Another Reactivation theory(!)

[Gun Boat]

Today we were discussing the chances of Iran getting the ability to make or actually attaining an A-Bomb. I believe this could not be tolerated by the western world and something would have to be done. Now I dont see France stepping in (do they have an embassy in Tehran to surrender to??? )so 3 guesses who gets the job.

One of the biggest problems about taking action against Iran will be the corresponding rise in oil prices. But if the Iranians were able to threaten the Hormuz straits enough to close them to tanker traffic the oil price would sky rocket.

To the point, can anybody think of a particular class of ship that could be used to force the strait open and be able to attack coastal targets and also absorb the damage that those coastal installations could inflict? Also react instantly to any theats?

The reasoning behind this theory is that to keep the straits open you would need a round the clock operation. Airstrikes could take care of major threats but I believe the big problem would be hidden artillery installations lobbing shells into the strait. The best way of finding these pieces would be to spot them firing with a UAV but that means the ships patroling could get hit. And I think we all know a class of ship that would just love to attract some artillery fire! (And then of course give it back X 10)

Just a theory, be nice...

[StevoJH]

An aircraft carrier, it can even do it from outside enemy weapons range.

[TopHatter]

To the point, can anybody think of a particular class of ship that could be used to force the strait open and be able to attack coastal targets and also absorb the damage that those coastal installations could inflict? Also react instantly to any theats?

I'd rather not send a battleship into such restricted waters. Not a good idea...especially with the sub threat. And any USN submarines in the area need to be free to operate on their own, not be tied to defending a high-value asset.

[Rumrunner]

One of the biggest problems about taking action against Iran will be the corresponding rise in oil prices. But if the Iranians were able to threaten the Hormuz straits enough to close them to tanker traffic the oil price would sky rocket.

They tried that once in the Iran-Iraq War and were doing a very good job of sinking, damaging and harrassing unescorted merchant shipping (particularly Kuwait's merch fleet) to the point that the US got involved at the behest of the Kuwaiti's.

The presence of a organized and capable surface fleet pretty much stopped Iran's capability to interdict shipping in the Strait, and a solid portion of Irans offensive naval fleet was either sunk or damaged during Preying Mantis. Though Battleships were operational at the time, they werent present for the action in April '88.

Aside from their subs and frigates, Iran has very little naval capability against a 1st class naval force. Their power is in their AShM batteries, particularly mobile launchers,. and an aloft combat air patrol with guided munitions would be more likely to spot and kill a shoot-n-scoot weapons system over a Battleship which would have to close to less than 30 miles from target to conduct a fire mission onto shore targets.

[Spence580]

Considering that both the Navy and the Marines stated that they see no further use for battleships in future conflicts, I doubt that they would request reactivation.
None of BB's are on the NVR so, somebody would have a red face if they requested them.
Add that the Navy's report to the GAO stated in would take about two years to get one of them back to the 1980's level of operation, finding crewmen that know how to operate the ships, new gun powder, the spare guns have been sold or donated.
The IOWA is the ship "available" and there would be scores of voices bringing up the Turret 2 accident and the age of the ship.

[Michigan_Guy]

I severely doubt we'll ever see a return of the BB's, but the same thing was said before they came back in the 80's, about 20 years after the New Jersey was put away for the last time. They figured out how to run the ships in the 80's and make powder, they re-bricked and re-piped the boilers and fixed whatever else needed to be done. If they wanted to they could do it again. The age of the ships really doesn't have as much to do with it as people think. These ships have been very well preserved and are probably in better mechanical condition then a lot of ships at sea today around the world. We could reduce the crew size more as has been discussed before and there's noting on these ships that we couldn't make if we wanted to.

Thing is, today we don't need a battleship. It would cost too much to bring one up to modern specs, it wouldn't be all that useful considering it's limited primary weapon range, and could you imagine one of these being attacked? They're not invulnerable. One modern torpedo could put an Iowa on the bottom. Same goes for any ship but the Iowa's are our last battleships, wouldn't you rather see them as a museum for generations to enjoy instead of sitting on the bottom of the sea?

The only time I could see an Iowa coming back is if we had one hell of a major war and needed every resource we have, basically a non nuclear world war 3. If it was a nuclear war it wouldn't really matter...

