Was Reactivating the Iowas in the 80s a Good Idea?

[eocoolj]

Throwing a new topic out for discussion...

So, if reactivating the Iowas now is a bad idea, why was it a good idea in the 80s? Were they worth the very large refit, maintenance, and manpower costs? Should the money have been spent on keeping old carriers in the fleet, developing a new surface combatant, etc? If reactivating the Iowas was in fact a good idea, what has changed since then that it is now a bad idea? Or is it a good idea even now?

[Michigan_Guy]

Bringing this topic back up eh? Always a good debate.

I'm on the fence about the whole thing. The whole recommissioning then decommissioning thing is stupid. Either keep them in service and continue developing their technology to make them more useful or take them out of service. We spent a good amount on money and resources to bring them back in the 80's, they should have kept them in service longer and made it worth while. Today they could be shelling Somalia, take that pirates! lol

[eocoolj]

was there a thread about this before? i've read through most of the the BB threads (though its been awhile). Dont want to bring up a topic thats been rehashed too many times.

[Ytlas]

Fewer Naval shipyards these days, fewer BT's and conventional steam powered ships today.

On the plus side, back in the 80's a lot of Production shops were working 7 days a week. Lot of money was made to buy new cars and houses.

[Dreadnought]

Fewer Naval shipyards these days, fewer BT's and conventional steam powered ships today.

On the plus side, back in the 80's a lot of Production shops were working 7 days a week. Lot of money was made to buy new cars and houses.

And alot of yardbirds too, Movers and shakers.

And a brief look of days past.

[Ytlas]

Used to see a lot of new ships fresh from Ingalls Shipyard, Litton industries and the quality of work was poor. Ingalls did the Iowa and a number of things went wrong on their first sea trial. Somewhere on the Iowa, there's a main feed pump with "BB 63" stamped on the frame. It was overhauled and ready to go back on the Misery and diverted to Ingalls.

[Stitch]

I agree with Michigan_Guy, either fish or cut bait; we spent a ton of money recommisioning them, and then a decade later shut them down. What a waste of money! Yeah, they're not cheap to operate or maintain, but neither is building a bunch of brand-new DDG's and maintaining them; if you are going to spend a ton of money refurbishing them, you'd might as well maintain them as long as possible.

[lundgrenr]

I think the idea to bring them back in the 80s was a very good idea. I also feel that when they were deccomissioned that the Navy did itself a huge disservice and has wasted funds for the past 16 years in developing a new ship that they no longer want. Since they were within two to three years of developing extended range shells that would meet or exceed the Marine requirements and this would have been affordable the reasons they were deccommisioned are not credible.

Overall operating cost were not as expensive as carriers and one reason they were reccommisioned was to relieve carrier patrols. Manpower is not as excessive as a carrier and everyone knew the size of the crew before they were recommisioned would be around 15-1700 men. Their maintenance requirements were also not excessive compared to other ships within the Navy.

I believe they lost what political support they had after the Iowa accident within the Navy and within Congress and this was the sole reason they were deccomissioned and why the Navy attempted to destroy gun barrels and other equipment that would be required if the ships ever returned to service. Congress had allocated funding to repair Iowa's turret which was never carried out along with modifications to be able to operate the longer range shells. Now the Navy wishes a 23,000 ton ship and when it is fully loaded will be around 30,000 tons but they will not consider a cheap alternative by using large caliber guns to meet the Marine requirements and in my opinion have abandoned the Marines.

The funding on DDX which was justified in part as a newer more capable platform that would remove the need for an Iowa in a support mission has been cut and has been a complete waste of taxpayer money. At least the Battleships were used and fired their guns in anger every time they were in service which made them far more useful then subs which really can only fight in a Total War situation and this is highly unlikely today.

[Johnny W]

It was the right move to bring them back in the early 80's and the right move to take them out of commission in the early 90's. With the receding threat from the Soviet Union, the cost just wasn't justified.

[Steezy]

Just wait abit and you'll be seeing them behemoths rising again, railgun style

Maybe.


Hopefully.

Probably not though.

[Michigan_Guy]

I don't think the Iowa's are coming back into service ever again, but the future isn't guaranteed.

[BBwarrior]

Bringing this topic back up eh? Always a good debate.

I'm on the fence about the whole thing. The whole recommissioning then decommissioning thing is stupid. Either keep them in service and continue developing their technology to make them more useful or take them out of service. We spent a good amount on money and resources to bring them back in the 80's, they should have kept them in service longer and made it worth while. Today they could be shelling Somalia, take that pirates! lol

That's right! Though I suspect the collateral damage might be a bit high!

[Maxor]

In the 80s it made sense, when they were deactivated again in the 90's it was very rapidly approaching time for another refit. I think that the cost benefits of another refit on top of comparitvely high manpower and operating costs just weren't deemed worth it without the soviet threat.

I'd be nice to have something with alot of the capabilities of a battleship but really the 60+ year old tech for alot of systems eats manpower and has alot of wear on it. It probably wouldn't cost as much to work on a new battlecruiser system as it would to modernize and refit the old ones.

[Dreadnought]

Ah, but 1500 crew to man a BB is a far throw from putting 6000 on a CVN. When one compares the two the argument for 1500 men with older technology against 5000-6000 men with the newest technology really isint an argument at all. Breaking down one CVN could almost man four of the BB's. Its an argument politically wise over everything else but the facts as was in the 80's. And politics was made happy by the thought of the ships docking in certain places and bringing money to certain local economies. This politics was satisfied and the arguments fell silent. All about the dollar not about facts and politics being such as it is always wins out right or wrong.

[Maxor]

Dread a carrier has a far greater crew than a battleship true, but a carrier also has far greater abilities. Early to mid 80's you also have the US trying to outspend teh USSR into obilvion, in the 90's you have congress screaming for spending cuts because the great red menace is now gone.

So you've got a totally different political enviroment, as well as money issues, and a somewhat limited mission profile. All of this contributed to the end of the Iowas.