Why not Recommission an Iowa Class BattleShip?

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why not Recommission an Iowa Class BattleShip? (Page 1 of 3)

Posted: 7/3/2007 12:32:07 PM EST

In 1987, Missouri was outfitted with 40 mm grenade launchers and 25 mm chain guns, and sent to take part in Operation Earnest Will, the escorting of reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. These smaller caliber weapons were installed due to the threat of Iranian-manned, Swedish-made Boghammer cigarette boats operating in the Persian Gulf at the time.[20] On 25 July 1987, the ship departed on a six-month deployment to the Indian Ocean and North Arabian Sea. The ship spent more than 100 continuous days at sea in a hot, tense environment—a striking contrast to the World Cruise months earlier. As the centerpiece for Battlegroup Echo, Missouri escorted tanker convoys into the Strait of Hormuz, keeping her fire control system trained on land-based Iranian Silkworm missile launchers.[21]

Isn't that proof that once modernized Battleships can still play a role in todays navy?

Is there a way to make those beautiful 16 inch guns a bit more accurate?

What do you mean they can't recommission a battleship just because it would be "really cool" ?

Isn't the Iowa the only one left that isnt currently a museum ship?

Posted: 7/3/2007 12:34:25 PM EST

[#1]

IBTKA!!!!!

I Before The Keyboard Admirals!

Posted: 7/3/2007 12:35:11 PM EST

[#2]

They should just build a new one from scratch. Give it the latest railgun tech and a nuclear power plant with massive electricity production capabilities to power the railguns and future freakin lasers and that would be sweet! I'm being serious too.

Posted: 7/3/2007 12:35:33 PM EST

[#3]

Quoted:
Is there a way to make those beautiful 16 inch guns a bit more accurate?

That would be unnecessary, as they are extremely accurate, just as they are.

Posted: 7/3/2007 12:35:49 PM EST

[#4]

The Queen of the sea's. The Iowa's were the prettiest BB's ever built in my opinion.

Posted: 7/3/2007 12:37:15 PM EST

[#5]

It would cost more to refit an Iowa class BB than to build a new one.

Posted: 7/3/2007 12:38:00 PM EST

[#6]

I think hearing the big guns and watching a city get oblitterated would send a better message to the people than one rocket doing a precision strike.Bring back the carpet bombings!

Posted: 7/3/2007 12:38:05 PM EST

[#7]

Why? It's a 60 year old money pit.

Posted: 7/3/2007 12:39:13 PM EST

[#8]

Build some new ones.

Posted: 7/3/2007 12:39:49 PM EST

[#9]

Quoted:
Why? It's a 60 year old money pit.

clearly you missed the part where i wrote, "because it would be really cool"

Posted: 7/3/2007 12:40:41 PM EST

[#10]

Quoted:
It would cost more to refit an Iowa class BB than to build a new one.

Then lets build some new ones. This time make them nuclear powered.

Posted: 7/3/2007 12:40:50 PM EST

[#11]

Quoted:
Build some new ones.

so continue plans for the Montana class Battleships then ?

Posted: 7/3/2007 12:40:51 PM EST

[#12]

That would sweet to see a modern Battleship with say 30'inch guns!

Posted: 7/3/2007 12:56:02 PM EST

[#13]

Did a little research...

"Accuracy of both the Mk 6 and Mk 7 guns was very impressive with a shot dispersion of 1 minute of angle. To put that in perspective, these 16" guns could place rounds into a 35 ft diameter circle at a range of 12 miles making it a very precise and very effective weapon for close support of troops."

Did you guys get that?

One minute accuracy. As good as a very expensive bolt rifle.

What a gun!

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:01:56 PM EST

[#14]

Quoted:
Did a little research...

"Accuracy of both the Mk 6 and Mk 7 guns was very impressive with a shot dispersion of 1 minute of angle. To put that in perspective, these 16" guns could place rounds into a 35 ft diameter circle at a range of 12 miles making it a very precise and very effective weapon for close support of troops."

Did you guys get that?

One minute accuracy. As good as a very expensive bolt rifle.