[Dreadnought]

The IOWA is the ship "available" and there would be scores of voices bringing up the Turret 2 accident and the age of the ship.

*All are available if the USN decides so. They do still ultimately own the ships but they are cared for by private foundations.

*Turret 2's accident was exactly that. An accident. There was a restriction placed on the 16 inch guns immediately until the investigation concluded. There was nothing found wrong with the gun proper mechanically in that sense both the USN and Dalgren checked. And after the investigation they returned to live fire exercises and serving the opening of the Gulf War as well until retirement in 1992. Some 3 years after the accident of April 1989. The age of the ship matters nought, the wear on the hull and machinery matter the most. You had WWII cruisers serving well beyond their projected life span some 25-30 years of constant service without being decommed once and the carriers havent served that long (the nukes) but are getting up there in age. Its all in the construction, the wear factor and how they are cared for that determines a ships service value. Hence the BB's being somewhat low mileage ships saw 3-4 commisionings/decommisionings over 65 years to date.;)

[Spence580]

I agree and concur with everything you stated.
In this day and age, facts are less important than perceptions are.
If you recall some of the news reports after the accident, the so called "experts" were damning the Iowa because of her age. Some in the Navy were also against the ships. I recall watching an interview with a carrier captain during the Gulf War who said on TV, "those old ships do nothing and need to be retired". The "accident" hurt the perception of the Iowas, more so the IOWA herself. My point was that IF the IOWA was the only ship available for reactivation, there would be much vocal resistance and the "accident" would be brought up by the media time and time again. Authors who wrote books on the Iowa accident would be all over the TV doing interviews.

[Dreadnought]

I agree and concur with everything you stated.
In this day and age, facts are less important than perceptions are.
If you recall some of the news reports after the accident, the so called "experts" were damning the Iowa because of her age. Some in the Navy were also against the ships. I recall watching an interview with a carrier captain during the Gulf War who said on TV, "those old ships do nothing and need to be retired". The "accident" hurt the perception of the Iowas, more so the IOWA herself. My point was that IF the IOWA was the only ship available for reactivation, there would be much vocal resistance and the "accident" would be brought up by the media time and time again. Authors who wrote books on the Iowa accident would be all over the TV doing interviews.

*Sure they could use that excuse but the USN is much smarter then that, they would go with either Whiskey or Mo before Iowa even know she holds that place on the list. Both having been slightly more modernized then Iowa before they retired. Iowas machinery is all there so to speak, they would however require more yard time to do an extensive makeover inside the gun room proper in Turret #2. Her mechanicals as far as train and elevation are unharmed along with alot of other vital equipment and they have repaired the other equipment but not placed it if not mistaken. Rusty could answer this.

[Spence580]

I don't know how smart the Navy is, they named another ship USS Missouri, I think it's a sub. I don't like that and I don't like there is another North Carolina. I read there is another USS Iowa on the way. Don't we have enough states or destroyed ships that the Navy could use their names instead of using existing vessel names? Why on earth would they name another vessel USS Missouri???

[Dreadnought]

They are plenty smart enough. They dont forsee the Iowas returning to service so the state names that were issued to the battleships have been given to the subs some time ago. You have a few ships that were named in two classes of ship as well.

[Spence580]

I just think there are several iconic Naval vessels whose name should be "left alone". I cannot find another vessel named USS Arizona, I doubt I ever will.
As Arizona signifies the beginning of WW2, Missouri signifies the end of WW2.
When people speak of the USS Missouri, chances are they are not referring to the submarine. I hope they leave the USS New Jersey name on the ship it's on now. That's the most decorated BB in the Navy.

[Gun Boat]

So there would not be a need for close escort of oil carriers through the straits?

I would have thought that the main threat would be coming from hidden artillery but I spose they could be detected and destroyed by aircraft.

What about speed boats and RPG's?

The reason I believe the BBs would be of good use is that the Straits would have to remain open no matter what. Otherwise western economies go down the toilet. BBs (two would do) could maintain close escort and 24/7 on station patrol.

Are there any other navy vessels suitable for this role? That could maybe cop a few RPG rounds, artillery shells and maybe mine hits and keep operational?

I know the carriers would work but they would be the number one target for the Iranians. It would be difficult maintaining a round the clock vigil with just aircraft.