Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Debate over fate of battleships heats up again
AP ^ | ? | Associated Press

Posted on 01/14/2002 10:00:06 PM PST by DieselBoy

USS Wisconsin one of 4 IOWA Class ships left Associated Press New Jersey’s congressional delegation has reopened a battle among states and within the military over the future of the four battleships, including the USS Wisconsin that provided an intimidating and destructive presence in military conflicts from World War II through the Gulf War. The Delegation, which wants the USS New Jersey to become a tourist attraction at a pier in Bayonne, proposes scrubbing a provision that keeps the USS Wisconsin and another Iowa Class battleship in reserve. That proposal has rekindled a debate among active and former Navy officials about whether the widely beloved battleships are ready for a noble retirement or still can perform essential duty supporting American military operations. A potential compromise advanced Thursday when Sen. John Warner, R-Va., head of the Senate’s seapower subcommittee, said he will recommend removing the New Jersey from the reserve, replacing it with the USS Iowa. On all sides of the debate is an abiding respect for the four Iowa Class battleships. The Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin – launched between 1942 and 1944 and now the last four battleships in the world. "For a show of force, you can’t beat the battleship", said William L. Stearman, director of the U.S. Naval Fire Support Association, who supports letting New Jersey take the USS New Jersey but wants to keep the Wisconsin and Iowa on the active register. "Only the battleship can belly up to a hostile area and show the flag and be a show of force." The USS Missouri’s fate has already been decided. It soon will be towed to Pearl Harbor to begin a new life as part of a bookend memorial to World War II. The Missouri, on whose decks the Japanese surrendered to the end of the war, will be permanently docked near the USS Arizona, whose sinking on Dec. 7, 1941, thrust the United States in to the war. The New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Iowa remain in montball status – moored respectively in Navy shipyards in Bremerton, Wa., Norfolk, Va., and Philadelphia, Pa. The Navy removed the battleships from the Naval Vessel Register in 1995. But, Congress ordered the Navy to reinstate two of them so they would be in reserve in case they are ever needed in conflict. The Navy chose to reinstate the New Jersey, and the Wisconsin. Warner, a former Navy Secretary, says he will recommend during the armed services budget process that the Iowa replace the New Jersey on the register.


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last
Bring both USS Wisconsin and USS Iowa back to active service to help fight the war against terrorism and give our troops some well deserved fire support!!!
1 posted on 01/14/2002 10:00:06 PM PST by DieselBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DieselBoy
I'd love to see the battleships come back. Hopefully the Zumwalt destroyers will be built and we'll have some gun ships in the Navy.
2 posted on 01/14/2002 10:14:17 PM PST by Brett66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DieselBoy
So far, there hasn't been a need for the Iowa class heavy guns.

As for me, I say yes, keep them, until you can build replacements for them.

On the other hand, if it were up to me, I'd recommission the Texas, the North carolina, and any other old battlewagons still in existance, modernize their armament (particularly AA and missle launchers), propulsion and electronics, and make them fleet flagships. Nothing else in the world today combines their protection with their gun firepower. But what do I know? I was in the Army, and my experience with Naval ships was purely with their accommidating amphibious forces and providing such with artillery support.
3 posted on 01/14/2002 10:20:22 PM PST by VietVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DieselBoy
There is a reason the USS Iowa was not reinstated

I believe the # 2 gun turret was never repaired after it exploded in 1989.. cost was to much

4 posted on 01/14/2002 10:23:47 PM PST by tophat9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VietVet
Sadly the Zumwalts will not be built for another 10 years. As of now there is no other type of long range fire support for our soldiers. The only other choice is the Iowas. North Carolina, Massachusetts, 'Bama, they are too slow and were not reactivated and modernized like the Iowas were in the 80's. As of now the Iowas are the only hope for fire support for the next few years.
5 posted on 01/14/2002 10:25:35 PM PST by DieselBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000
Iowas turret is repairable. Estimated time to repair is 4-6 months and requires use of a Hammerhead crane to life the armor off of the turret. Everything needed to complete the repairs is being stored inside of the turret.
6 posted on 01/14/2002 10:29:30 PM PST by DieselBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: DieselBoy

How old is this article? I was in Hawaii at Pearl back in 1999 and the Missouri (or something that looked like her) was already moored by the Arizona memorial.

8 posted on 01/14/2002 10:30:32 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: DieselBoy
No I understand Iowas turret is repairable, just pointing out the logic of if your not going to reinstate any one of the four it would be the USS Iowa and not the USS New Jersey just so it can become a tourist attraction at a pier in Bayonne
10 posted on 01/14/2002 10:42:39 PM PST by tophat9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000
I believe the # 2 gun turret was never repaired after it exploded in 1989.. cost was to much

I think it goes beyond cost. The tooling necessary to rifle the barrel doesn't exist anymore,and neither does the ability to make armor-plate that thick. Or at least that is what some white hats have said on other battleship threads.

11 posted on 01/14/2002 10:47:36 PM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DieselBoy
The Iowa class battleships were built to withstand 16 inch projectile hits on the armor belt. There are no ships today with that sort of protection. A convential Exocet cruise missile would bounce off the side of the armor belt (I'm not kidding!).

