EDIT: Yep, total retard here. I mis-read Russ's comments :'-( I promptly and forcefully yanked the foot from my mouth.

[carr]

Dave,

I could be wrong, here, but I think that Russ was being sarcastic. At least, that's how I read it.

Bob

[Timmy C]

navydave, read Russ's post with sarcasm attached

Also, are the Iowas' berths and quarters equipped for female occupation?

[Russ2146]

Thank you Bob and Timmy

Dave!!!, I'm agreeing with you on my backhalfasswards way!!!!

[navydavesof]

Thank you Bob and Timmy

Dave!!!, I'm agreeing with you on my backhalfasswards way!!!!

navydave, read Russ's post with sarcasm attached

My apologies, gents! I did not hear your sarcasm in your voice. Damn these text posts!!! The wonderful emotion-less internet!!

[drdoom1337]

navydave, read Russ's post with sarcasm attached

Also, are the Iowas' berths and quarters equipped for female occupation?

I could be wrong Timmy, but during my tour on the NJ, the docent stated that there were females on board the ship in the 1980's. It was slightly refitted in order to accomodate them. There were seperate bathrooms, etc. I don't know if the other Iowas received the same update.

[proditor]

navydave, read Russ's post with sarcasm attached

Also, are the Iowas' berths and quarters equipped for female occupation?

I could be wrong Timmy, but during my tour on the NJ, the docent stated that there were females on board the ship in the 1980's. It was slightly refitted in order to accomodate them. There were seperate bathrooms, etc. I don't know if the other Iowas received the same update.

Wisconsin has a plaque near the porthole for the women's quarters, but it also said none were ever actively on the ship.

[navydavesof]

I could be wrong Timmy, but during my tour on the NJ, the docent stated that there were females on board the ship in the 1980's...Wisconsin has a plaque near the porthole for the women's quarters, but it also said none were ever actively on the ship.

Wisconsin set some birthing to the side for women only. Reportedly there were no women on an of the Iowas' crews. I know there were issues with sneaking women on New Jersey with sex in exchange for travel...not a bad deal. But the sailors were punished, and I think she was fed to the sharks. You know, no big deal.

[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".

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.

The NVA wanted NJ off the line beacuse 5 twin 5"/38 turrets can make it rain HC on the NVA while they are attacking the USMC near the DMZ. I'll look it up but there was a battle where the NJ slaughtered the NVA in a night battle. The safty radius of the 5" HC shells enabled the NJ to rain on the NVA up to a couple hundred feet on SVA-US positions. NJ sent a lot of NVA to the morgue, or hospital then morgue, or hospital and out of combat permanently.

[Seasick]

R there any estimates of what a "new build Iowa class" (or even a Montana class) would cost ??
Although refitting an existing BB would still be cheaper.
I would use the same reactor/ steam turbine setup as a CVN that would be one fast BB !!

Cheers Bruce

In order to put a nuclear reactor in the Iowa you would need to do very extensive modifications. The conversion of the Iowas boilers from burning Navy Special bunker oil to Navy Distilate in the 1980s gave the Iowas all the boost in thermal recovery it needs. Also the Iowas have sufficient bunkerage for fuel. Switching to gas turbines like the GE LM2500+, or Rolls Royce MT-30 would be far more effective.

[carr]

I don't know about why the NVA wanted NJ off the line but here is some information regarding 16" versus 5" guns that might be of interest. It's from the battleshipnewjersey.org website.

�This brought the total ordnance expended to nearly 12,000,000 pounds... total rounds expended were 5,866 16-Inch, and 14,891 five inch."

GUN DAMAGE ASSESSMENT, (1968 -1969 Combined)
MAIN BATTERY
Structures destroyed - 439
Structures damaged - 259
Bunkers destroyed - 596
Bunkers damaged - 250
Artillery sites neutralized - 19
Automatic weapons, AA, and mortar sites silenced - 35
Secondary explosions - 130
Roads interdicted - 26
Meters of trenchline rendered unusable - 1,925
Cave and tunnel complexes destroyed - 75
Enemy killed in action (confirmed) - 136
Enemy killed in action (probable) - 17
Troop movements stopped - 12

SECONDARY BATTERY
Structures destroyed - 56
Structures damaged - 92
Bunkers destroyed - 59
Bunkers damaged - 73
Artillery sites neutralized - 2
Mortar sites silenced - 6
Waterborne Logistic Craft (WBLC) destroyed (Sea Dragon) - 9
Secondary explosions - 46
Enemy killed in action (confirmed) - 10
Enemy killed in action (probable) - 7

The above excerpts are from (Operational Experience of Fast Battleships; World War II, Korea, Vietnam - pp 196/197, and from the USS NEW JERSEY Command History dated 17 Dec 1969. - Declassified 23 April 1980.

I'm highly skeptical about the absolute accuracy of the claims, however, the trend is quite clear. Despite firing 2.5X more 5" rounds, the 16" guns accounted for several times the effectiveness. Everyone can draw their own conclusions about the potential effectiveness of 16" guns compared to 5".

