Fate of the USS Iowa discussion

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

16" shells have a higher fragmentation radius....So I'm guessing the 76 tons of HE would be the better choice for something...like that.

Frag radius doesn't matter against the target mentioned. Bunkers

[Dreadnought]

To me IMO both have their pro's and cons. However the 2 biggest cons with the battleships are:

1) Manning. You would have to reduce the crew manpower for them to even consider the idea. They are significantly lower then wwII era. But further reduction would be required say from 900 down to say 600 just a theory but they would need modernization to even do this.

2) Refit. If they were to be recalled by the Navy they need refit/modernization and time to shakedown/training but this can also be accomplished at shakedown couple that with a good period of gunnery practice. But certainly modernize them as far as weaponry, radar, FCR etc.

They have to close the range before firing. Unless ofcoarse missle equipted or scramjet then it would be alot better. While there they are a big target. But can also defend themselves as well as absorb major damage. But ofcoarse a target for a torp strike among other things. But one bonus is those guns sitting off your countries coast causes major caos especially wherever those shells are landing.

The DDG's bye far outrange the Iowas current gunnery range. And ofcoarse they are modern warships with advanced radar among other things as compared to the Iowas. They dont need many crew because of the modernization they already have. Ageis among other equipment has alot of perks. But IMO they could never survive a direct hit that the Iowas would shrug off and remain on station continuing the mission. They would be forced to disengauge for repairs or substitution of another DDG.

If/when they are finally retired I have no problem with it just do not scrap them or use them for political gains. Keep them for another day when they may be needed or museum is good also. You just never know if they ever be needed again if all else fails. Thats why Congress always made the Navy keep two available in cat "b" status since WWII even know we still have 8 (Actually 7 they would overlook USS Texas) in total. They have always had a strong following in congress so they wanted the military (all services concerned) to tell them (congress) when they are ready for retirement and what the military will replace them with, how much and when.

And apparently they have done that and ordered the DDX. Do I think its an excellent direct replacement for the battleships? No. DDX will be an awesome ship no doubt but we are talking apples/oranges not apples/apples. The battleships are irreplaceable in their role. DDX will have multiple capabilities.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

But further reduction would be required say from 900 down to say 600 just a theory but they would need modernization to even do this.

When reactivated during the 1980s, the Iowas had a crew of 1,500+ (with only 50% crews for the remaining 5-inch mounts).

Even with significant modernization (C4I, sensors, self-defense, secondary artillery), it would remain impossible to operate the Iowas with less than 1,350 men without compromising on safety and/or ship's capabilities.

[Dreadnought]

Given the fact that WWII era they carried far more crew then that its not unconcievable to further reduce the crew need through modernization. It would strongly depend on its refit and how thorough and modern it is.

They carried 1525 (Iowa) during the 80's but havent seen anything on this claim below.

When reactivated during the 1980s, the Iowas had a crew of 1,500+ (with only 50% crews for the remaining 5-inch mounts).

I have never read or saw that claim anywhere. Please do post a link.

[Dreadnought]

When reactivated during the 1980s, the Iowas had a crew of 1,500+ (with only 50% crews for the remaining 5-inch mounts).

You have to keep in mind that the Iowa's had 2 sets of the dual 5"/38 guns removed from each side of the ships during the eighties refits.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

The statement "In accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996"
means that at the time the statement, they supported keeping them in Cat B status. Not that they want to bring them onto active service..

I disagree, and i'll tell you why.

Had the USMC merely supported the status quo(ie cat B), the USMC would've said, "We support MAINTIANING the BBs in accordance with, etc, etc".

However, they said "Reactivation", as the NDA96 allows for them to be recalled to active duty should the need arise.

The operative word in the sentence is reactivate.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

When reactivated during the 1980s, the Iowas had a crew of 1,500+ (with only 50% crews for the remaining 5-inch mounts).

Even with significant modernization (C4I, sensors, self-defense, secondary artillery), it would remain impossible to operate the Iowas with less than 1,350 men without compromising on safety and/or ship's capabilities.

The simple elimination of the 5" mounts would drop the crew below that level.

[Defcon 6]

The AK-130U 130mm gun system on the Kirov's is larger than a 5" and is fully automated. How about keep the 5" turrets and still reduce the crew to 0 per turret.

[Anon]

That could be accomplished by switching to the latest Mk45 5"/62 gun mounts. They're fully automated as far as i know.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

That could be accomplished by switching to the latest Mk45 5"/62 gun mounts. They're fully automated as far as i know.

I think they still require the 7-11 man manning level as the mk 45 5"/54s. Normal peacetime manning level 3. This number include personnel in the magazines, (bullet passers)

info from here:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/...nno/INFO1.html

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

They carried 1525 (Iowa) during the 80's but havent seen anything on this claim below.

When reactivated during the 1980s, the Iowas had a crew of 1,500+ (with only 50% crews for the remaining 5-inch mounts).

I have never read or saw that claim anywhere. Please do post a link.

Anyone who's had some kind of familiarity with the Iowas during the 1980s and/or studied their operations during this period knows about their manning problems, which were both qualitative AND quantitative.

Quantitative problems were recently mentioned on another board by Kenneth W. Estes, LtCol USMC (Ret) :

As the Head, Amphib Requirements Section, Operations Dept, Headquarters Marine Corps in 1988-89, I was responsible for drafting the annual statement of the commandant of the Marine Corps to the CNO on how far USN NSFS capabilities remained shy of the USMC requirements....

(snip)

The WAS operations remained separate in USN programming and doctrine from PhibOps and the USMC was concerned that the limited refurbishment of the Iowas chiefly consisted of recommissioning them with limited crews [e.g., only 50% crews for the 5-inch, to be manned only on one engaged side], outfitting them with as many Tomahawk launchers as possible and a limited comm suite.

see post #1079 here : http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php...=10682&st=1060

This situation is pretty obvious when looking at ships' logs and cruise books for any of the Iowas during the 1980s-early 1990s, which may be obtained from either the NHC or NARA (though I suspect these documents may not be cleared for PD yet).

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Given the fact that WWII era they carried far more crew then that its not unconcievable to further reduce the crew need through modernization. It would strongly depend on its refit and how thorough and modern it is.

So now that there is some kind of consensus on a crew of 1,500+ during the 1980-90s (versus 900 as originally suggested), let's err on the wild side and assume it makes sense to reactivate some of the Iowas.

What would you suggest to refit/upgrade the Iowas, how much would that cost, and what crew do you end up with ?

I am very curious to see how you are going to come up with a crew of less 1,350 men without compromising on safety and/or ship's capabilities.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The simple elimination of the 5" mounts would drop the crew below that level.

NOT AT ALL.

1. Per OPNAVINST 5750.12C, the USS Missouri (BB-63) had the following assigned personnel when recommissioned : 1,514 enlisted, 72 officers, 49 marines. If we leave aside the MarDet, this means a crew of 1,586.

2. Each 5"/38 Mark 28 Mod 2 mount required about 27 crewmen in the mount itself and in the upper handling room (plus another 6 men at least in the lower handling room under some circumstances). That's a maximum of 33 men per mount.

3. As mentioned previously, the Iowas had only 50% crew for their 5"/38 mounts (6 in total) when reactivated in the 1980s. Assuming 33 men mount, this means 99 men in total.

4. The proposed elimination of the 5" mounts would bring the crew down to 1,487 (= 1,586 - 99), which is 137 (i.e. about 10%) more than the 1,350 mentioned earlier.


Not to mention that the MarDet DID contribute to the 50% manning of the 5"/38 mounts during the 1980s.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

The AK-130U 130mm gun system on the Kirov's is larger than a 5" and is fully automated.

1. There is NO SUCH thing as an AK-130U gun system.

2. Assuming the AK-130-MR-184 Artillery System (comprising the AK-130 Gun Mount and the MR-184 Fire Control Radar System) is what is being improperly referred to as *AK-130U*, it has a crew of 6-10 at GQ (plus presumably another 4-6 ammunition passers for sustained operations).

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

How about keep the 5" turrets and still reduce the crew to 0 per turret.

1. I am very curious to see how you intend to reduce the crew to 0 per mount on the existing 5"/38 Mark 28 Mod 2, if that's what you mean by *keeping the 5" turrets*.

2. Alternatively, if *keeping the 5" turrets* somehow means replacing the existing 5"/38 Mark 28 Mod 2 mounts, be informed that there is NO SUCH thing as a 5" gun mount with a crew of 0 currently in service.

[Dreadnought]

Anyone who's had some kind of familiarity with the Iowas during the 1980s and/or studied their operations during this period knows about their manning problems, which were both qualitative AND quantitative.

*Hows about 20 some years of looking at them and walking on them here in Philly Naval Yard while in storage (3 of them). Toured two of them numerous times after homeport donation and I also have two friends that sailed on New Jersey in the eighties. Couple that with numerous books and the fact my father sailed on Iowa in 1944. Hows that for familiarality jackass?

So as far as my experience goes with them I dont believe that you have any room to comment unless ofcoarse you know first hand and sailed on one or worked on one which I doubt.

Tell me what qualifications do you bring besides whats written in your books and posted on Tank Net a net forum that anybody can post on?

Outside of reading web based articles and reports:

How many times have you toured on one?

How many times have you even seen one outside of pictures?

Have you or your family or friends sailed on them?

Know anybody that contributed to their building?

If the answer is no then dont comment.

Even with significant modernization (C4I, sensors, self-defense, secondary artillery), it would remain impossible to operate the Iowas with less than 1,350 men without compromising on safety and/or ship's capabilities.

*Capabilities to do exactly what? You dispute it lets see you answer it. Dont give me a link to another forum answer the question from your vast amount of experience please.

*Compromising exaxtly what in ships safety? You dispute it lets see the proof.
Again I wish to hear from your vast amount of experience here and not another link to a web forum.

So you are saying this is impossible to do with a 900 man crew which I offered in theory as stated above would still lessen the present number on board?

*New Jersey (BB62) commissioned 1943 crew 1921
(Ships company according to homepage 120 Officers. 3000 Enlisted WWII)

Vietnam deployment 80 officers 1556 Enlisted.(Ships homepage)

The homeport association is sending me her exact crew numbers for her last two deployments.

Its called automation and modernization!
Yes it would take a special team to study all the equiptment that can be updated,automated and modernized but it most certainly can be done. Yes it would cost a signifigant price but very far from impossible.

P.S. I wouldnt use Tank Net as proof because alot of fact stated on that page arent exactly true to fact either.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Hows about 20 some years of looking at them and walking on them here in Philly Naval Yard while in storage (3 of them). Toured two of them numerous times after homeport donation and I also have two friends that sailed on New Jersey in the eighties. Couple that with numerous books and the fact my father sailed on Iowa in 1944. Hows that for familiarality jackass?

No offence intended, but looking at BBs, walking on them or touring them as museums is next to zero familiarity wrt to the manning problems, both QUALITATIVE and QUANTITATIVE, the Iowas were confronted with when they were last reactivated.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

P.S. I wouldnt use Tank Net as proof because alot of fact stated on that page arent exactly true to fact either.

You asked for a link, and I pointed out a specific post, i.e. #1079, in a thread.

If you have never heard about LtCol Estes before, I suggest you go on amazon and look at the books he has authored as a starting point.

If you have any reason to suspect that the guy posting under his name on Tanknet is an usurpator, I invite you to contact the moderators on this forum to let them know.

Otherwise, if you have no such suspicion and know about Estes' bio, I recommend you read the specific post I indicated, and listen to what those who HAVE BEEN THERE DONE THAT have to say.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

So you are saying this is impossible to do with a 900 man crew which I offered in theory as stated above would still lessen the present number on board?

Its called automation and modernization! Yes it would take a special team to study all the equiptment that can be updated,automated and modernized but it most certainly can be done. Yes it would cost a signifigant price but very far from impossible.

This seems to be a common attitude for most reactivation supporters to make such GROSS OVERSTATEMENTS without bothering to document any of these allegations and then ask their detractors to prove them wrong whenever challenged.

Nevertheless, YOU are the one who first came up with a GROSS OVERSTATEMENT on how much crew reduction could be achieved by means of automation and modernization, so the burden of the proof is on YOU.

From there, you can EITHER act as an adult and start to offer the beginning of an explanation on the kind of upgrades you would implement to reduce the crew of an Iowa to below 1,350 OR continue chant slogans on automation and modernization.

Should you choose the latter, just don't expect others to prove you wrong if you lack the maturity to explain what makes you feel you could be right in the first place.