What a gun!

Use a JDAM and you can hit inside a 6 foot circle 500 miles from the ship.

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:04:48 PM EST

[#15]

Quoted:
Did a little research...

"Accuracy of both the Mk 6 and Mk 7 guns was very impressive with a shot dispersion of 1 minute of angle. To put that in perspective, these 16" guns could place rounds into a 35 ft diameter circle at a range of 12 miles making it a very precise and very effective weapon for close support of troops."

Did you guys get that?

One minute accuracy. As good as a very expensive bolt rifle.

What a gun!

Park your BB 12 miles off a coast and STONEFISH type mines will make your war very short and very exciting…

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:05:07 PM EST

[#16]

I would love to see them back in action. I would reenlist just to be stationed on one.

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:05:36 PM EST

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Did a little research...

"Accuracy of both the Mk 6 and Mk 7 guns was very impressive with a shot dispersion of 1 minute of angle. To put that in perspective, these 16" guns could place rounds into a 35 ft diameter circle at a range of 12 miles making it a very precise and very effective weapon for close support of troops."

Did you guys get that?

One minute accuracy. As good as a very expensive bolt rifle.

What a gun!

Use a JDAM and you can hit inside a 6 foot circle 500 miles from the ship.

or a 16" Copperhead

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:06:06 PM EST

[#18]

A missile cruiser can pretty much do anything a BB can do, and cost a lot less. With cruise missiles that can be put within 6' of your target at 500 miles, the advantages of the 16" big guns disappear quickly.

Its the day to day peace time costs that made the BB obsolete.

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:12:33 PM EST

[#19]

Paging LWilde, Paging Mr LWilde, plese report to the white courtesy computer at the customer service counter....

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:13:16 PM EST

[#20]

Here is why:

1. Old
2. Maintenance intensive
3. Crew Intensive
4. Lost skill set to even operate the things (no body in the service now could probably fire the 16" gun, or maintain the high pressure steam engines)
5. Inadequate defensive weapons in modern litoral evironment (stealthy subsonic and not so stealthy supersonic antiship missiles, under keel torpeoes from DE subs)
6. Inadequate sensors (see number 5)
7. No spare parts
8. Main guns don't have the range to be relevent for anything but the first few hours of an invasion
9. Massively expensive way to deliver to what amounts to a 2000lb bomb a mere 16-20 miles away
10. Cost to retify 1-9 would buy you multiple multirole surface combatants that can do the ONE job the Iowa can do (Short range NGFS) and can do every other role the Navy needs.

So thats why.

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:19:10 PM EST

[#21]

I happen to just love the Iowa class.

however, instead of retrofitting one, make a new one, just as big, and propell it with dual Nuclear reactors so it could match pace with the Nimitz's for as long as the Nimitz's (or better).

Put 3 batteries of triple 16" guns. Figure out how to put smart bomb technology on 16" shells so that every (90%-ile) shell hits its target. Optimize the shells for 40 Km range and lethality. robotize the loading procedures and enable 6 shots per minute. The reason to bring back the big guns is to enable 16" smart munitionss to be "dropped horizontally" on the targets a considerable distance inland (25 miles). These munitions could be guided by lasers from observation posts, from planes/drones, with GPS coordinates, or standard PoA.

24 phalanx defense guns (next generation). Patriotand/or THAD missles if those make sense,

6 cruise missle launchers, 1000+ missles in storage

16" hull augmented with kevlar/carbon/depleted Uranium for the ultimate in survivability.

And finally, to the extend possible, make it stealthy.

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:22:26 PM EST

[#22]

Quoted:

4. Lost skill set to even operate the things (no body in the service now could probably fire the 16" gun, or maintain the high pressure steam engines)

Not to be overly critical, because you hit the nail on the head on every other point, but we still operate high pressure steam engines, but the designs are considerably newer. The same principles apply, so it wouldn't be that difficult. My concern would be the physical condition of the plant.

No one in service can fire the gun, but I live down the road from people who could easily teach the skills necessary.

The knowledge part, while challenging, isn't difficult to overcome.