Regards,
Bob

[LSUfan]

Well, I hate to do this (sort of) but I'm going to stick in the craw of everyone here...

I completely approve of the decommissioning of the Iowa Class Battleships. More than that, I think they ought to remain decommissioned. Indefinitely. I agree with everything everyone here is saying, and that is why I think they should NOT be reactivated.

If there is anything it would be difficult to replace, it's one of these ships. Fact is, we don't have anything like them, and neither does anyone else. Should America find itself in a real war anytime in the next seventy five years, we're going to need these ships. It just doesn't make sense to expend their usefulness in the current military climate. We're not 'at peace', of course, we're at war with the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and all of the other Islamic Terrorists, but this is not a situation that requires the Iowas. As great as these ships are they are ships. They're made out of steel, they rust, they stress, they fall apart like everything else. But if we take care of them then we'll have them when we need them, and not wear them out prematurely.

Why are these ships out of commission?
Because we need them.

The only scenario I can envision in which recommissioning them makes sense is if we do indeed plan to build more Battleships, which I for one do not think is out of the question. I've long envisioned something like say, a water-cooled single barrel automatic turret firing rocket propelled shells over hundreds of miles. Should we have a real naval war in the near future it might emerge from the conflict that any guided weapon, no matter how effective, has an equally effective countermeasure, and the only munition you can't fool is the one that doesn't have any brain. It's possibly a zero sum equation. If that scenario does indeed play out, two things will become abundantly clear; 1. Armor makes sense (and always has) and 2. shells still work. Something like a Battleship might possibly emerge once again, perhaps bearing little or no resemblance to her forebearers, but never the less, an ordnance armed capitol ship.

As a former Marine, I must say, I can see scenarios in the Jihadist war in which these BBs could be very valuable, especially with modern shells with longer ranges and GPS guidance...

[LSUfan]

Also, it appears that those who are against battleship reactivation just bash the current weaponry and computer systems on board the ships. It doesn't seem that these individuals are taking into account that if any of the Iowas were reactivated they would receive a full overhaul and modernization.

You're right, and that, one of the most basic of points, people don't understand. If they can't get past the first point, they can't go any further in the concept. There are a lot of arm-chair admirals who cannot understand anything unless it can be maped out with metrics or a mathamatical equasion. In the real Navy, the one I live in, these are impractical and dangerous people. When I call for NSFS from a DDG and I get a negative response, because they don't know how to read a grid map, or because I am too far inland for a 5" round to fire, it gets real very fast. When I cannot get fire from an AC-130 or an F/A-18 fighter, because the airspace is too hot, but I am within 8" or 16" range of the coast...and there is not a ship with those guns on station...it gets real again, and I have to fight my way out...with an M-4.

So, you're right. These guys don't get it. From the looks of it, because they are not thinking (and possibly cannot think) dynamically they cannot understand.

I have been on board NJ several times, I see no problem with the berthing

You are right. The berthing on board the Iowas is "up to standards". It is the exact same as 280 other ships currently in the US Navy.

Over the last 70 years did people just magically need more amenities to fight a war?

No, but the Navy is fully of sissies.

At about the time the Iowas all went away, there was a concept for a new shell for the 16 in guns using a 1,000lb 11 inch RAP submunition and GPS guidance. It was said to have a range of as far as 110nm. That opens up all sorts of possibilities for shore bombardment and anti-ship missions...

[navydavesof]

At about the time the Iowas all went away, there was a concept for a new shell for the 16 in guns using a 1,000lb 11 inch RAP submunition and GPS guidance. It was said to have a range of as far as 110nm. That opens up all sorts of possibilities for shore bombardment and anti-ship missions...

Take a look at the rest of the thread . I talked about it and a few other new rounds and guidance packages for the old rounds quite a bit. You are right. At minimal cost, the 16" guns would be untouchable as the most formitable weapons in the fleet, and that scares a lot of carrier advocates.

Another cool thing is that all you have to do to run the ships again is spend 6 months teaching people the systems. Easy.

[LSUfan]

At about the time the Iowas all went away, there was a concept for a new shell for the 16 in guns using a 1,000lb 11 inch RAP submunition and GPS guidance. It was said to have a range of as far as 110nm. That opens up all sorts of possibilities for shore bombardment and anti-ship missions...

Take a look at the rest of the thread . I talked about it and a few other new rounds and guidance packages for the old rounds quite a bit. You are right. At minimal cost, the 16" guns would be untouchable as the most formitable weapons in the fleet, and that scares a lot of carrier advocates.

Another cool thing is that all you have to do to run the ships again is spend 6 months teaching people the systems. Easy.

The total neglect of R&D into naval gunnery in the Cold War era, based on the specious assumption that missiles and aircraft could do it all, was a serious mistake and, had the proper R&D been conducted, the BBs and CAs may have had much longer service life. Moreover, new-build surface combatants would look quite different today.