Time to Re-activate of IOWA CLASS Battleships ?

[AlCZ]

What do you mean ? Reactivate US NAVY old but still good Iowa Class Battleships ? I think it´s time of this old glorious ships coming back on to sea... Coming Missouri and Iowa back to service ? For last time - in last battle.. Be nice seeing it as sailing after twenty years to battle... I think it´s mighty guns still can make a mass destrucion in the target area.... Or it is unreal ?

Old good Broncos are re-called to service... Why not Iowa Class Battleships ?

Edited March 22, 2016 by AlCZ

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

Not a chance. It'd be too expensive for them to even consider it.

thanks

Mike

[AlCZ]

Really ? I still hope a any navy make new generation of Battleships (with classic high velocity Large caliber guns with combination of rail guns and EMP weapons... and - naturally with cruise missiles and Light caliber automatic guns (Oerlikon and old good 0.50cal M2 Browning). Kinetic (non explosive) weapons are hope of naval warfare. (And i think a Battleships have still a role in modern warfare (as fire support platform, non expensive psychological weapon (when are you 24/7/365 under shelling of naval guns your psychic go rapidly down)and are ideal too in anti-piracy operation (one salvo of 120mm secondary artillery throw pirate boat into air instantly ). I don´t understand why navy force of NATO states ignores old good battleships with "dumb" weapons - when we can´t re-activate Iowa class, maybe is time for new generation (more compact and automatised vessels) with Stealth characteristic...

6x380mm naval guns in two turrets

8x 120mm tank guns in four turrets

10x 20mm Oerlikon (Bushmaster) automatic canon

10x 0.50cal M-2 Browning MG

2x Rail gun (kinetic weapon)

2xEMP

1x AEGIS

Silos for Cruiser missiles

Classic large calliber guns can´t be jammed and destruction (and psychological) effect in target area under shelling it is considerable... And - shells are cheap...

Naturally - time of classic naval battles is over - but new generation Battleship isn´t bad idea, no ?

[Shar2]

Iowa is right out, as the damage to B turret is probably no repairable. The other three have probably been museum ships for too long now and it would take too much to reactivate them. It's a nice thought though as I visited Iowa when she came to Portsmouth in 1986

[Jessica]

I heard somewhere that the remaining inventory of 16 inch shells was insufficient to keep them supplied for any kind of sustained operations, but now Google isn't showing me anything about that.

[Chaotic Mike]

Too easy a target. Pity.

[Alan P]

The target argument is by no means unique to the Iowas. They are half the displacement of your average supercarrier, just as fast, and much better protected. And once a carrier has flown off its air wing, what is it if not a target?

The main disadvantages of the Iowas all come down to age. Steam turbine plant, accommodation and crew convenience archaic, crew complement over 1500 sailors, and what it adds to a modern naval battle group is limited by effective range of the guns.

Admittedly, anything within range of those guns would be toast, as nothing that floats or flies could possibly put as much weight of ordnance accurately on target in such a short period at such low cost and low risk, but today's naval battles are fought at ranges far exceeding those possible with kinetic weapons, even with RAP or sabot rounds.

It would be a nice thing to have for supported beach landings and littoral combat, but what the Iowas could bring to the party say in Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria can already be done by faster and more modern platforms.

Let them rest in peace, it's not like they haven't done their bit!

On the other hand, I thoroughly agree that there is a very good case for putting large calibre guns on naval vessels. The Zumwalt class is a step in the right direction on that score.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Alan P

[Giorgio N]

Battleships are a thing of the past, the only plus they can bring is the availability of guns for shore bombardment, a role for which they are pretty much overkill anyway. In an era where aircraft bombs become smaller and smarter to inflict maximum damage to the target without damaging anything else in its proximity, what's the point of large and relatively inaccurate gun shells ? Causing mass destruction in large areas is not that important in modern warfare, eliminating threats with pinpoint accuracy is much more important.

Of course the Iowas also have some other problems of their own as they are afterall old ships that require a very large crew, something that makes them very expensive to operate. Their age also means that all that armour may look impressive but is armour designed to withstand weapons of 60 years ago. Even an Iowa is vulnerable today and sending a large ship close to shore to perform bombardment means putting her in range of a number of weapon systems capable of ruining her day. If a battleship has to wait for other assets to eliminate the threats then what's the point of needing a large armoured ship ?

[Alan P]

The main threat to a littoral heavy surface unit like an Iowa ironically is now the same as it was in 1917 - torpedoes and mines. Modern torpedoes could definitely ruin any ship's day, and the Iowas sacrificed underwater protection for increased topside armour and speed. Then again, modern 533mm torpedoes like Spearfish or ADCAP (or even the old Soviet-era Type 65) will make short work of any modern combatant or support ship - these are also vulnerable to modern anti-ship missiles.

I wouldn't admit there was an "absolute obsolescence" argument in terms of an armoured heavy naval artillery ship like a modernised Iowa. I'm trying to think of any current land-based anti-ship missile that can penetrate up to 21in of hardened Class A armour? 4x advanced CIWS plus support from air assets and other naval forces such as a Type 45 destroyer, Ticonderoga-class cruiser or even a pair of Arleigh Burkes would make a battleship mission kill with any kind of anti-ship missile, even in swarm, very unlikely. If you're talking land-based airpower, then any naval unit is within effective range of some kind of aerial threat in today's environment. It's not an argument unique to an Iowa-class battleship.

The armament argument is also moot if you consider the new generation of 16-in ordnance that was already under development: guided RAP projectiles and sabot-discarding penetration rounds with GPS guidance - unlike aerial platforms, these projectiles cannot be jammed, spoofed or interdicted, making them very effective pinpoint attacks and effective on all targets including hardened and subsurface bunkers. A GPS-guided shell costs a fraction of a percent of a fully-developed naval aircraft and its fully-trained pilot/WSO. Enemy forces can't shoot down projectiles, nor gain any propaganda or bargaining value from their capture either. Furthermore, a battleship would be able to put dozens of these projectiles on target long after an aerial strike would have expended its ordnance and fuel.

But the whole argument really falls down when you consider application and practicability. These NGFS (naval gunfire support) options are limited to coastal and littoral areas, even if the effective range of a guided FSDS is upwards of 50nm. Although the Iowas also carry armoured boxes for Tomahawk LAMs and Harpoon ASMs, this still only puts them within the same armament capability as a modern SSN - only without the stealth an SSN offers.

Ultimately, the reactivation of any Iowa-class is highly unlikely (but I won't say impossible) for the reasons Giorgio and I mentioned - they are old and require large, specialised crews which is exactly the opposite direction the US Navy is currently heading.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Alan P

[Sgeek]

If you had a Navy that had unlimited funding and was constructed around multiple scenarios which include opposed beach landings then yes bring back the BB's. They would operate as part of a wider task force and associated escort group. This would include organic AAW and MCMV elements

Nothing says 'knock, knock' at zero o'clock sparrows fart to a soon to be fully occupied defensive force than a continuous bombardment of 16 inch HE bricks whistling in. Suppressive fire par excellence.

However the reality we live in of financial constraints and short term strategic thinking mean that the sight of a BB joining a task force are very, very unlikely.

[Giorgio N]

I would disagree that the only threats are torpedoes and mines, although I agree that these will be the most potentially lethal threats (armour does little against a good underkeel explosion): a missile does not have to penetrate the full armour of a battleship to force her to leave the area, in the same way that shells didn't have to totally disable a battleship in WW2 to make her useless. Bringing a ship at a couple dozen miles close to shore means putting her in range of missiles and even unguided rockets. None of these may be able to disable the ship with a single hit but by damaging guidance systems and other equipment they can force the ship to retreat anyway. The close proximity to the shore means that even the escorts would be put at risk and the time to react to a missile would be very short.

Speaking of costs, even a BB designed to modern specifications would still require a battle group for escort and the support of air assets. So what's the final cost of operating such a ship? If in order to operate the ship in the shore bombardment role it's necessary to have aircrafts to destroy all potential threats to the ship,why not leave the aircrafts also eliminate threats to the ground troops ?

[AlCZ]

My idea isn´t use Battleships for naval battles (last naval battle was Leyte in ´44) but as cheap and deadly tool of mass destruction - yes - go away with political correctness - ignore surgical strike - and make hell in target area. Ideal for attack against terroristic camp, pirates harbors or enemy naval bases. With new stealth vessels, rectracterable weapons (all turrets are in non combat mode under hull) it is a re-born of battle ships... My idea is a 1/3 bigger ship as Zumwalt class destroyer... But it is still a what if. I think sometimes is better used hard - eeee - brutal power as surgical strike. When you bombing target area from naval guns (with CAP over head) you can destroy a large area with low cost weapons... Modern battleships can´t be big... No ? And with STOL drones and clasic combat planes can supply assault ships or small carriers...

[Graham Boak]

You don't need a battleship to destroy terrorist camps (near the sea), pirates' harbours or enemy naval bases. We can do all that with what we've got already. The actual economics is what kills the idea. Where are you going to get all the sailors to man this?

[Giorgio N]

My idea isn´t use Battleships for naval battles (last naval battle was Leyte in ´44) but as cheap and deadly tool of mass destruction - yes - go away with political correctness - ignore surgical strike - and make hell in target area. Ideal for attack against terroristic camp, pirates harbors or enemy naval bases. With new stealth vessels, rectracterable weapons (all turrets are in non combat mode under hull) it is a re-born of battle ships... My idea is a 1/3 bigger ship as Zumwalt class destroyer... But it is still a what if. I think sometimes is better used hard - eeee - brutal power as surgical strike. When you bombing target area from naval guns (with CAP over head) you can destroy a large area with low cost weapons... Modern battleships can´t be big... No ? And with STOL drones and clasic combat planes can supply assault ships or small carriers...

I can see at least a couple of flaws in this reasoning of which the most important is that a specialised ship for shore bombardment is not actually cheap at all ! Gun shells may be cheap compared to other weapons but once you've put together all that is needed to land that shell on its target you end up with something that is quite expensive.

First of all modern ships are not cheap in general. The hull may be cheapish but once all the various equipment is installed the final cost is high. Add the R&D and other program related costs and it's very hard for a modern ship today to cost much less than a bilion... and we're talking destroyer sized units for that cost. The Zumwalt is rumoured to cost over over $3 bilion. What would be the cost of a newly built large armoured unit? Back in the 1930's the cost of battleships was so high that absorbed a large portion of the defence budget of several countries

Now it's true that today's ship are multirole and this means having missiles and other sophisticated equipment that make most of the cost but would you leave your modern BB unprotected ? Would be foolish not to add some decent self protection capability so even if not an AEGIS style radar system, something modern would be needed. Then the ship would sure need advanced communication equipment and a load of other systems

Last but not least, there's the cost of the guns. Small guns may be cheap, large guns are much less so. They also have a limited barrel life and have to be relined or have a new barrel installed after a few hundred rounds (the Iowa guns could shoot less than 300 rounds before needing relining).

Bottom line, the resulting ship would be very expensive to purchase and operate and would be a type with little operational flexibility. Unless we go back to the monitor, a simple platform with heavy guns and nothing else, But this would still be quite expensive and would be a single mission type.

The second flaw I can see is that bombardment from heavy guns is not necesarily the armageddon some think. Anyone who's been to Normandy has witnessed how many structures have survived the shelling from a large number of ships. Allied soldiers landing on D-Day still had to deal with machine guns in bunkers aplenty. There's no guarantee that a battleship today would be able to wipe out a well protected naval base or even a complex of terrorist infrastructures dug in caves or in concrete bunkers.

Of course this is assuming that the enemy is so nice to build their camps close enough to the shore to let a BB attack them. As has been said before, most of these targets are in areas so far away from the sea that even carrierborne aircrafts need in flight refuelling...

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

The result of a bombardment of heavy shelling is the exact reason why nobody would ever use a battleship again. They're too imprecise.

No military leader and certainly no government wants to pound a coastline to oblivion. They want to destroy small and discreet targets - equipment, buildings and persons.

Naval bombardment was the only way to invade in WW2 because guided weapons did not really exist in any meaningful capacity. You could clear out beach defences - if a beach landing was even necessary nowadays - with 2 Apache helicopters quicker than it would have taken a fleet of battleships and heavy cruisers.

[Jessica]

Slap tailhooks on A-10s and call it a day. Beach cleared cheaply and easily and as a bonus the USAF Generals get rid of their "unsexy" attack aircraft the way they keep wanting to.

[Darby]

If you want a really good battleship whose design and mere presence within 100nm of anywhere puts the fear of God into it's opponents then why not just build a Tirpitz? After all the Kriegsmarine had the best looking leviathans

[old thumper]

The Americans only ever really used these fancy battleships as monitors, if ever they need something to carry large guns again they would be better off just producing a modern type of monitor.

[Giorgio N]

The Americans only ever really used these fancy battleships as monitors, if ever they need something to carry large guns again they would be better off just producing a modern type of monitor.

This is not completely true regarding the Iowas (and even less so for the previous classes): these ships in WW2 spent a lot of time working as part of the AA screen for the carriers and claimed a number of Japanese aircrafts.

Post war their main role was indeed shore bombardment but after the 1980's modifications two of them also fired cruise missiles during the Gulf War.

Of course today they would be totally inadequate in the AA role and cruise missiles can be fired as effectively by a number of smaller multirole platforms and by submarines so none of the other tasks performed during their career would call for their reactivation

[alpine_modeller]

I would never write this off. The US reactivated them last time as part of the 600-ship Navy plan, and to counter the threat of the Kirov class battle cruisers. If the will and money is there, anything is possible.

Its certainly the sort of thing I could imagine Trump doing.

Oh, and guess what ? The Russians are reactivating Nakhimov and Lazarev to go with Velikiy.

[Chango]

I've been aboard the Iowa; she may look pretty in pics but she's downright ancient and it shows. Anyway, she's LONG obsolete; most any modern attack sub could outrun her and she'd stand little chance against aircraft/cruise missile attack; not to mention the USN probably doesn't even have sailors with the necessary expertise to run an antique battleship these days.

[Ravens]

I've often heard that the Iowas were reactivated in part to counter the Kirov Class, but never the reasoning behind it, given the capabilities of a battleship vs the threat from missiles. Was it simply a cheap and quick way of getting a few extra Harpoons and CWIS out to sea?

Ross.

[old thumper]

Perhaps the Royal Navy should reactivate HMS Belfast, or even HMS Victory, Victory must surely be the ideal ship to counter pirates.

[Giorgio N]

I've often heard that the Iowas were reactivated in part to counter the Kirov Class, but never the reasoning behind it, given the capabilities of a battleship vs the threat from missiles. Was it simply a cheap and quick way of getting a few extra Harpoons and CWIS out to sea?

Ross.

Counter the Kirov in the sense of providing similar capabilities, not that the Iowas were meant to counter the threats from these ships. The Iowas carried 32 Tomahawk missiles plus a further 16 Harpoons, so in this sense they could be seen as having the same missile carrying role of the Kirovs. Of course the Soviet ships were much more specialised in the antiship mission while the US battleships could also perform the traditional fire support mission and the missiles carried could be used to attack land targets (and USS Missouri and Wisconsin used this capability during the Gulf War of 1991)

Edited April 4, 2016 by Giorgio N

[Ravens]

Counter the Kirov in the sense of providing similar capabilities, not that the Iowas were meant to counter the threats from these ships. The Iowas carried 32 Tomahawk missiles plus a farther 16 Harpoons, so in this sense they could be seen as having the same missile carrying role of the Kirovs. Of course the Soviet ships were much more specialised in the antiship mission while the US battleships could also perform the traditional fire support mission and the missiles carried could be used to attack land targets (and USS Missouri and Wisconsin used this capability during the Gulf War of 1991)

Thanks, that makes sense. I hadn't realised that the missile load of the refitted Iowa Class was as high as that.

Cheers,

Ross.