Read the forum code of contact
By: - 20th April 2005 at 20:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Iowas are really old. Let them retire gracefully.
In the unlikely even that new construction does take place, though the ships might be called battleships, they would more probably be monitors.
By: - 20th April 2005 at 20:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This has been a topic of discussion on a number of sights.
It was a tremendous thrill to see a BB at sea and firing her main battery!
As much as I would like to see a BB in service again, they are past their prime.
It is true there are no equals to the 16" main battery, but with the advent of various cruise missiles and other Precision Guided Munitions they are seen as less valuable.
The BB's were designed to serve in another era. They would be resource intensive ships to operate. They lack the labor saving machinery common to naval vessels today. (For example, with Gas Turbine propulsion DDG's & CG's with the "Smart Ship" upgrades can run all the engineer plant from a single console) They do not have the most up to date electronics and command & control equipment.
Trying to bring them into the 21st Century would be a costly task. There would be so much to redo. Even though they have not seen that much active service their hulls are old.
There are many proposals for fire support ships to help with amphibious landings. Given the financial situation of the US, the cost of the BB's alone would disqualify them from service.
By: - 20th April 2005 at 21:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe they could remove the turrets and fit them to a new build, low cost hull.
After all, their 16" main battery is the only capability that can't be done by existing ships and they don't have to fit 3 turrets to one ship, they could just fit 1 or 2 to a new hull, saving on manpower and increasing availability.
By: - 20th April 2005 at 22:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rather than a traditional battleship, why not a floating TLAM platform? Converting some of the Ohio's into SSGNs is a really good idea. Battleships are by no means all that hard to find, but an Ohio would be another story.
By: - 20th April 2005 at 23:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rather than a traditional battleship, why not a floating TLAM platform? Converting some of the Ohio's into SSGNs is a really good idea. Battleships are by no means all that hard to find, but an Ohio would be another story.
You do know that four Ohio's are being converted to SSGNs already right?
Daniel
By: - 20th April 2005 at 23:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's why I said it's a good idea, I was thinking along the lines of expanding the program.
By: - 21st April 2005 at 00:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wouldn't reactivate the Iowas.......WAY too manpower intensive........aren't the new DDX "destroyers" supposed to have 155mm guns? I would propose some sort of new "gun cruiser" (CA) with 2 to 4 8in guns or 6 to 8 155mm guns and decent AA missile systems........
By: - 21st April 2005 at 01:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have to agree, this ships need to have a good long sleep now, they have saved the world enough (Kinda like Doctor Who really).
One these lines, but slightly off topic, does anyone have any pics of the Indonesian Sverdlovs? I remember reading about two or three of them operating in TNI-AN service but can't find any pics or reference these days, most just talk about the Russian service ships.
By: - 21st April 2005 at 01:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indonesia got one Sverdlow, Hull 03, and named it Sipidan, from what I've found so far.
By: - 21st April 2005 at 08:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wouldn't reactivate the Iowas.......WAY too manpower intensive........aren't the new DDX "destroyers" supposed to have 155mm guns? I would propose some sort of new "gun cruiser" (CA) with 2 to 4 8in guns or 6 to 8 155mm guns and decent AA missile systems........
We had a discussion about the Iowas in another thread recently, I remember reading something recently stating that most personnel would be unretired retired Navy personnel and contracted specialists. The draw on the navy's current pool of trained personnel would be small, equivalent to crewing 1 Arleigh Burke. The cost of reactivating the BBs is about that of two Arleigh Burkes.
By: - 21st April 2005 at 15:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wow...can't believe they are actually considering this! I think it would be great to see two of them back in action, but I would not be for modifying their profiles to the extent of removing any of the main gun armament...however I do believe they can be modified with more modern weapons that require less manpower to operate and reduce costs, as they attempted to do with the last round of modernizations/reactivations and the additions of Harpoon and Tomahawks....I hope they come back, I'll be standing on the deck of the USS New Jersey in about a month and a half, something I've wanted to do all my life!
Mark
By: - 21st April 2005 at 23:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At least get rid of the 5in 38s and put in modern 5in guns.....or poss 6.2in........
By: - 22nd April 2005 at 12:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fitting the 16 inch guns of the Iowa class to a modern ship is one idea, but it takes about 200 odd crew men to man one gun turret plus the magazine and aiming etc etc.Why not develop a nice big modern gun with mechanical ammo handling and loading with a new range of ammo from laser guided munitions through to standard shells.
Maybe they could remove a existing gun barrel and fit it into a new turret with auto loading equipment etc.
I still think it would be cheaper just to fit a whole turret as it is, into a new low cost hull. After all, there will only be a occasional need for shore bombardment operations, so its not worth spending alot of time and money on the capability.
By: - 23rd April 2005 at 02:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't know if this is a helpful guide, but after the Baltimore class heavy cruisers, the US went to auto 8in guns, and the weight of a triple turret went from 300 tons to 450 tons. A little of that went to slightly thickened armor, but most was the weight of the mount gear. Iowa turrets start at 1700 tons....
By: - 23rd April 2005 at 02:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What was the crew of a Baltimore? Compared to an Iowa?
By: - 23rd April 2005 at 04:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Figures for Baltimore's crew complement range from 1426 to 2039; for Iowa, I see figures from 1921 to 2700.
By: - 25th April 2005 at 18:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Battleships were designed with protection to resist shellfire from the anticipated opponents. Today a BB would have to deal with a variety of threats from SSM and various PGM's. The payloads would be heavier. Would an armor scene optimized for gunfire resistance be that effective against the new threats.
Also, the new weapons of today require more than just deck space to install a launcher. You need more power, more electronics and more command & control resources.
In terms of a ship loaded with missiles - didn't they propose something like that called the Arsenal Ship. It was a floating missile farm. Aside from all the other problems, it put a lot of valuable offensive and defensive armament in one hull.
Posts: 151
By: Helican - 20th April 2005 at 19:52
http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=635&cid=1&sid=27
Any thoughts??