Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

[Gun Boat]

I understand the desire to keep the museum ships in their natural habitat but it is not sustainable. If the US wants these ships to last they need to be taken out of the dam water. Look at the condition of the Texas and the economic problems of saving her. I may not be American or a navy man but I can guarantee this scenario is destined for the Iowa's.

In my lifetime (next 50 years), if the Iowas are kept in the water, I will see the deterioration and eventual scrapping of these ships. Instead of drydocking and repairing repairs DRY BIRTH AT LEAST ONE OF THE BLOODY THINGS!!!! Take away the water and these things will be around long enough that people will forget what they were for.

Whilst in the US I visited the New Jersey and the Massachusetts. I remember driving the hire car listening to Master Yoda direct us to the New Jersey via GPS. I'd always loved the battleship but when I first caught a glimpse of the upper works all the hairs on my body stood on end. Finally parking the car and walking around to the Museum and seeing a full blooded battleship was just awe inspiring.

This huge solid steel vessel put together by the best minds in the business to wreak havoc. A collection of machinery formed to bring nothing but destruction. Nothing else says Navy and War like a battleship. I saw a Nimitz for the first time at NewPort News and that is good but mainly because it was the first time that close to an power generating Nuke. They're big but so are container ships. A battleship just looks like it's ready to cause destruction even though a Nimitz could cause quite a deal more.

This public service announcement was brought to you by new years festivities and of course alcohol. Happy New Years. And America, don't forget to dry birth a battleship for me - cheers.

[TopHatter]

How much would it cost to build a BB from scratch using the latest naval technological advances and gunnery advancements? Would tonnage increase or decrease? Would we need to get 12 guns for 3 guns per turret? Do we need to get armor belt?

That all depends on the mission requirements. Do you want just those very large caliber sea-going guns?
The electronics, fire control etc, would need to be shock-hardened against the blast of the guns.

The number of guns is entirely up to the perceived mission requirements.

In order to have a "true" battleship, you would need the armor belt.

But...you'd also have to reestablish the industrial infrastructure to manufacture the guns (and the armor, if so desired).

Probably easier and cheaper in the long run to simply return the Iowas to service...although as pointed out, you're going to empty your wallet to pay for the operational costs.

[85 gt kid]

Well the good thing with the Iowa's is they all have water under their keels unlike most that are sunk into the mud :slap: and the New Jersey will last a long time since she's in fresh water (she'll need a new coat of paint every so often though). Out of the other 3 Missouri is the better off as she brings in more money I'd think so there's no reason why she won't get her scheduled maintenance. Wisky and Iowa are in pretty good locations so chances are they'll be safe. But the older museums do need to change something if they want them to survive.

[85 gt kid]

That all depends on the mission requirements. Do you want just those very large caliber sea-going guns?
The electronics, fire control etc, would need to be shock-hardened against the blast of the guns.

The number of guns is entirely up to the perceived mission requirements.

In order to have a "true" battleship, you would need the armor belt.

But...you'd also have to reestablish the industrial infrastructure to manufacture the guns (and the armor, if so desired).

Probably easier and cheaper in the long run to simply return the Iowas to service...although as pointed out, you're going to empty your wallet to pay for the operational costs.

Is the industrial base really a big deal? From what Rusty had mentioned somewhere and what I've read we wouldn't go back to the armor practices of before (face hardening) we would use newer methods that are currently in production. I'd say you'd have to expand on that but that's better than staying from scratch? As for the guns it's the same principal you could use a loose liner system (easier correct?) or a one piece unit. With the advances in propellants and the fact that you'd have more accurate rounds meaning less shots fired then a one piece barrel could last awhile.

Agghh who knows I'm at work and haven't eaten so spaceships made out of popsicle sticks and fireworks sounds feasible :fish:

[DonBelt]

The battleships were originally meant for surface warfare against other battleships and large surface combatants. Before WW2 was over that changed to AAW and shore bombardment. In latter years only shore bombardment. If you want to build new ones from scratch for that purpose, don't bother with guns. Have it armed with hundreds of tomahawks, atacms, basic artillery rockets. That will give it the ability to strike land targets from 26 mi to 1500 mi away. Adapt the M270 system into launchers and VLS for the tomahawks. If you want more anti surface capability add harpoon. Self defense can be RAM, ESSMS, the ESSMS can be loaded in vls cannisters. You can have CIWS if you like. Small arms- .50 cal, 20mm, 37mm guns for small close in surface targets, but being armored would provide a great deal of defense. Or just build more B-52's.

[gunnut]

The battleships were originally meant for surface warfare against other battleships and large surface combatants. Before WW2 was over that changed to AAW and shore bombardment. In latter years only shore bombardment. If you want to build new ones from scratch for that purpose, don't bother with guns. Have it armed with hundreds of tomahawks, atacms, basic artillery rockets. That will give it the ability to strike land targets from 26 mi to 1500 mi away. Adapt the M270 system into launchers and VLS for the tomahawks. If you want more anti surface capability add harpoon. Self defense can be RAM, ESSMS, the ESSMS can be loaded in vls cannisters. You can have CIWS if you like. Small arms- .50 cal, 20mm, 37mm guns for small close in surface targets, but being armored would provide a great deal of defense. Or just build more B-52's.

