battleship reactivation - Reagan era.

[280plus]

I find it's better to do a search on my ID and then go to anything related to Navy ships. Here's one I found...


http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=143812

[HankB]

The 16" guns had utility for naval bombardment where the air threat was low. In principle, they still do.

Unfortunately, poltical correctness has limited that utility . . . when we had troops in Lebanon, much was made of the battleships' presence offshore in an artillery support role. Unfortunately, stories at the time indicated that use of the 16" guns was under the control of an army general in Europe, thousands of miles away!

Interservice rivalries played a part in the determination to not use them as effectively as possible, even to the point of ordering deliberate offsets of counter-battery fire in order to minimize enemy casualties.

(One wonders whether or not the fire control officers made occasional mistakes . . . )

Again, these are just things I read in open sources - if anyone reading this has first hand knowledge to the contrary, please educate me.

[richyoung]

One thing I know is the Marines LOVE those 16" guns. Don't forget, during desert storm Iraqi troops were surrendering at the sight of the drone that directed the 16" guns. They wanted nothing to do with actually having one of those shells drop in their vicinity.

Yep - they seem to be muzzled by the Navy higher brass right now - pfficial position is that the DD(X) with TWO, count 'em TWO 155mm tubes is adequate for NGFS - problem is, there won't BE even one of them for 5 or 6 years - all we have now is 5".  We deactivated the BBS way too early.

[Parker Dean]

.
Assuming the thing could be refitted for a reasonble cost ...

Therein lies the rub. What has been talked about is dangerously close to complete reconstruction, and if you're gonna do THAT, then you might as well pop for something modern with modern area-control capabilities.

[280plus]

Yup, Salt water can do an awful lot to steel so I'm not so much for the reactivation and rebuilding of the old ones as I am for outfitting a new platform capable of handling the 16 incher. I don't think the Marines care WHAT kind of ship it is as long as the 16" is still available to them. I HAVE heard from a relaible source that the Navy is NOT at all interested in 16" guns these days. Maybe that will change.

[CAnnoneer]

Cruise missiles are far more expensive than 16" shells - $1-2M a pop vs effectively nothing. If the target is within 20 miles from the shore, why shoot the missiles or send in airplanes that can be shot down? Park the battleship and let them have hundreds of rounds.

The economic issue becomes how much you spend on modernization of an old hull. It seems to me more reasonable to just have smaller cannons with modern explosives on smaller modern ships, as suggested above. Also, how much maintenance is required to keep a New Jersey functional?

Let's also not forget the intimidation effect, as mentioned by others.

Finally, the sheer Freudian fun of it.

[280plus]

Heh, Don't ask me why but I'm reminded of an old WWII Bugs Bunny episode where at the end he's on an assembly line with all these huge shells (had to be 16") passing by on a conveyor belt. He's whappin' each of them on the nose with a mallet and then writing "dud" on them as they go by.

LOL...

[LAK]

Mobile standoff/offshore heavy artillery.

-------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[richyoung]

I find it's better to do a search on my ID and then go to anything related to Navy ships. Here's one I found...


http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=143812

Yeah.. you might recognize a username or two from that discussion....

[280plus]

Were you in there?

[richyoung]

Were you in there?

I cannot tell a lie - tho this time, I was lookign more for all the reasons they were braought back LAST time, to see how many still applied today.  Not thtat it matters - I'm sure the Navy had the elevation and traverse mechanisms wrecked the MINUTE that the Congress apporved moving them to museums...

[280plus]

My guess is they needed or wanted the extra fire power for DS?

[280plus]

Here you go...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/bb-61.htm

I think the answer you seek is in the second paragraph.

[richyoung]

It's agood thumbnail sketch - not as deep as I'm seeking.  The Iowas were originally built both to counter Kongo class "heavy battle cruiser/fast (light) battleship" Japanese units, as well as go one-on-one with a Bismark/Roma/or even a Yamato and have a good chance.  BTW the global security site is apparently unaware that the Yamatos, tho larger, were slower than the Iowa class, their 18.1' AP shells only equalled the 2700 16" ap shells, and their secondary armament & AA always was inadequate.  In a 1-1 slugging match, the Iowas probably have a slight edge due to superior radar.