Overall, I give you a 98/100.

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:24:21 PM EST

[#23]

Quoted:
I happen to just love the Iowa class.

however, instead of retrofitting one, make a new one, just as big, and propell it with dual Nuclear reactors so it could match pace with the Nimitz's for as long as the Nimitz's (or better).

Put 3 batteries of triple 16" guns. Figure out how to put smart bomb technology on 16" shells so that every (90%-ile) shell hits its target. Optimize the shells for 40 Km range and lethality. robotize the loading procedures and enable 6 shots per minute. The reason to bring back the big guns is to enable 16" smart munitionss to be "dropped horizontally" on the targets a considerable distance inland (25 miles). These munitions could be guided by lasers from observation posts, from planes/drones, with GPS coordinates, or standard PoA.

24 phalanx defense guns (next generation). Patriotand/or THAD missles if those make sense,

6 cruise missle launchers, 1000+ missles in storage

16" hull augmented with kevlar/carbon/depleted Uranium for the ultimate in survivability.

And finally, to the extend possible, make it stealthy.

out of

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:24:56 PM EST

[#24]

We'd be 1,000% better off spending the same money on another Sea Wolf, Virginia, or Nimitz class warship.

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:26:07 PM EST

[#25]

Quoted:
6 cruise missle launchers, 1000+ missles in storage

I missed that.

LOL. No.

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:30:05 PM EST

[#26]

Quoted:
I happen to just love the Iowa class.

however, instead of retrofitting one, make a new one, just as big, and propell it with dual Nuclear reactors so it could match pace with the Nimitz's for as long as the Nimitz's (or better).

Put 3 batteries of triple 16" guns. Figure out how to put smart bomb technology on 16" shells so that every (90%-ile) shell hits its target. Optimize the shells for 40 Km range and lethality. robotize the loading procedures and enable 6 shots per minute. The reason to bring back the big guns is to enable 16" smart munitionss to be "dropped horizontally" on the targets a considerable distance inland (25 miles). These munitions could be guided by lasers from observation posts, from planes/drones, with GPS coordinates, or standard PoA.

24 phalanx defense guns (next generation). Patriotand/or THAD missles if those make sense,

6 cruise missle launchers, 1000+ missles in storage

16" hull augmented with kevlar/carbon/depleted Uranium for the ultimate in survivability.

And finally, to the extend possible, make it stealthy.

This one I give 30 points for creativity.
30/100

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:31:02 PM EST

[#27]

Quoted:
A missile cruiser can pretty much do anything a BB can do, and cost a lot less. With cruise missiles that can be put within 6' of your target at 500 miles, the advantages of the 16" big guns disappear quickly.

Its the day to day peace time costs that made the BB obsolete.

I wonder what the cost per projectile is for missiles compared to Guns.

The Armor Piercing shell fired by these guns is capable of penetrating nearly 30 feet (9 m) of concrete, depending upon the range and obliquity of impact. The High Capacity (HC) shell can create a crater 50 feet wide and 20 feet deep (15 x 6 m). During her deployment off Vietnam, USS New Jersey (BB-62) occasionally fired a single HC round into the jungle and so created a helicopter landing zone 200 yards (180 m) in diameter and defoliated trees for 300 yards (270 m) beyond that.

World War II and Korean War Deployments
AP Mark 8 Mods 0 to 8 - 2,700 lbs. (1,225 kg)
HC Mark 13 Mods 0 to 6 - 1,900 lbs. (862 kg)
HC Mark 14 Mod 0 - 1,900 lbs. (862 kg)
Target - 2,700 lbs. (1,225 kg)

Added during 1950s Deployments
Nuclear Mark 23 - 1,900 lbs. (862 kg)

Added during 1980s - 1990s Deployments
HE-CVT Mark 143 - 1,900 lbs. (862 kg)
ICM Mark 144 - 1,900 lbs. (862 kg)
HE-ET/PT Mark 145 - 1,900 lbs. (862 kg)

