does the Zumwalt being canceled change anyone's opinion on the Iowas?

[eocoolj]

Based on the recent news, announcing that the Zumwalt class will be limited to only two ships, does anyone think this changes things for the Iowa and Wisconsin's chances of being reactivated? Does this change anyone's personal opinions on whether they should be brought back into service or not?

I know there are people here who want to see the Iowas back, whether we got the Zumwalts or not. I am more looking for responses from people who were against, or on the fence, about the Iowa's being recommissioned.

Thanks!

[Shipwreck]

Based on the recent news, announcing that the Zumwalt class will be limited to only two ships, does anyone think this changes things for the Iowa and Wisconsin's chances of being reactivated?

NO.

Does this change anyone's personal opinions on whether they should be brought back into service or not?

NO.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Ditto. Personally, I'm drooling over the idea of a Sinkex for at least one.

Put it on pay per view and the Navy could raise some serious money.

[Dreadnought]

The Zumwalts being canceled came as no big surprise to some. They are removing some programs (such as ERGM's) and moving forward with others such as the rail gin technology. Perhaps they plan to merge the new technology in a newer type/class of DD (Such as the two that will be built). IMO this will have no bearing on the Iowa's nor their current status. But it will be interesting to see what they do with the Ticos atleast.

Heir General, perish the thought!:P

There could be alot of uses for them besides a target.;)

[B.Smitty]

Does this change anyone's personal opinions on whether they should be brought back into service or not?

Heck no.

First, I would like a serious, sober, high-level evaluation of need for NSFS, not just a USMC wish-list for "Iwo Jima 2000". This will drive everything that follows.

Second, if there is still a need for long-ranged, volume fires, I would investigate developing a stabilized MLRS for naval use. (Are MLRS rocket motors excessively corrosive? Can they be handled safely on ships? Can an inexpensive, automated mount be developed?)

If so, i would like to see it packaged in a StanFlex-like container, for use on a littoral warfare vessel like Sea Fighter.

A Sea Fighter could use its spacious mission bay to carry numerous MLRS reloads, and feed them either directly from the bay to mounts from underneath, or move them via the cargo elevator to the deck for more traditional loading.

It could carry a mixture of GMRLS, ATACMS, the in-development P44, or Israeli EXTRA, providing a variety of effects and ranges.

When it runs out, it could return to the Sea Base to reload at 50kts.

When not needed, the StanFlex container positions could carry ESSM, Harpoon or Netfires modules and the Sea Fighter could be used as a large patrol craft.

Third, press on with re-bids for ERM.

Fourth, look at the possibility of a 155mm option for the Mk45 mount that uses EXISTING ordinance, projectiles and charging systems (similar to what the Brits are doing with their 4.5" Mk8 mount). Archer can fire Excalibur out to 60km today, and should be able to fire Sabre close to 70km. That's close to the Marine threshold requirement with no munitions development.

This would produce a mount that could be retrofitted to the 80+ AEGIS warships already in service.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Heir General, perish the thought!:P

There could be alot of uses for them besides a target.;)

But it would be sooo fun. Massive destruction! And it would make for great fishing later!

[gunnut]

Based on the recent news, announcing that the Zumwalt class will be limited to only two ships, does anyone think this changes things for the Iowa and Wisconsin's chances of being reactivated? Does this change anyone's personal opinions on whether they should be brought back into service or not?

I know there are people here who want to see the Iowas back, whether we got the Zumwalts or not. I am more looking for responses from people who were against, or on the fence, about the Iowa's being recommissioned.

Thanks!

No. Bringing the Iowas back for NGFS is like bringing back a formation of 1000 B-17s for strategic bombing. Why?

As magnificent as these 2 weapon systems were, their time has passed. They are not practical any more. Time to move on.

[mbear]

But it would be sooo fun. Massive destruction! And it would make for great fishing later!

Actually nuclear physicists are always looking for steel and other metals that were forged/cast before the atomic bombs were dropped. That pre-Hiroshima steel is very useful in measuring equipment.

So the Navy could break down the ship, parting out the steel to various universities and labs. They'd make a fortune.