[roo_ster]

Additionally, the cost to reactivate and modernize a battleship is about that of a modern guided missile frigate.

If the above is true, I'm wondering just why we haven't do it already?  Who would not trade a frigate for the Mighty Mo?

[richyoung]

Additionally, the cost to reactivate and modernize a battleship is about that of a modern guided missile frigate.

If the above is true, I'm wondering just why we haven't do it already?  Who would not trade a frigate for the Mighty Mo?

You don't get bullet points on your Officer Evaluation Report, or a shot at a cushy job with a contractor post-military, by advocating reusing existing systems.  Advocating shiny new systems is what does it - thats why a room down the hal lfrom me is on its THIRD multi-million dollar re-do as a "gee-whiz" simulator (in search of a mission) technology demonstrator...

..and yes the whole failure to reactivate the BBs stinks - I see we are still flying B-52s, KC-135s, C-130s, & still using M-14s and 113s...

[CAnnoneer]

I am wondering if the Iowa class can be refitted with nuclear power plants and electrical engines. Such a refit would considerably extend their range and independence. Any ideas?

Another angle to consider is that these battleships were built to (try to) withstand large-caliber shells, torpedos, and possibly bombs. But, would that armor be meaningful against modern anti-ship missiles? If not, there seems to be a lot of weight that is hard to justify. On the other hand, with the nuclear plants, energy would be abundant. Still, IIRC the Argentinians sank a few British ships with just a cheap French missile...

[richyoung]

I am wondering if the Iowa class can be refitted with nuclear power plants and electrical engines. Such a refit would considerably extend their range and independence. Any ideas?

Another angle to consider is that these battleships were built to (try to) withstand large-caliber shells, torpedos, and possibly bombs. But, would that armor be meaningful against modern anti-ship missiles? If not, there seems to be a lot of weight that is hard to justify. On the other hand, with the nuclear plants, energy would be abundant. Still, IIRC the Argentinians sank a few British ships with just a cheap French missile...

Compare and contrast hardness and sectional density of a missle flying at Mach two verses a 2,700 armor-peircing shell travelling at... mach2.

[HankB]

. . . would that armor be meaningful against modern anti-ship missiles?

Probably depends a lot on the missle. I suspect high probability of survival against missles comparable to the French Exocet, but IIRC the Russkies had some pretty big, long range supersonic missles intended to be used against our carriers (Their Shipwreckmissle reportedly flies at Mach 2.25 and carries a 750kg warhead) which, should one of those hit, would probably be at least as damaging as a hit from an armor-piercing battleship round . . .

[richyoung]

. . . would that armor be meaningful against modern anti-ship missiles?

Probably depends a lot on the missle. I suspect high probability of survival against missles comparable to the French Exocet, but IIRC the Russkies had some pretty big, long range supersonic missles intended to be used against our carriers (Their Shipwreckmissle reportedly flies at Mach 2.25 and carries a 750kg warhead) which, should one of those hit, would probably be at least as damaging as a hit from an armor-piercing battleship round . . .

Remember that warhead isn't designed or built to withstand smacking anything more substantial than a carrier deck... i suspect smacking  16" of battlship armor may do BAD THINGS to the fusing and such...

[richyoung]

I am wondering if the Iowa class can be refitted with nuclear power plants and electrical engines. Such a refit would considerably extend their range and independence. Any ideas?

Nukes make steam, and the old girls already have real good low-mileage steam turbines in them.  Just pipe the steam from the reactors to the existing turbines.If the 16" were converted to liquid propellant, and the secondary armament done away with, ther might be enough room in the unused magazine spaces and the old engineering plant to put nukes - prob'ly need to ask some atomic squids how big the reactors are, & how much they put out - we would need about 200,000 hp equivalent.