A total of fifty Mark 23 "Katie" nuclear projectiles were produced during the 1950s with development starting in 1952 and the first service projectile being delivered in October 1956. It is possible that the W23 warhead may have simply been installed inside of an otherwise unaltered HC Mark 13 shell body, although one of the sources listed below says that the projectile was slightly smaller than the Mark 13. USS Iowa, USS New Jersey and USS Wisconsin had an alteration made to Turret II magazine to incorporate a secure storage area for these projectiles. USS Missouri was not so altered as she had been placed in reserve in 1955. This secure storage area could contain ten nuclear shells plus nine Mark 24 practice shells. These nuclear projectiles were all withdrawn from service by October 1962 with none ever having been fired from a gun. One projectile was expended as part of Operation Plowshare (the peaceful use of nuclear explosive devices) and the rest were deactivated. USS Wisconsin did fire one of the practice shells during a test in 1957. It is not clear whether or not any of the battleships ever actually carried a nuclear device onboard, as the US Navy routinely refuses to confirm or deny which ships carry nuclear weapons. At least one Mark 23 shell body still exists at the National Atomic Museum in Albuquerque, New Mexico, as can be seen on the additional pictures page.

16-inch Projectiles:
Turret I: 387
Turret II: 456
Turret III: 367
Total: 1,210

A 1981 inventory of naval ammunition storage facilities found that there were 15,500 HC projectiles, 3,200 AP projectiles and 2,300 practice rounds in stock.

The site where this info came from

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:34:41 PM EST

[#28]

What those numbers leave out is the problem with the powder. One of the reasons the BBs were decommed was because of bad powder, which is why USS Iowa blew up. Improper storage for 40 years tends to do that.

You'd have to buy all new powder to launch those projos. That means a whole new development process, including live fire testing, that would probably break my damn windows. It isn't cheap.

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:34:44 PM EST

[#29]

The Iowa class BB is one of the most beautiful ships to ever sail but it lost it's place to the aircraft carrier in WWII. There was a reason for this, the aircraft carrier can inflict more damage at a further range than the BB ever could. The only reason the BB was brought out of mothballs during Virtnam was because a great many targets were within it's range. Now with the arming of Ohlo class subs with cruise missles it'd be foolish to even think about bringing back the BB. Sadly they were grand ships whose time has come & gone.

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:37:26 PM EST

[#30]

I would like to see a couple still roaming the sea putting ordnance on low level trouble spots like Somolia, etc.

Maybe they could outfit them to be manned by a skeleton crew and not the 1000s they used to require?

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:40:44 PM EST

[#31]

Quoted:
I would like to see a couple still roaming the sea putting ordnance on low level trouble spots like Somolia, etc.

Maybe they could outfit them to be manned by a skeleton crew and not the 1000s they used to require?

The systems that will allow DDG-1000 have a crew of under 200, compared to the crew of 300 current DDGs have, make up a large chunk of it's $3billion price tag. And DDG-1000s engineering plant is modern in all respects. Not to mention DDG-1000 is ~1/3 the size of a BB. That should give you some idea of the price tag associated with that idea.

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:41:30 PM EST

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

4. Lost skill set to even operate the things (no body in the service now could probably fire the 16" gun, or maintain the high pressure steam engines)

Not to be overly critical, because you hit the nail on the head on every other point, but we still operate high pressure steam engines, but the designs are considerably newer. The same principles apply, so it wouldn't be that difficult. My concern would be the physical condition of the plant.

No one in service can fire the gun, but I live down the road from people who could easily teach the skills necessary.

The knowledge part, while challenging, isn't difficult to overcome.

Overall, I give you a 98/100.

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:49:10 PM EST

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:

4. Lost skill set to even operate the things (no body in the service now could probably fire the 16" gun, or maintain the high pressure steam engines)

Not to be overly critical, because you hit the nail on the head on every other point, but we still operate high pressure steam engines, but the designs are considerably newer. The same principles apply, so it wouldn't be that difficult. My concern would be the physical condition of the plant.

No one in service can fire the gun, but I live down the road from people who could easily teach the skills necessary.

The knowledge part, while challenging, isn't difficult to overcome.