[eocoolj]

Actually nuclear physicists are always looking for steel and other metals that were forged/cast before the atomic bombs were dropped. That pre-Hiroshima steel is very useful in measuring equipment.

So the Navy could break down the ship, parting out the steel to various universities and labs. They'd make a fortune.

Is pre-1945 steel really that hard to come by? There have got to be thousands of ships, tanks, planes, etc still in existance from pre-1945, not to mention all the non-military stuff like buildings, cars, etc. Does it have to be in massive pieces in order to be useful to physicists?

[King Six]

Bring back Iowa class battleships, replace the big guns with rail guns of a similar calibre

[Dreadnought]

Actually nuclear physicists are always looking for steel and other metals that were forged/cast before the atomic bombs were dropped. That pre-Hiroshima steel is very useful in measuring equipment.

So the Navy could break down the ship, parting out the steel to various universities and labs. They'd make a fortune.

Negative, The Class A and Class B armor of the ships is virtually irreplaceable, Why? Because of the cost to manufacture and skill in this day and age. IICR There is no such manufacturing above 5" armor these days anywhere. If they were to scrap the ship you could bet the military is not letting that armor go anywhere but to their own needs and uses. Therefore the only ones to benefit are the (1) Military, (2) Historians.

[mbear]

Is pre-1945 steel really that hard to come by? There have got to be thousands of ships, tanks, planes, etc still in existance from pre-1945, not to mention all the non-military stuff like buildings, cars, etc. Does it have to be in massive pieces in order to be useful to physicists?

Given that steel is the most recycled metal in North America, yes, pre-1945 steel is that hard to come by. Much of that steel has been mixed with later steels, raising the radiation levels. And no, it doesn't have to be in massive pieces. But that's the point, even one section of the armor belt would provide enough steel for lots of scientific equipment.

Negative, The Class A and Class B armor of the ships is virtually irreplaceable, Why? Because of the cost to manufacture and skill in this day and age. IICR There is no such manufacturing above 5" armor these days anywhere. If they were to scrap the ship you could bet the military is not letting that armor go anywhere but to their own needs and uses. Therefore the only ones to benefit are the (1) Military, (2) Historians.

That's a good point. The Navy isn't likely to let it out of sight. But with the current emphasis on ECM and EW, I don't know where the armor would be used. Aircraft carrier decks? Take the armor belt from the Iowa and pound it thinner for use on destroyers?

In any event, just sinking the ship rather than trying to recycle some of the material strikes me as just foolish.

[Guest]

Im sure the Iowa class will not return. in Nam we had the New Jersey and I heard it cost a million bucks a day to keep her afloat and running. these old warriors were built for a wartime economy. when Reagan brought them out of mothballs they did many upgrades to modern weapons. but they left the power plants oil and steam. cost ineffective. I was in favor of converting them to nukes. so enjoy them at the museums. they are a sight to see.

[dundonrl]

Im sure the Iowa class will not return. in Nam we had the New Jersey and I heard it cost a million bucks a day to keep her afloat and running. these old warriors were built for a wartime economy. when Reagan brought them out of mothballs they did many upgrades to modern weapons. but they left the power plants oil and steam. cost ineffective. I was in favor of converting them to nukes. so enjoy them at the museums. they are a sight to see.

no way would it cost a million a day for a BB.. an Arleigh Burke costs approx 25 million a year to operate, and 13 million of that is crew costs..

I'd say it would be about 100 million a year for a 1500 man batteship..

[USSWisconsin]

I think the need for this "pre-radiation" Iron may be historical. Some early nuclear weapons designs valued such steel, but those were from the 1940's and 50's, modern weapons (which aren't in production) don't really require this kind of material. The only application for significant amounts that I can think of would be some of the neutrino detectors proposed. And this is "pure" science, without any current applications, and probably no budget for large scale installations. The amount of radiation involved is so minute, that it only becomes important in sensitive instruments. Also we haven't been doing nuclear testing for many years and much of this radiation has decayed to background levels. Do you have any current infomation on this need?