Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

[Gun Grape]

GunGrapes concerns:
Upgrade means a modern comm suite, including link 16 capabilities. Aegis capable combat system. More electrical power, more A/C for those systems.

SOP. Standard Operating Procedure. If we need it, we do it. If we don't need it that's one less item to dent our budget.

You need those things to work with the 21st century Navy,the USAF and our allies. May not need the full Aegis radar attached to the ship, but will need a comm suite/data link that can transmit the Aegis data from other ships to the BB CIC. Which means you need more power and more cooling

Upgrade the weapon system? ABLs are useless today. So no T-hawks or do you upgrade to VLS cells? Wouldn't you have to cut into the armor to install them? Or do you do as thought out in the 90s and remove turret 3 and make it a VLS farm? Want to fire SM-3-6? that requires AN/SPG-62 radar Armor intrusion installing them?

The ABL's are NOT useless. They can still fire Tomahawks because that is all they are supposed to do. We did a study of converting to 96 VLS cells. It would take at least a year to modify the ships very extensivly. Also, we were NOT going to remove Turret III. Only two of the Salem class cruisers would have their aft turret removed in way of a Helicopter Hangar (plus adding BPDMS) to be the consorts of the Iowas. I had the basic plans for their conversions I sent the Salem its profile drawings of what could have been. The BB VLS drawings are now aboard the Iowa.

The ABLs are useless. We have not made ABL capable T-hawks in 20 years. They are all VLS

Or do you sail a ship that can only fire 9 big guns?

Fletcher class DD's only had 5 guns (reduced to four later). Gearing class DD's had 6. Spruance class DD's had only ONE. But for 16 inchers, you wouldn't want to be within a hundred yards of one burying itself 25 to 35 feet down at 1100 miles per hour before the fuse activated.

True all. But those DDs had other missions too. What will an Iowa use for the antiair mission? Anti sub mission? The point being those ships were multimission with multiple types of weapons on board. A Iowa out the gate as currently configured only has her 16in guns to use. And those can only be used for a very narrow set of circumstances

Then there are the non armor intrusive items, Making work spaces conform to current standards. Upgrading crew berthing to modern standards, upgrading Heads (females will be assigned).

We did have some basic layouts of how to increase berthing on an Iowa from 1500 to 1800 people. The Women On Ships program was a top priority design project of our compartment arrangements Design Section for at least two years. When I was on one of Missouri's Sea Trials, we had 4 women aboard. One was an excellent engineer from the Fittings Design Division, another woman was from the weapons shop and was part of the team to reactivate the ship's artillery, another was a Clerk/Typist from one of our contract agencies to type up all of our inspection work sheets (such as where I found the piping to the wash basin in the photo shop had its piping put in backwards) and the fourth woman was a Navy Officer. Whatever she did to ride the Battleship, I will never know. But as Peggy (my engineer from Fittings Design) told me that their quarters were way aft on 01 level with only one crew's head. She was not a happy camper with only one lavatory for four women.

Was that before or after the every sailor gets a sit-up bunk. As for the 4 female being unhappy with limited head facilities, Imagine when 1/5th of your crew is female

I would also think that the Navy would insist on crew reduction, so lots of automation. A Iowa swallows up a crew that could man 5.5 Burke Flt IIa's or 13 Zimwalts, Automation that would include way more computers which equals more generator power and more a/c cooling for those computer rooms.

Well, yes automation would help -- automation would help -- automation would help -- Auto--- As you can see, I'm not too confident about automation, particularly anything that would be mass produced. Don't forget, a few months ago a test drive of a fully automated car (no human driver) was in an auto collision. The driverless car was in full compliance with the rules of the road. But the other driver was a human being and Robots cannot read human minds yet.

Well the Navy has embraced it. Look at the difference in manning levels from the Burke's to the Zimwalts. With the DDG-1000s being larger ships. We are not talking about experimental cars, but automation that has been in the civilian world forever. As an old example, look at the manning level of a single mount 5/38 and a 5/54.

The 5/38 had a crew of 15. The 5/54 has a crew of 6. The 5/54 can be fired in the non sustained (less that 20 rounds) without anyone in the mount.

 

[RustyBattleship]

Sorry Pal, but the lists of questions (and VERY legitimate questions) is getting too long for me to answer. Besides, I've been putting off a couple of wood working jobs far too long. I still have to find where all my tools are after my son-in-law cleaned out the garage for me. I still have 3 crosses to make for confirmations of 3 children that are friends of us. Each one is half-cut cross pieces, (using some Oak I found in the back of my garage) glueing, sanding, using my router to cut a design edge, sealing, staining and spraying with urethane.