Overall, I give you a 98/100.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8c/Seagal_under_siege.jpg/250px-Seagal_under_siege.jpg

Actually, down the street they still have a 16 inch gun on the gun line that isn't used and a mess of 16 inch barrels. The GS-types and contractors still work the gun line.

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:50:14 PM EST

[#34]

Some of these pics are just amazing.

Advanced Gun Weapon Systems Technology Program
16/11 Inch Long Range GPS Concept with Sabot

WNUS_16-50_mk7_Sabot_pic.jpg
Sabot Diameter 16 in (40.6 cm)
Projectile Diameter 11 in (28 cm)
Range 100 nm
Launch Weight 650 lbs. (295 kg)
Fly Away Weight 525 lbs. (238 kg)
Launch Length 69 in (175 cm)
Payload 175.2 lbs. (79.5 kg)
248 M46 Submunitions
Guidance Modes GPS & INS

oooooooooo. GPS. Sexy.

Posted: 7/3/2007 1:52:15 PM EST

[#35]

If you really want 1000 cruise missiles:

Posted: 7/3/2007 2:23:13 PM EST

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Build some new ones.

so continue plans for the Montana class Battleships then ?

I have no idea what a Montana class is in battleships.

However, I have visited the USS Alabama twice!

Posted: 7/3/2007 2:30:34 PM EST

[#37]

As much as I LOVE the big BBs(I have been on a Iowa class), they are a artifact of a by-gone era. There are just too many things that can take one down WAY too easily.

If we do build another BB, it will be for show. It would be a capital ship that is there just to say "we have one..you don't!"

Posted: 7/3/2007 2:35:00 PM EST

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Build some new ones.

so continue plans for the Montana class Battleships then ?

I have no idea what a Montana class is in battleship.

Montana class BBs were a basically Iowas with a 4th 16" gun turret and more armor. They were projected to be about 5 knots slower than the Iowas. They never got beyond design studies.

Posted: 7/3/2007 2:37:17 PM EST

[#39]

Quoted:
What those numbers leave out is the problem with the powder. One of the reasons the BBs were decommed was because of bad powder, which is why USS Iowa blew up. Improper storage for 40 years tends to do that.

You'd have to buy all new powder to launch those projos. That means a whole new development process, including live fire testing, that would probably break my damn windows. It isn't cheap.

BIG BIG +1 Old 16" Prop Charge bags are a PITA.

Posted: 7/3/2007 2:38:07 PM EST

[#40]

Quoted:
They should just build a new one from scratch. Give it the latest railgun tech and a nuclear power plant with massive electricity production capabilities to power the railguns and future freakin lasers and that would be sweet! I'm being serious too.

Group buy?

Posted: 7/3/2007 2:39:10 PM EST

[#41]

Because it would just be too awesome. But really, they need to outfit one with some M<AC cannons. We're a lot closer than you think.

Posted: 7/3/2007 2:40:58 PM EST

[#42]

Quoted:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8c/Seagal_under_siege.jpg/250px-Seagal_under_siege.jpg
Actually, down the street they still have a 16 inch gun on the gun line that isn't used and a mess of 16 inch barrels. The GS-types and contractors still work the gun line.

You live near Dahlgren? I thought they weren't firing the 16"ers anymore.

Posted: 7/3/2007 2:41:18 PM EST

[#43]

Quoted:
Did a little research...

"Accuracy of both the Mk 6 and Mk 7 guns was very impressive with a shot dispersion of 1 minute of angle. To put that in perspective, these 16" guns could place rounds into a 35 ft diameter circle at a range of 12 miles making it a very precise and very effective weapon for close support of troops."

Did you guys get that?

One minute accuracy. As good as a very expensive bolt rifle.

What a gun!

a 12-14 mile bolt gun.

Posted: 7/3/2007 2:47:08 PM EST

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8c/Seagal_under_siege.jpg/250px-Seagal_under_siege.jpg
Actually, down the street they still have a 16 inch gun on the gun line that isn't used and a mess of 16 inch barrels. The GS-types and contractors still work the gun line.

You live near Dahlgren? I thought they weren't firing the 16"ers anymore.

I live in a gated community near the gun line.

No they aren't firing the 16s any more, but the guys who did still work here. At least that's what I've been told.

Posted: 7/3/2007 2:47:14 PM EST

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Build some new ones.

so continue plans for the Montana class Battleships then ?

I have no idea what a Montana class is in battleship.

Montana class BBs were a basically Iowas with a 4th 16" gun turret and more armor. They were projected to be about 5 knots slower than the Iowas. They never got beyond design studies.

Model of USS Montana BB-67 in 1941

Posted: 7/3/2007 2:47:37 PM EST

[#46]

They'll come back into play if we ever need them.

Pray to Jesus Christ almighty we never need them, cus that won't be a pretty war if we have a sudden and urgent need for four more battlegroups.

Although in any future war of prolonged duration they'd probably be reactivated more for thier C&C facilities then thier cannons.

Posted: 7/3/2007 2:47:59 PM EST

[#47]

Quoted:
A missile cruiser can pretty much do anything a BB can do, and cost a lot less. With cruise missiles that can be put within 6' of your target at 500 miles, the advantages of the 16" big guns disappear quickly.

Its the day to day peace time costs that made the BB obsolete.

I actually worked on her as a civvy during her decomissioning and layup in Bremerton prior to the one sided prisoner exchange to Pearl Harbor.

The ship's interior was amazing compared to other ships of her era. The amount of armor she carried on the main deck and hull was just stupendous.

However, efficiency wasn't in the design requirements so the 1 million $$ in JP she burned daily just can't be overlooked.

It was a privelege to work with her though.

On a side note, the most dangerous ship in the sea in a conventional war is the converted Ohio Missile Boats ala Arsenal Ship! Just plain scary in terms of long range power projection with no warning.

Posted: 7/3/2007 3:43:21 PM EST

[#48]

Cruise Missiles can be quite expensive unless you use an AWS..

16 inch shells are cheaper but...Conventional 16 inch guns have about a range of 20 miles.

On the Other hand...a Nuclear Powered Vessel (Nuclear Powered so it will have the electricity) mounted with some Rail Guns...or maybe 16 inch caliber AGS might be a more cost effective way to go. (The DDG-1000 is going to have a 155mm AGS (6" caliber))

I like the Iowa's but....
Metallurgy has improved since the late 30's, and there are more hydrodynamically efficient hull designs out there. Perhaps using Artificial Shark Skin to cover the hull below the water line to reduce barnacle growth and drag or using a hypercavitating hull to reduce drag would be a good way to go.

How about a very large nuke powered Battle Cruiser with Rail Guns and a MK57 VLS system? Give it the ability to launch swarms of UUVs and UCAVs
The MK57 isn't as efficient in terms of weapons loadout per volume as a Mk41 but on the other hand a ship is more survivable with one than the 41.

Posted: 7/3/2007 4:48:41 PM EST

[#49]

Quoted:
But lets play this game...

Design a modern "battleship" within some realm of reality.

You play your game and I'll play mine.

There are two kinds of ships: submarines and targets.

Whatever you build, a submarine, even a "lowly" diesel boat, can sink.

Waste of time and money.

Posted: 7/3/2007 4:50:11 PM EST

[#50]

I`ll bite.

I`d go with a Virginia CGN hull form as a baseline. I`d expand it to 35,000-45,000 tons. Updated Aegis for AAW and over all weapons control. Resurrect the Mk 71 Major Caliber Lt. Wt gun (8") in 2 double turrets ( 1 fore and aft) Secondary battery would be 127" in 4 single turrets (2 port/starboard). VLS fore & aft. Mk# depends on final tonnage. Vulcan CIWS x 4 mounts. two triple torpedo tube launchers for Mk 48. Nixie or similar torpedo decoys. Organic mine neutralization system as currently fitted to DDG 51 types. A single helipad and hanger for HH-60 or UCAVs. Power plant possibly a diesel-gas turbine set up for range and speed.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why not Recommission an Iowa Class BattleShip? (Page 1 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us