Reactivate the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin to fight terrorists!

[SoCal Pubbie]

OK, it’s time for my to weigh in even though I've never served and my opinion’s not worth much!

As much as I’d love to see the battleships return (I toured the New Jersey during it’s refitting in the 60’s and tried to do the same in Long Beach but bugged out when I found out I was about 200,000th in line), I’m afraid Poohbah’s view rules the day. The fact that the ships are so old that no one can operate them, as a previous post pointed out, and the difficulty in getting through the armor plate to make changes really rules the whole thing out. Furthermore from a morale standpoint I’m not sure we’d really like the only opportunity to view the Missouri to be from the porthole of a submersible on a National Geographic special.

On the other hand, although we don’t have the infrastructure to make all the thick armor plate, as Poohbah has pointed out many times, I wonder if some updated version of the battleship might not be an option. Something with a very hardened hull, and simple, cheap guns (railguns?) that would not require as many sophisticated systems but deliver more firepower to the target.

[Poohbah]

Your idea is basically about the same as mine: figure out how to do the fire support mission, and use the latest technology throughout to design a modern, survivable, capable system. It will not be another Iowa-class battleship, but it will do the job.

[hchutch]

Why not develop a new type of 16" gun that won't use bagged powder, and put it on a hull of Chobham armor?

It's almost a direct upgrade - all we really are doing is scaling up what we did with the 8" guns on the Salem-class cruisers.

[Poohbah]

Why not develop a new type of 16" gun that won't use bagged powder, and put it on a hull of Chobham armor?

Ah, a brand-new gun, using 1945 vintage technology!

Why not use the latest technology, since the R&D time will be the same either way?

It's almost a direct upgrade - all we really are doing is scaling up what we did with the 8" guns on the Salem-class cruisers.

Given the turret explosion on the USS Newport News in 1972, the problems don't magically vanish. You'll take at least as long, if not longer, for the gun and turret design as you would for an all-new rail or coilgun with much more capability.

[SoCal Pubbie]

There have been many discussions like this before, I have re all your posts. I seem to recall various incarnations of different designs, maybe they went no further than the paper stage. One had a towed a barge that functioned as a firing platform?

I don’t know how complicated a railgun would actually be, but the simplicity of chemical firearms must have advantages. I wonder if it would be possible to devise some type of an AB component mixture that would be basically inert until it’s loaded into the breech to negate the volatility of the magazine storage.

Another thing that comes to mind is if ships could be armored with something like the Chobram (sp?) used on the Abrams tank. Something that would increase the survivability of the hull without adding the weight of hardened steel.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Well, I see someone beat me to it on the Chobram thing!

[hchutch]

Perhaps, but what I'm wondering is how many times have we had these explosions? Iowa in 1990, Newport News in 1972, and Mississippi in 1943.

These explosions seem to be very rare events. If the 1945 techonology can do the job, I say go with that, while developign the rail guns on a follow-on class of ship.

[Smogger]

Poohbah dont you realize that the terrorists would have to fight through 1500 crewmen? IT takes about 10 minutes to reach the forward magazine from the deck. Maybe 200 or more terrorists with bombs strapped to their chests and AK-47's blacking could do it. Terrorists would never be able to get aboard anyways.

[SuperLuminal]

Amen!

Fine article.....accurately told.

Now, watch the commie scum come out of the woodwork for this post.

[Smogger]

PING

[Intimidator]

Why would a battleship be any more vulnerable than any other of our ships? I'll bet the battlewagon could take a lot more hits than our other ships.

[Poohbah]

Perhaps, but what I'm wondering is how many times have we had these explosions? Iowa in 1990, Newport News in 1972, and Mississippi in 1943.

Plus Mutsu in 1943, Roma in 1943, Hood in 1941, Queen Mary, Invincible, Indefatigable, and (almost) Lion at Jutland, the ex-Novorossiysk, 1957, Arizona, 1941.

These explosions seem to be very rare events.

On a statistical basis, it's not that rare at all, because the installed technology base in question is so small.

If the 1945 techonology can do the job, I say go with that, while developign the rail guns on a follow-on class of ship.

Meeting acceptable safety standards with 1945 technology will take longer than starting from scratch and developing new technology that avoids this issue.

[PsyOp]

Outstanding post. I never was able to understand the reason for decommissioning those ships other than the fact that the press reviled them (after the turret explosion and for their effect use in Lebanon). They're the big stick ol' Teddy spoke of and they really do strike fear in the hearts of bad guys. If we parked one in the Philipines, I bet those al-Qeuda wanna-be's we're hunting over there might just decide to find new lines of work. Or perhaps the coast of Somalia or even Isreal right now.

[Poohbah]

In an era of smart munitions and very-hard-target guided bombs (the GBU-28 "Saddamizer"), they are unacceptably vulnerable.

[Eternal_Bear]

"Fear God and Dreadnought."

[Poohbah]

Poohbah dont you realize that the terrorists would have to fight through 1500 crewmen?

You mean that EVERY SINGLE CREWMAN will be between the point of entry into the ship's interior and the magazine access? Wow.

IT takes about 10 minutes to reach the forward magazine from the deck.

I've heard tell from a BB veteran that it takes less than two if you've studied the blueprints. BTW, did you know the as-builts are available from NARA?

Maybe 200 or more terrorists with bombs strapped to their chests and AK-47's blacking could do it.

Actually, about 25 is probably all you need. Two shooters to keep the topsides clear and everyone behind hard cover, and two teams--a large team to storm the ship and make for someplace crucial, and a second to charge aboard once MARDET is distracted.

Terrorists would never be able to get aboard anyways.

Yup, they'd never be able to walk up onto the pier in a foreign port. </sarcasm>

[Eternal_Bear]

Another theory of the Hood's demise postulates that it may have suffered massive structural failure when hit by Bishmark's shells, meaning it literally fell apart! It's hull contained the same godawful brittle steel that doomed the Titanic. It was built around the same time in the same shipyard.

[Poohbah]

Another theory of the Hood's demise postulates that it may have suffered massive structural failure when hit by Bishmark's shells, meaning it literally fell apart!

The visual effects of the event make it quite clear that a massive powder explosion was involved.

It's hull contained the same godawful brittle steel that doomed the Titanic. It was built around the same time in the same shipyard.

Actually, she was laid down some seven years later.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Likewise any ship without an air CAP is in trouble.  It is just that the BB probably has far more surviveability than most.  Historically, the BBs have been able to soak up fantastic amounts of punishment.  personally, I think we are missing a bet here.  There are times when we do need to do close-in support, and a BB is much better than any of our other ships for this purpose.  Also much better.  The psychological element of a BB shouldn't be discounted either.

Maybe we should go all the way with them, and put in reactors in them.  Put some Harriers on board, (the new f-22 when it comes out) for a personal air CAP and light offensive missions and I think that you end up with a unique and powerful weapon.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Harland & Wolf built the Hood?