recomissioning Iowa class BB's

[dundonrl]

Watching Mr. Trump's speech on board the Iowa, about 9:30 into it, he mentioned a possible recomissioning of the Iowa. My question is, especially for the Missouri, (and in the future the New Jersey and Iowa) there are already nuclear powered submarines with the name USS Missouri SSN 780, PRECOM New Jersey SSN 796 and PRECOM Iowa SSN 797.. WHICH would be renamed if they were to recomission the battlewagons (and of course modernize them, especially with the VLS that Rusty mentioned the plans are already drawn up for)

[Michigan_Guy]

I think we'd have two ships named Missouri, luckily they have different hull numbers. I don't think there's any possibility at all of any battleship ever being recommissioned, even if the president wanted it. I know the ships themselves are technically able to be recommissioned, but we'd have to automate so many systems to replace manpower that I think building a new ship would be easier and cheaper (well that's all I've been told, but the Zumwalt proves otherwise). I'd love to see one in service again but at the same time I'd hate to see one in a war and possibly get sent to the bottom. At least as a museum they're floating.

[bonehead]

If the hull and propulsion system is still sound, you could gut one out and turn it into a cruise missile launch platform with a whole new superstructure. It would be a shame though as they are beautiful ships as is.

[blidgepump]

Trump as a POTUS .......

Such rhetoric stirs the blood of those whose fever for gunboat diplomacy echoes in the hollows of the night....
Mr. Trump's passion filled oration is such a display of rallying the minds who have limited understanding of succeeding if such a task was assigned!

[citanon]

I'm sure Trump wouldn't mind renaming it the USS Donald Trump. Traditionally they are named after states true, but Trump has ego equal to the aggregate of all other egos in any single state in the union so it's not such a mismatch.

As for uses, I see a big beautiful floating power plant, and lots and lots of rail guns and lasers for fleet air defense.

[96Daksport]

I dont ever post on here, but I think I can actually answer this one. Turn of the century had cruisers with state names, and when the then new BBs were starting to come into commision, they were renamed after cities within the states. So you could potentially rename the Iowa to "Des Moines" or something similar.

Although I also read somewhere that when the USS midway was commisioned they had to rename one of the CVEs, and the sailors always thought that was bad luck, and the ship was eventually sunk.

[surfgun]

Just look what happened to USS Tennessee, when she was renamed Memphis!

http://www.drgeorgepc.com/LossUSSMemphis.html

[TopHatter]

Watching Mr. Trump's speech on board the Iowa, about 9:30 into it, he mentioned a possible recomissioning of the Iowa. My question is, especially for the Missouri, (and in the future the New Jersey and Iowa) there are already nuclear powered submarines with the name USS Missouri SSN 780, PRECOM New Jersey SSN 796 and PRECOM Iowa SSN 797.. WHICH would be renamed if they were to recomission the battlewagons (and of course modernize them, especially with the VLS that Rusty mentioned the plans are already drawn up for)

I would imagine the battleship, being the senior ship, would retain the name.

[Stitch]

If the hull and propulsion system is still sound, you could gut one out and turn it into a cruise missile launch platform with a whole new superstructure. It would be a shame though as they are beautiful ships as is.

That was actually one of the reactivation proposals floated back in the '80's when the BB's were reactivated for the third (and last) time; the number three turret was to be removed, and replaced with multiple VLS's. This would have been prohibitively expensive and time-consuming, since Reagan wanted the BB's reactivated as soon as possible so, instead, a scaled-back upgrade was undertaken involving adding armored box launchers for Tomahawk TLAM's, Mk. 141 quad launchers for Harpoons, and Phalanx CIWS's.

P.S. This guy has gone to a LOT of trouble coming up with modifications/upgrades to the Iowa-class BB's: Iowa Redesign

[JRT]

... I know the ships themselves are technically able to be recommissioned, but we'd have to automate so many systems to replace manpower that I think building a new ship would be easier and cheaper...

Regardless other considerations, large crew is needed for damage control on a large ship, perhaps most especially on a battleship.

[JRT]

If the hull and propulsion system is still sound, you could gut one out and turn it into a cruise missile launch platform with a whole new superstructure. It would be a shame though as they are beautiful ships as is.

Not sure how much margin in displacement is available on an Iowa, but I would think that Mk 56 and Mk 57 peripheral VLS could be used, mounted into faired sponson bumpouts outside of the current hull, increasing beam beyond the old Panamax limits above the waterline. And depending on where the Mk 57 is located, perhaps that might be lightened by removing the armor included in the Mk 57 VLS.

[TopHatter]

That was actually one of the reactivation proposals floated back in the '80's when the BB's were reactivated for the third (and last) time; the number three turret was to be removed, and replaced with multiple VLS's.

My problem with those "Remove Turret 3" proposals is that the 16-inch gun is a battleship's reason for being. If you're going to be a battleship, then BE a g-d---n battleship.

If anything, remove all of the remaining 5"/38's and replace them with the best of whatever will fit.

[Gun Grape]

if your getting rid of the big guns for VLS then you are wasting money. The Navy has more VLS cells than they know what to do with.

The only reason to bring them back would be for the 16 in guns that serve no purpose in modern times. The money and time that it would take to make those guns relevant is not worth it when we are discussing 4 hulls that are over 80 yrs old and no new BBS coming on line.

What it would do is kill the Navy's ship building budget.

[DonBelt]

Not to mention the manpower suck- roughly the manpower of 8 Arleigh Burkes to man her, plus the resurrection of the BT rating and other obsolete job skills that the Navy no longer trains.

[JRT]

if your getting rid of the big guns for VLS then you are wasting money. The Navy has more VLS cells than they know what to do with.

The only reason to bring them back would be for the 16 in guns that serve no purpose in modern times. The money and time that it would take to make those guns relevant is not worth it when we are discussing 4 hulls that are over 80 yrs old and no new BBS coming on line.

I would disagree on the 16 inch guns serving no purpose in modern times.

If we are going to fantasize about reactivitating the Iowas, why not include development of a new sub-caliber precision guided base bleed long range projectile. That is well within reach technologically, and if there is money to reactivate Iowas, there should be money to make it more relevant.

11 inch sub-caliber munition is an old idea that showed some promise.

Base bleed is not new tech.

Raytheon is currently working on the N5 5 inch naval variant of their 6 inch Excalibur guidance package (see video below). Scale the technology up to 11 inch (subcaliber).