Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

[Bill]

"Sorry Sniper but the plan was to use 1 Tico and 3 Burkes as escorts for the BBs. In reality it turned out to be 1 CG, 1 DDG, 1DD, 1 FFG and 1 FF nominally. It varied as do all USN formations."

Rick sent me the deployment structure of the BBBG's in the 80's, and indeed he is correct.

[TopHatter]

The mechanical fire control computer would be augmented with a navalized variant of the US Army firefinder radar if the BBG plan were to be enacted. Aegis Mk7 is of course an option, albeit an expensive one.

I just wonder though if the Navy would want anything had "Army" even remotely attached to it.
Speaking of the USNFA, I think I saw a large model of their concept-BB. It was really cool. I just wish I could remember where I found those pictures

[Bill]

www.usnfsa.org

That'll take you to their site, and they have a section of the model pictures.

I agree, the USN doesn't like to use anyone's stuff but their own, but hey, Firefinder works NOW, lol!

[Stinger]

Hey Snipe, I don't have a clue whats actually in the Focsal, and I don't know how much physical space one takes up, but was any consideration give to adding a SM launch rail and magazine up there? It would imped the firing of the main guns forward I realize but it would have just added that much more to the ability of the BBs.

I omit considering the ass end due to the need to land helo's.

Edit: after looking again It doesn't apear there was as much room forward of the main battery as my memory was insisting.

[TopHatter]

Interesting thing about Goalkeeper is that once again, it's not a Navy or even American-developed weapon. While the navy HAS used foreign weapons before, like the OTO Melara 76mm (among others) but I think it would be an easier sell for the new Phalanx, which is unfortunate as the Goalkeeper seems to be more capable.
Also, they have a 20mm mount for some reason. Why not the Mark 68 25mm? Look for standardization amongst the entire Navy and all that.

[Bill]

I don't know why they included the 20mm manned mounts. The Goalkeepers will provide the firepower of 10 20mm cannons each...

I agree Goalkeeper would be a harder sell, but i also agree with USNFSA that it is hands down the best CIWS available. Therefore, i am comfortable with it's selection.

No doubt Phalanx would be an easier 'sell'.

The existing Phalanx mounts would be converted to SeaRam Phalanxes in the USNFSA proposal(11x4 RAM missiles).

On the FORECASTLE(the correct spelling of Foxle), there is already a huge 16" magazine up there, no real room for much else. There is however plenty of room bwtween the funnels for 96 Mk41 cells.

[TopHatter]

I don't know why I keep forgetting the RAM launchers.
What kind of load-out would you recommend for the VLS? ESSM or Standard SAMs?

[Stinger]

Originally posted by M21Sniper
On the FORECASTLE(the correct spelling of Foxle), there is already a huge 16" magazine up there, no real room for much else. There is however plenty of room bwtween the funnels for 96 Mk41 cells.

Well you know how good my spelling is... when in doubt spell it how it sounds.

[Bill]

LOL, it got the point across, i knew what you meant.

I figured it my duty to give you the correct spelling so you'd know- for the next time you feel the need to type forecastle. ;)

"I don't know why I keep forgetting the RAM launchers."

If RAM is ANYWHERE near as effective in real life battle as it was in it's sea trials(an astounding 95+% skin to skin kill rate), the Goalkeepers won't have much to do, which is just fine. With four SeaRAM mounts the Iowa will be able to engage multiple vampires closing simultaneously from all directions. With four more GoalKeepers to boot, the BBG would be a very, very hard ship to hit.

"What kind of load-out would you recommend for the VLS? ESSM or Standard SAMs?"

Well, the loadout would no doubt be mission driven, so it could vary from cruise to cruise quite considerably(the real beauty of VLS IMHO).

You could do anything from 384 quad pack ESSM(WOW, WOW, WOW!!! Imagine what it would take to get a missile hit with that loadout!), to 96 TACTOM, throw in some VLS ASROC if you like, whatever. SM-2 would only be able to be guided by an Aegis, but since the introduction of FCEC, and the inevetable presence of an Aegis warship in the BBBG, you could carry 96 SM-2ER IV, if you wanted to.

If i were to stab at a 'typical' loadout, i'd break it down like this...

96 ESSM(24 cells)
48 TACTOM(48 cells)
24 SM-2MR/ER(24 cells)
6 ASROC VLS(just in case)

Total, 96 cells, 154 missiles, plus the 44 ready RAM missiles gives a total missile load of 199.

And of course 1300+ 16" rounds(11" SALH Sabot, 16" HC, 16" AP), 12,000 5" rds(EX-148 5" extended range and 5" ERGM), and some 4700+ 30mm ready rounds(I'd be sure to make sure to have a backup drum for each Goalkeeper with party-mix for those visits to not so friendly ports...like Yemen).

Put all that in a 33knot dreadnaught with utterly unmatched armor and a flight deck that will handle 4 Ospreys or 6 MH-60's at once, and that there's some serious, serious asswhooping.

I should think in a strait up battle an Iowa BBBG so equipped, and composed as Rick described, would anhilate any surface fleet on earth in quite short order.

[Stinger]

Thats the most beautiful example of non-overkill I've ever seen....

[TopHatter]

I think too, one of the really beautiful things about an Iowa-class is that she can be self-supporting to her battlegroup. She can be a combination tanker and tender with her prodigous bunkerage and extensive machine shops. Just as in the 80's, a BBBG is the perfect way to maintain a more-than-credible presence without having to send in a CVBG with what? Triple the manpower requirements and maintance (the airwing)?

[Praxus]

A single BBBG could take out an entire surface fleet. It would be the most feered Battle Group in the history of warfare.

[TopHatter]

No question about that, the whole obstacle there is getting the funding AND getting it past the carrier admirals

[Praxus]

Yah, but it is worth it to have such an asset in the fleet. In will be the biggest target and they may come after it but they will all die.

[TopHatter]

Believe me, I'm not disputing the battleship as an asset. I've been a die-hard battleship fanatic/supporter since I was all of 7 or 8. I'm just pointing out reality. It took a powerful SECNAV (John Lehman) who had the full backing of one of the most powerful presidents this country has had in a long time to get the Iowas back in service during the 80s.
It's great that USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin are Cat B assets and shows that people (i.e. Congress) recognizes them as irreplaceable assets. But until alot of money and political pull is found (among other things), the battleships will remain in reserve. If and when they are brought back again, I'll be the first to stand up and cheer.
On a side note, I'm planning a trip to USS Wisconsin next year. I hope the trip actually goes through. I'd like to compare her to USS Alabama, where I had the pleasure of fulfulling a life-long ambition of walking the decks of a battlewagon :)