There's a reason why we abandoned the battleships. Any armor can be cracked with bigger bombs. The trick to survival is to not get hit in the first place. All new surface combatants are built with low observability in mind. They all pack long range surface weapons (missiles). The dead weight of armor makes ships exponentially more expensive and less stealthy.

[Blademaster]

Hitesh, you cannot be that far behind! A single flight of a B52 Squadron can deliver more accurate firepower than an Iowa can do ... and without a target on station.

I am not that far behind. I am just wondering the utility of modern BBs for today's climate because I keep hearing arguments of how we need to bring back the BBs. After reading several of Captain's posts on how incredible expensive it would be to bring back the IOWAs back online considering the manpower and expertise required. My plan was to see what kind of BB can be constructed and whether this modern day BB design would be of utility considering other forms of advancement in other spheres of weaponry. Then armed with this kind of info we can engage in this debate whether a modern day BB is truly obsolete or has some form of utility.

Can a modern day BB deliver what a single flight of B52 squadron can deliver cheaper and in greater numbers and be more battle survivable? I am not asking about an IOWA but the 21st century version of a BB.

[Blademaster]

That all depends on the mission requirements. Do you want just those very large caliber sea-going guns?

It doesn't have to be those if small caliber can deliver the same or greater amount of damage. It can be rail gun or electro-magnetic powered guns.

The electronics, fire control etc, would need to be shock-hardened against the blast of the guns.

The number of guns is entirely up to the perceived mission requirements.

Depends on the firing rate and reloading rate.

In order to have a "true" battleship, you would need the armor belt.

But...you'd also have to reestablish the industrial infrastructure to manufacture the guns (and the armor, if so desired).

But we have made so much advancements in metallurgy in the last 60 years. Why would we want to go back to 40s technology?

Probably easier and cheaper in the long run to simply return the Iowas to service...although as pointed out, you're going to empty your wallet to pay for the operational costs.

Then you are still stuck with 40s technology. Even the ship design is still 40s technology and haven't kept pace with the hydrology advancements.

[desertswo]

I am not that far behind. I am just wondering the utility of modern BBs for today's climate because I keep hearing arguments of how we need to bring back the BBs. After reading several of Captain's posts on how incredible expensive it would be to bring back the IOWAs back online considering the manpower and expertise required. My plan was to see what kind of BB can be constructed and whether this modern day BB design would be of utility considering other forms of advancement in other spheres of weaponry. Then armed with this kind of info we can engage in this debate whether a modern day BB is truly obsolete or has some form of utility.

Can a modern day BB deliver what a single flight of B52 squadron can deliver cheaper and in greater numbers and be more battle survivable? I am not asking about an IOWA but the 21st century version of a BB.

You are seeing it. It has a stupid name given its namesake's failure to see the need for ships with its sort of capability, but whatever, USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) is about as BB as one is likely to get. They ought to cut to the chase and call it what it is; at least a CG-1000 if not a BG or BBG-1000, because at 15K to 17K tons, it sure the hell isn't a destroyer. No, it is not armored like the Iowas and their predecessors, but as others have pointed out, the three ships of the class are set-up to make maximum use of the technology that it is available today, from the angle of the dangle, to reactive armor, to massive amounts of Kevlar, to the "citadel system" for CBR defense, to electronic means of "spoofing" the opponent's systems, to "shooting the archer and not the arrow," to "strategic speed," to, on, and on, and on, ad nauseam.

To DonBelt though, you gotta give me something better for ASuW though, because Harpoon is a POS. Just sayin.'

[Gun Boat]

Ah-hem.

The Zumwalt's have had their long range guided projectiles cancelled. That ability was what was supposed to give the marines their naval fire support wasn't it?

Therefore Trump will have to bring back the BATTLESHIPS!!!!

OHHHHHHHH YEEEAAAAAHHH!

I recommend bringing all 4 back into service because it's not my money...

[tbm3fan]

Hmm, pry it right out of Rusty's hands???

[Gun Boat]

Hmm, pry it right out of Rusty's hands???

The navy would probably start throwing wads of cash at Rusty till he agreed to assist in the reactivation.

Trump did elude to bringing the BBs back - I should send him an email.

I could not think of anything more amazing then seeing those 4 ships sailing in formation, flat out, with rooster tails out the stern and 36 16" rifles firing in unison.

I need to stop as I'm getting over excited.

[blidgepump]

600 Ship Navy returns .....

Yes, the much vaunted 600 ship US Navy shall be returning to the seas after President Elect Donald Trump steps into office with Iowa Class - BB's leading the fleet.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire 1765

[Shinytop]

Not renovating the Iowa's could buy a lot of 800K shells for the Zumwalt class and have more range.

[Pacfanweb]

Not renovating the Iowa's could buy a lot of 800K shells for the Zumwalt class and have more range.

Yes, but BATTLESHIPS.