And I'm a Lutheran, not a Catholic. But according to the last sentence of the 1st Amendment of our Constitution I swore an oath to protect and respect that amendment (and I'm a believer that the 2nd amendment also gives us Americans even out of uniform to protect the 1st amendment). I swore that oath twice; first for the United States Navy and secondly for the United States Army (National Guard & Reserves. Oh yes, and other times when I joined the American Legion where I was the Commander of my Post two years in a row.

Then I have a 3-drawer night stand to restore for my wife. Picked the night stand up at a yard sale for only 15 bucks but if I were to pay a refinisher it would run around a C note. But since I have all the power tools I'd rather do it myself which is much more gratifying. But it takes this 80 year old body of mine to do it in a timely manner without taking too many breaks for water or root beer (the Vodka comes much later as a pain killer).

But I like your postings and read every one of them --- as well as everybody else which takes up more time. I am also slowly (very slowly) trying to finish up revision "B" of my book to meet Amazon standards of 300 dpi per photo (a LOT of different and better photos than in the first edition, of which 4 sold last month but zilch this month. Appendix E is giving me a hard time in alignments as well as that Drasted blue donut of MS word freezing my screen for 10 or 12 minutes after I've only done 5 minutes of work. I don't think I'll get the book out until early next year. So go ahead folks and buy the yellow cover now and wait for the white cover in a larger size.

 

[Tom24]

Sorry Pal, but the lists of questions (and VERY legitimate questions) is getting too long for me to answer. Besides, I've been putting off a couple of wood working jobs far too long. I still have to find where all my tools are after my son-in-law cleaned out the garage for me. I still have 3 crosses to make for confirmations of 3 children that are friends of us. Each one is half-cut cross pieces, (using some Oak I found in the back of my garage) glueing, sanding, using my router to cut a design edge, sealing, staining and spraying with urethane.

And I'm a Lutheran, not a Catholic. But according to the last sentence of the 1st Amendment of our Constitution I swore an oath to protect and respect that amendment (and I'm a believer that the 2nd amendment also gives us Americans even out of uniform to protect the 1st amendment). I swore that oath twice; first for the United States Navy and secondly for the United States Army (National Guard & Reserves. Oh yes, and other times when I joined the American Legion where I was the Commander of my Post two years in a row.

Then I have a 3-drawer night stand to restore for my wife. Picked the night stand up at a yard sale for only 15 bucks but if I were to pay a refinisher it would run around a C note. But since I have all the power tools I'd rather do it myself which is much more gratifying. But it takes this 80 year old body of mine to do it in a timely manner without taking too many breaks for water or root beer (the Vodka comes much later as a pain killer).

But I like your postings and read every one of them --- as well as everybody else which takes up more time. I am also slowly (very slowly) trying to finish up revision "B" of my book to meet Amazon standards of 300 dpi per photo (a LOT of different and better photos than in the first edition, of which 4 sold last month but zilch this month. Appendix E is giving me a hard time in alignments as well as that Drasted blue donut of MS word freezing my screen for 10 or 12 minutes after I've only done 5 minutes of work. I don't think I'll get the book out until early next year. So go ahead folks and buy the yellow cover now and wait for the white cover in a larger size.

Rusty, you're a wealth of naval knowledge and a national treasure, seriously. I have a quick question, will the revision to your book include more details about the planned IOWA class BB SLEP/FRAM upgrades that were supposed to happen starting early-mid 90's? I know that you've stated you donated the plans for the upgrades and that they're aboard the IOWA. Is there any chance drawings of the planned upgrades will be in the revision? I know I'm not the only one interested in the details of the planned modernization of the IOWA's. I know you're description of the upgrades is buried in one of the old threads here somewhere but I could swear you stated that dual 5/54's were planned to replace the 5/38's?

 

[RustyBattleship]

Rusty, you're a wealth of naval knowledge and a national treasure, seriously. I have a quick question, will the revision to your book include more details about the planned IOWA class BB SLEP/FRAM upgrades that were supposed to happen starting early-mid 90's? I know that you've stated you donated the plans for the upgrades and that they're aboard the IOWA. Is there any chance drawings of the planned upgrades will be in the revision? I know I'm not the only one interested in the details of the planned modernization of the IOWA's. I know you're description of the upgrades is buried in one of the old threads here somewhere but I could swear you stated that dual 5/54's were planned to replace the 5/38's?

Already in a new Chapter 34.

 

[RustyBattleship]

Already in a new Chapter 34.

It's titled is "Around the Scuttlebutt" BUT, don't let that stop you from buying the present edition. Because some items I totally deleted in the (hopefully coming) 2nd edition, verified certain items, added in much more about the WAVES that worked on Reeves Field and many new photos. Both books should go together as a set.