These ships are more than 50 years old, but the U.S. Navy has in storage several 16 inch rifles, the powder bags can be repacked and remanufactured, and there exists a reasonable supply of AP and HC shells in the Navy inventory. The main drawback these days is that there are relatively few sailors familiar with the antiquated rangefinding and gun-firing equipment. When the Iowas were brought back into service in the Reagan administration, the navy was lucky enough to have veteran sailors who had trained on the 6 inch and 8 inch cruiser machinery, but those ships are long gone. As a matter of fact, in the 1980's, the manuals for loading and firing the big guns on the Iowas had to be re-written from scratch, because they had been destroyed after the last Vietnam-era cruise of the New Jersey.

When I was a kid, growing up in the 1960's Southern California, near Palos Verdes, I remember hearing the New Jersey firing it 16 inch rifles from the seaside of San Clemente Island. That may not seem like much, except the gunnery range on the island was about 40 miles away! A neighbor of ours was an XO on a destroyer and had told his kids to keep an ear open as we stood on the Palos Verdes cliffs near Whites Point.

There are not going to be anymore fleet battles (for which these ships were built). But, there is no conventional artillery to match the rifles on the Iowas. Fire support from the battleships had a clear and documented physical and psychological effects on the Japanese, North Koreans, and North Vietnamese soldiers. It is said that the presence of the New Jersey along the 'Nam coast pushed the NVA supply lines more than 20 miles inland.

I remember too, a "few" years ago, we were trying to teach the Iranians a "lesson." We had several destroyers or frigates pop away at a couple of offshore platforms with their 5 inch peashooters. It took about a zillion rounds to put those platforms out of commission. I think a couple of well-placed broadsides from an Iowa would have toppled those platforms post-haste.

The Iowas are big, use a lot of manpower, and are decidedly antiquated. But if I'm a Marine on a beachhead in Somalia or Yemen, let me tell you, I'd trade all the Harriers and helicopters and 5 inch gunned destroyers for just one Iowa Class battleship and its nine 16 inch rifles, any day!

12 posted on 01/14/2002 10:52:12 PM PST by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
I think it goes beyond cost. The tooling necessary to rifle the barrel doesn't exist anymore,and neither does the ability to make armor-plate that thick. Or at least that is what some white hats have said on other battleship threads.

It is not the armor on the turret that is damaged on the Iowa, but the inner workings of the turret sucks as the loading breech is damaged. It is well worth the money to bring back Iowa and Wisconsin since they are currently being maintained by the Navy. New Jersey is in horrible material condition. Missouri was made into a museum in Pearl Harbor.

The only reason why the Iowas are not in active service can be attributed to our favorite president William Jefferson Clinton. During his administration all 4 ships were struck from the NVR (Naval Vessel Register which keeps an accurate account of all active duty ships) Only with the help of Republican Senator John Warner, the ships were put back on the NVR. As of now we have no long range fire support because of Clinton and his obsession with military cutbacks.

13 posted on 01/14/2002 10:58:18 PM PST by DieselBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DieselBoy
I'd like to see the "Big Lady's" back..but being a Naval Historian I can understand why they were put aside.
Operational costs are staggering...yes they do bring awesome firepower and represent the power of the U.S. Navy.. but technically..they would need to be modernized in such a way as to reduce crew compliment..and costs.
The U.S. Navy is working on a concept known as "Arsenal" ships...fully automated....they would be floating arsenals.
Carrying multi tasking missile ordinance..including nukes, and rapid fire munitions.
They would sail with the fleet..being operated from another ship.
I know this sounds wild..but thats the direction they would like to go.
There would be provision to land helicopters on deck to do maintanence and such..but the program is to remove human operational structure..thus removing a multitude of costs.
14 posted on 01/14/2002 11:05:57 PM PST by Light Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DieselBoy
We do not need expensive, ancient battleships. We need to fix our aging Aircraft Carriers and build some new ones. Nostalgia is nice but we need to be realistic. IMHO
15 posted on 01/14/2002 11:33:17 PM PST by Jeff Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: VietVet
The USS Texas was built about 1914. She's a little elderly to re-fit.

I always thought that it was a great pity that the USS Newport News and her sister ships were scrapped.

They were the last of the heavy cruisers [I can't remember the class]. Thirty knots or better for speed and automatic eight inch guns. They did spectacular work in fire spotting off of Vietnam.

They were also real beauties.

Regards,

17 posted on 01/15/2002 2:23:31 AM PST by Jimmy Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
You are right about the armor plate. I don't know of any steel mill that still has a plate facility. But, I would bet that there are enough barrel liners in storage for the 16 inch guns to shoot two wars through. The U.S. Navy never throws anything away.

Regards,

18 posted on 01/15/2002 2:27:33 AM PST by Jimmy Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DieselBoy
Hmmmm, unless it was moved yesterday, the Wisconsin is moored in downtown Norfolk adjacent to Nauticus and is currently a tourist attraction. It has been there for a little over a year. When I toured it, the guide told me that it was on reserve and could be called up to active service on fairly short notice. Some sections of the ship are sealed and closed to tourists to protect the on-board equipment which is supposed to be fairly modern.

Nonetheless, she's in beautiful condition and for those of you who have never toured a Battleship or seen one close up, I highly recommend you try to do so. Impressive indeed!

19 posted on 01/15/2002 2:49:06 AM PST by LiberteeBell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson