Mothball Fleet aerial tour -USS Iowa

[BernieEOD]

Battleships are title B. That's Lesson One in strategy. They are the backbone of the Fleet. Their fighting power can't be beat. They dominate the raging Main While swinging 'round the anchor chain, And bravely guard your home and mine While anchored out there all in line. They fill the Japs with fear and hate From well inside the Golden Gate.

[BernieEOD]

They are not coming back. They have been stricken from the Naval register meaning they are no longer available for re activation.

Furthermore, they are too expensive to operate.

[pancreasmen]

A nuclear reactor for an Iowa is down right a horrible idea. It's MUCH cheaper and safer to use it's old steam engines, as for the Iowa was specifically designed to use them.

I also agree that the iowas should be reactivated. It would actually be a convenient thing for the navy, because it's massive guns would provide lots more damage than the tiny 3 inch toothpicks on the frigates and destroyers.

[steamingpoopfart]

there not 3 there 5 inch

[khanrhy]

Heh, I was looking at the ships going:

nope not her,

nope not her,

Woo hoo!!!! Thar she is!!

Beautiful long ship.

[OneEyedJack1970]

Battleships were great when big guns were the order of the day, but these days you can put cruise missiles that have longer range, greater accuracy, and a bigger punch on a much smaller ship.

[DSMeclipsegst]

please bring her back in action and so the russians a real ship.

[dcooke1989]

agree, but probably way to expensive to run. unless they some how switched the old turbine to like a nuclear powered turbine. if that could be done. one, maybe two would be reinstated.

[tupsumato]

Could you describe how that ship is a "real ship" while, for example, Kirov class battlecruisers aren't?

[DSMeclipsegst]

they not one shell from the Iowa and the Kirov class goes down and your little aiti ship missles would bounce off of the Iowas hull with little more than a scratch ive done the research they not designed to punch through all that steel not even the US anti-ship missles can dont say you have cruise missles so does the iowa you have torpeado tube but you have to get within 5 miles to even have a chance to hit and the iowas 16s can reach out 24+ miles and the 5s can reach ut about 12-13miles

[tupsumato]

Well, a single shell from Iowa's 16" main battery does weigh more (1225 kg) than the HE warhead of the P-700 Granit (750 kg), and Iowas probably carry more than 20 of those, but how about range and accuracy. Are guns as accurate at their maximum range as missiles with a guidance system? What if the missile is fired 500 kilometers away?

I don't know what kind of damage a conventional warhead would inflict on a battleship, though. 750 kg of HE is a lot, but so is 300 mm of armor.

[tupsumato]

I forgot that Iowas have Tomahawks as well. I guess that puts them pretty much even as far as firepower is concerned. They both also have torpedos, anti-missile defense systems etc. Kirov has probably a bit better anti-aircraft weaponry, but then again the battleships probably wouldn't be sailing alone.

[DSMeclipsegst]

no and the US has the biggest and best aircraft acrriers, subs, crusiers, and destroyers in the world. and high explosive shells on armor isnt going to do much to the hull of an iowa maybe a small ding no bigger than the Kamizaki hit on the USS Missouri.

[tupsumato]

I'm quite sure that even battleships can be effectively disabled with anti-ship missiles without armor-piercing warheads.

750 kg's of HE would make more than just a dent. All deck-mounted equipment, such as missile launchers, CIWS, fire guidance systems etc. would be destroyed. Missiles could also be guided to hit locations with weaker armor - the ship was designed against indirect, unguided long-range artillery fire.

Those new torpedos that explode below the ship could also do the trick.

[DSMeclipsegst]

naaaaaaaaa the ship using the torps would have to get within the 16s guns range and if you watch the vids of the iowa shooting just the raw power would send any ship running. plus iowas were built to take a few torp hits and get back to base. but just a FYI i have a feeling in the near future Battleships will make their return more or less in the seas around somalia to prevent pirate attacks. cause if your a pirate and you see a big ass ship with big ass guns coming your gonna haul ass home.

[tupsumato]

I agree with the range - the torpedo would have to be fired from a submarine or with an ASROC beyond the range of the main battery.

However, unlike WW2-era torpedos that actually hit the ship, modern torpedos are designed to dive under the ship and "lift" it from the water, breaking its back. While the Iowas are bigger than the ships used in these experiments (see videos in YouTube), I'm quite sure that they would work just fine. The ship is not designed to take such loads.

[DSMeclipsegst]

yea but like i said he Kriov wouldnt beat it =). as for te pirates it might be over kill but its purely psycholgical and will show them that the US isnt afraid to spend money to protect its assets in the area. but i vote on replaceing the fuel oil engines for Neuclear reactors and then boom you will have the most powerful ship in the world. ya know what i mean

[tupsumato]

The problem is that with the price of sending just one Iowa-class battleship there you could send several frigates/destroyers, which would be more effective in repelling the pirate threat. Smaller units, networking, distribution of power etc. are the words of the day.

As for nuclear propulsion, I bet it would be cheaper to keep running on dinosaurs. It has some benefits, but retrofitting it to Iowa would probably cost more than building a new battleship...

[DSMeclipsegst]

not realy the iowas engines are actually pretty easy to get to put it in dry dock and cut the side plateing and slide it out

[tupsumato]

I think a better solution would be installing diesel-electric propulsion system. Iowas have an installed power of 158 MW. That could be covered with as few as five modern generating sets (Wärtsilä 18V64) with far better fuel economy than the old steam turbine plant. The price would be a fraction of the cost of a nuclear propulsion plant.

[DSMeclipsegst]

yea in the short term it would be but the long term the reactor would be the best

[tupsumato]

Yeah, as it only needs to be refueled every 30 or so years. Still, I'm a bit sceptical. But then again the US Navy has shown that it can afford nuclear-powered ships, so I guess cost is not an issue here :)

(I always tend to think these things from commercial shipping's point of view and forget that navies don't care about profit and the US Navy is not short on money)

[steamingpoopfart]

not really in vietnam in korean the koreans DEMANDED all iowa class battlships be removed 150 miles from the coast line before any peace talk began people fear the iowa class battleship

[khanrhy]

@tupsumato

Much like the Carrier Strike Groups, I am sure if the Iowas were ever recommissioned for some emergency. That they would probably travel with their own attack submarine support to splash other subs before they become a threat.

Then again it is quite probable that if the Iowas were to be reactivated, they would each be assigned to one of the 11 CSGs.

[tupsumato]

As far as Somalia and piracy is concerned, I don't think they'd send a battleship with God knows how much crew when a smaller cruiser, destroyer or even a frigate would do just fine. The pirates are armed with handguns and RPGs, and their boats are just converted fishing boats - seeing a patrol boat with, say, a rapid-firing 57 mm main gun would have nearly the same psychological effect. Overkilling would be just waste of money.

[tupsumato]

Those new anti-ship missiles, especially the ones with armor against DU rounds from CIWS and supersonic terminal approach, pack quite a lot of kinetic energy. They might be able to pierce the weaker armoring in some parts of the ship.

Then there's the fact that if battleships were still used, the primary weapon against them would be the same as with carrier groups. Anti-ship ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. But for the sake of sanity let's stick with conventional weapons :)

[DSMeclipsegst]

no if battleships was still around russia would have some good ones out but the US is the only nation to Perfect a battleships design and the US would probly have the Montanas which would put the Iowas to shame.

[DSMeclipsegst]

and the only armor on the Kirov is 76mm plateing around armor about 3 inches comared to the armor on the iowa of

Belt: 12.1 in (310mm),

Bulkheads: 11.3 in (290mm),

Barbettes: 11.6 to 17.3 in (295 to 439mm),

Turrets: 19.7 in (500mm),

Decks: 7.5 in (190mm)

[DSMeclipsegst]

and dont bring up concept ships the US had one to the Montana class Battleship

which had 12 16s and this armor

Side belt: 16.1 inches (409 mm) tapering to 10.2 inches (259 mm) on 1 inch (25 mm) STS plate inclined 19°

Lower side belt: 7.2 inches (183 mm) tapered to 1 inch (25 mm) inclined 10°

Bulkheads: 18 inches (457 mm) forward, 15.25 inches (387 mm) aft

Barbettes: 21.3 inches (541 mm), 18 inches (457 mm) (aft)

Turrets: up to 22.5 inches (572 mm)

Decks: up to 6 inches (152 mm)

[crpdst2003]

supposed to be a monument ship in San Francisco... but those &*^*% refused to honor War

(their words not mine).... Feinstein probably still mad after appropiating 3 million to have her brought over from the Atlantic... hopefully Stockton(closer to me :) ) will build a suitable monument berth for her...

Its not war we are honoring but those who gave their life that there can even be

pacifists, vegetarians, and other such luxuries paid for with vets blood ...

[NickB1967]

It would be awesome if Alameda station, or Mare Island could have her.

[Rserlo]

How can the people of this city call those beautiful ships an eye sore??? If I was mayor of that town, I'd just turn all those ships into muesems. Besides, they are classic ships that served a huge role in WW2. How can you just want to get ride of them? Especially the Iowa? I wish i was Bill Gates rich so I could just buy that Battleship and run it myself.