Besides, I can use the royalties for when I need to get away from that time-consuming blue donut (in MS Word) that takes up two to three times that I spend only a few minutes of work. And the Microsoft "help" is useless for me to ask how to either stop or speed up that "prossesing" symbol. After it has gotten my German/Irish temper up, I need a break at the VFW Post for my "tranquilizer Vodka".

 

[Tom24]

I did buy the present edition just last month. I'll definitely by the 2nd edition as well.

 

[RustyBattleship]

I did buy the present edition just last month. I'll definitely by the 2nd edition as well.

Thank you very much. Now if I can ever get MicroSoft to tell me how to speed up that blue donut or get rid if it entirely AND tell me how to check my pictures for 300 dpi (required by Amazon Createspace) and boost up the dpi when I need to I can finish the book before they place my urn in its cubby hole at All Souls cemetary.

 

[Gun Boat]

If the Battleships were to put to sea again I would think that the USN would have one hell of a draw card for new recruits. Think about all the young Americans that have toured them as museums. I reckon you'd get a few thousand join up when they're of age just to try and get on one of the BBs. I

So that's the crew issues taken care of. Rusty's got the modernisation part of things under control. As for relearning all battleship specific skill sets we've got Youtube or How to do tube for that. Take that Gun Grape! Your solid arguments grounded in fact and common sense will not stop the Battleships from heading back to sea. All four of them. To make America great again!

 

[tbm3fan]

I can just see the crew. The old guys manning the Missouri in the movie Battleship.

 

[RustyBattleship]

I can just see the crew. The old guys manning the Missouri in the movie Battleship.

THAT is the only scene of the movie that would be true to life.

There is no way only 4 men could carry a 1,900 lb Hi-Cap on their shoulders. On a TV rip-off of the movie they had only two men skidding a crate with a Hi-Cap in it.

However, if you wanted to be true to life, two men can stand a Hi-Cap up onto its base and "walk" it on over to its strike down hatch. Believe me, I have personally seen it done.

Well, there is such a thing known as "leverage" and the center of gravity is well below the nose so it's not really a biggie for a couple of GM's to show off. And they can do it very fast too.

 

[SW4U]

The ABLs are useless. We have not made ABL capable T-hawks in 20 years. They are all VLS

The sub-launched TacToms used by the RN are not VLS-, but torpedo tube-launched (TTL), meaning they are stored horizontally (as in ABLs) rather than vertically (as in VLS).

65 such Block IVs were approved for sale as recently as 2014 (an initial batch of 64 Block IVs was approved in 2004 and entered service with the RN in 2008).

That suggests that Block IVs (at least in their RN avatar) may be structurally compatible with ABLs.

That said, quite a few hardware and software alterations would have to be made to the ABLs to accommodate the Block IVs.

Despite lesser range, going for LRASM in deck-mounted quad launchers would make more sense and allow you to replace both the TacToms and the Harpoons.

 

[SW4U]

Gun Grape said: To bring an Iowa up to date, they would pretty much have to be gutted, Armor cut, equipment installed, then armor reapplied.

Of course new electronics, and some existing need to be overhauled. BUT your will NOT have to cut open any of the armored spaces. Not the way I designed the armor for them. All doors are 26 wide openings. But I have had to cut temporary access through so many hulk heads and decks to get gizmos in that won't fit through a door I wasn't about to have to do that with HY-80 armor from 1/2 inch thick to 1 1/2 inches thick.

Take a close look at the modernized Iowas. Especially the 1 1/2" thick armor around CEC. Look just forward of the door. You see that 4 foot wide bolted plate access there? On the port side you will also see bolted plate accesses to the main SPS-10 and SPS-49 receivers that processes the antennas and spreads it out to the repeaters. Even the Radio Room just aft of midships on the main deck, where I added 1" thick armor to the bulkheads and overhead and main vents, etc. has a 3 1/2 foot wide bolted plate access just forward of the port side door. You will also notice that each access already has a padeye welded onto it so all you have to do is set up the lifting rigging and start taking out the bolts.

No torch cutting required.

Speaking of torch cutting, I've come across some NAVSEA document from the mid-1980s where they mention upgrading the Iowa's propulsion from steam to gas turbines.

There aren't much details in there, and I can't quite figure out how they intended to cope with the GTs demanding requirements in terms of intake and uptake areas.

Anyway, they were apparently planning to use the large riveted removable plates (4 of them, each about 15' x 15') to take out all the steam stuff and put the GTs in the machinery spaces.

As I understand it, the plates on the starboard side could not be accessed easily because of the superstructures, while one of the plate of the port side (around FR115-119) was made unavailable due to the Tomahawk deckhouse amidships being welded over.

That would leave only the option of using the aftmost plate on the port side (around FR147-151). Was this plate still usable (i.e. removable) after the Iowas were reactivated in the 1980s ? And what about the plates below ?

Sounds like a massive can of worms but I'm just curious to find out...

 

[SW4U]

We did a study of converting to 96 VLS cells. It would take at least a year to modify the ships very extensivly.

Wasn't there a problem with the VLS clusters amidships (16 VLS cells each, P&S) due to some expansion joint in the near vicinity ?

I am sure sure whether you intend to address this kind of minutiae in your revised edition, but I'll most definitely make sure I buy a copy whenever it becomes available.

 

[SW4U]

You need those things to work with the 21st century Navy,the USAF and our allies. May not need the full Aegis radar attached to the ship, but will need a comm suite/data link that can transmit the Aegis data from other ships to the BB CIC. Which means you need more power and more cooling.

This is not what I'd be most concerned with. There's no need for AEGIS, and the newest generation of GaAn radars coming out on the market (Raytheon EASR-R, Thales NS200 or Saab Sea Giraffe 4A to name a few) would do the trick quite nicely without requiring more power or cooling.

I'd be much more worried about the main battery and its hopelessly outdated GFCS.

Leaving aside the 16" guns themselves, you'd need to design, qualify and produce new projectiles and propellant charges (to meet the USMC range requirements, be IM-compliant, etc...).

New projectiles would require a new GFCS, most likely a derivative of the current Mk-160 GCS with added multiple-gun capability.

And once you've done that, you'd need to train enough people on using such very unique equipment properly. Not sure where you'll get the kind of honey needed to catch and retain enough competent flies...

 

[Pacfanweb]

This is not what I'd be most concerned with. There's no need for AEGIS, and the newest generation of GaAn radars coming out on the market (Raytheon EASR-R, Thales NS200 or Saab Sea Giraffe 4A to name a few) would do the trick quite nicely without requiring more power or cooling.

I'd be much more worried about the main battery and its hopelessly outdated GFCS.

Leaving aside the 16" guns themselves, you'd need to design, qualify and produce new projectiles and propellant charges, to meet the USMC range requirements.

New projectiles would require a new GFCS, most likely a derivative of the current Mk-160 GCS with added multiple gun capability.

And once you've done that, you'd need to train enough people on using such very unique equipment properly. Not sure where you'll get the kind of honey needed to catch and retain enough competent flies...

Maybe some of that $125 billion the Pentagon has wasted?

 

[SW4U]

If not how many steam ships are left? Do we need to reopen a school to teach snipes that go to her? How much will that cost.

You'd be able to find quite a lot of highly competent professional mariners at the MSC to do the training. And the MSC has developed some reliable automation solutions for steam plants (though the components being used may not be Grade A items as far as shock requirements are concerned).

Again, the problem is where you'd find enough motivated sailors (about 400 per BB assuming no automation) to operate such antiquities...

 

[SW4U]

Maybe some of that $125 billion the Pentagon has wasted?

To be clear, the message I tried to convey is that the technical side may not be the most problematic. It's the people side that more often than not ends up being a major stumbling block. Big bonuses may not be enough of an incentive and would likely create distortions with fleet-wide consequences...

 

[85 gt kid]

If the Battleships were to put to sea again I would think that the USN would have one hell of a draw card for new recruits. Think about all the young Americans that have toured them as museums. I reckon you'd get a few thousand join up when they're of age just to try and get on one of the BBs.

Yea i'd try my hardest to get in if they were to sail again!

Hopefully they would ignore that both ankles have had surgery on, extreme asthma, and need to have specially treated blood in the event of an incident (bone marrow transplant from a Leukemia diagnosis is a bear but hey 14 years in remission!).

As to the GTs, Rusty has said before that you COULD install GTs BUT the intakes are a problem (too small) but the biggest problem IIRC is that where they wanted to mount the VLS systems is right where the service plates are for the engine rooms. Not a big problem for the steam plants but a huge one for the maintenance on a GT.

 

[SW4U]

As to the GTs, Rusty has said before that you COULD install GTs BUT the intakes are a problem (too small) but the biggest problem IIRC is that where they wanted to mount the VLS systems is right where the service plates are for the engine rooms. Not a big problem for the steam plants but a huge one for the maintenance on a GT.

1) Removable plates provide access to ERs, whereas GTs would most likely have been located in FRs.

2) GT maintenance mostly involve engine change via a handling route within the plenum.

 

[ArmorPiercing88]

The crazy idea of recalling at least two of the four Iowa-class is being discussed at some level. Whether that glorious day will ever come is unlikely, but people like myself have remained vigilant and active in reminding the decision makers of the benefits provided by these ships. Don't be such a tin can, shout like a sixteen inch gun!!!

At what level is this being discussed? Would love some more details o this.