Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USS Iowa and the USS Wisconsin bite the dust
Heorot    12/29/2005 3:43:24 PM
A sad day but apparently a boost to the DD(X). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001445.html
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
HeavyD       12/14/2010 5:27:29 PM

Sorry for the empty message - it was not an intentional 'bump'.
 
My post was commenting on the possibility of using the old BattleWagons as specifically shore-bombardment platforms.  Much has been made of the new AGS system and how it isn't all that impressive on the destruction scale.
 
Seems like one opportunity would be to strip down the Iowas to their essence:  9x16" guns and maybe some AGS or PzH2000-like auto 155mm mounts in the old twin 5" turrets.  No fleet air defense mission, just launch large caliber, high destruction projectiles.  Maybe some cruise missiles or MLSR or ATACMS mounts, but that's it.  (CWIS too, of course)
 
The goal is to reduce crew requirements to a minumum.  Updated engine rooms, updated navigation, comms, etc, updated main and secondary gun turrets (auto-loaders and/or liquid propellant for the 16"), maybe use marine gun-bunnies for the secondary 155s who would not be permanent crew.
 
The Iowa and Wisconsin would not cruise regularly, but would venture forth for gunboat diplomacy or during the force build-up before a major war.  Let's face it:  Whenever they have been used in the last 30 years there was always ample time to sail them into position.
 
I had originally pondered whether an ocean-going barge with a 16" turret was feasible, but the ridiculously-armored Iowas would be very formidable, and refitting their propulsion systems if necessary would keep that shore and 100km inland bombardment/fire support mission in capable hands while reducing the stress of trying to do it with not much more punch than the Marines can field themselves.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       12/15/2010 1:35:56 PM
Great replies Gf-Aust and Niechevo. Good reads!
 
Quote    Reply

USN-MID       12/15/2010 2:20:50 PM




Sorry for the empty message - it was not an intentional 'bump'.


 

My post was commenting on the possibility of using the old BattleWagons as specifically shore-bombardment platforms.  Much has been made of the new AGS system and how it isn't all that impressive on the destruction scale.

 

Seems like one opportunity would be to strip down the Iowas to their essence:  9x16" guns and maybe some AGS or PzH2000-like auto 155mm mounts in the old twin 5" turrets.  No fleet air defense mission, just launch large caliber, high destruction projectiles.  Maybe some cruise missiles or MLSR or ATACMS mounts, but that's it.  (CWIS too, of course)

 

The goal is to reduce crew requirements to a minumum.  Updated engine rooms, updated navigation, comms, etc, updated main and secondary gun turrets (auto-loaders and/or liquid propellant for the 16"), maybe use marine gun-bunnies for the secondary 155s who would not be permanent crew.

 

The Iowa and Wisconsin would not cruise regularly, but would venture forth for gunboat diplomacy or during the force build-up before a major war.  Let's face it:  Whenever they have been used in the last 30 years there was always ample time to sail them into position.

 

I had originally pondered whether an ocean-going barge with a 16" turret was feasible, but the ridiculously-armored Iowas would be very formidable, and refitting their propulsion systems if necessary would keep that shore and 100km inland bombardment/fire support mission in capable hands while reducing the stress of trying to do it with not much more punch than the Marines can field themselves.


Feasible, yes. Cost-effective, no.
 
You get very low payoff (a 20nm bubble where it really shines) and a lot of risk (highly vulnerable to every modern anti ship threat) for the amount you would have to pay in.
 
Quote    Reply

HeavyD       12/16/2010 12:06:20 AM



Feasible, yes. Cost-effective, no.

 

You get very low payoff (a 20nm bubble where it really shines) and a lot of risk (highly vulnerable to every modern anti ship threat) for the amount you would have to pay in.

Agreed that in order to make sense the 16 inchers would need several newly-designed extended range munitions.  Some work in this area had already been started prior to decommissioning:
 

HE-ER Mark 148 (Planned)
13 in (33 cm) extended-range (ER), sub-caliber projectile with sabot.  ET-fuzed with a payload of submunitions.  Experiments with this projectile were conducted during the 1980s, but development was cancelled in FY91 when the battleships were decommissioned.  Projectile weight without the sabot was about 1,100 lbs. (500 kg) and range was to be in excess of 70,000 yards (64,000 m) at a muzzle velocity of 3,600 fps (1,097 mps).


Put a GPS guidance system on that and its like dropping 1000 lb JDAMS up to 40 miles inland. (or on shore from over the horizon).  Clearly additional range is there to be had with RAP rounds.
 
 
Re:  vulnerability - moreso than new thin-skinned Burkes?  really?  Methinks an Iowa could absorb anything other than a below-the-hull 18" torpedo better than literally any other ship in any navy.  (Lots of discussion on this earlier in the thread...) The dingy that severely damaged the Cole would have only scorched the paint on an Iowa class...
 
Also one must remember that in every engagement since Korea there has not been a single credible threat to a BB in action.  We know the threat and the decision to deploy ANY weapon system be it a ship or an aircraft is done by evaluating the threat and the mission. 
 
Quote    Reply

AThousandYoung       12/16/2010 12:34:25 AM
Part of the advantage of using the old BBs is that we have stockpiles of ammo for them...right? To invent new ammo kind of defeats the purpose.
 
I think the ships are just too old to use safely.  There was some kind of turret explosion just before they were removed from service.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

USN-MID       12/16/2010 1:07:52 AM


Agreed that in order to make sense the 16 inchers would need several newly-designed extended range munitions.  Some work in this area had already been started prior to decommissioning:
Put a GPS guidance system on that and its like dropping 1000 lb JDAMS up to 40 miles inland. (or on shore from over the horizon).  Clearly additional range is there to be had with RAP rounds.
 
40nm isn't a game changer. BBs made sense in WW2 and Korea because we were doing massive amphibious assaults. Outside that context, 40nm adds little to the BB's ability to influence the big picture.
If you start looking at using RAP rounds or other more specialized precision oriented roles, you may as well use a very available TLAM (which you can do more effectively with other platforms) or use aircraft to provide CAS. 

Re:  vulnerability - moreso than new thin-skinned Burkes?  really?  Methinks an Iowa could absorb anything other than a below-the-hull 18" torpedo better than literally any other ship in any navy.  (Lots of discussion on this earlier in the thread...) The dingy that severely damaged the Cole would have only scorched the paint on an Iowa class...

Yes. It's tough, but the point is, like a carrier, it would need a heavy escort against any anti surface threat.
 
Also one must remember that in every engagement since Korea there has not been a single credible threat to a BB in action.  We know the threat and the decision to deploy ANY weapon system be it a ship or an aircraft is done by evaluating the threat and the mission. 

Last time BBs were used was for Gulf War I. In the ~20 years since that time, there has been no major conflict where they would have been able to truly play a major role. OIF? Nope. OEF? Nope. Bosnia/Serbia? Nope. 
Not much better in the future either, except Korea, where it would be useful, but again, not really change anything. 
 

 
Quote    Reply

HeavyD       4/9/2012 1:22:16 PM
OK, the Iowa finally has a reason to be resurrected:
 
ENERGY WEAPONS.
 
We don't have any current platform capable of generating the juice needed for a serious rail gun or  laser  system, do we?  What better hull to put one in?
 
Yes this would be a billion-dollar retrofit to gut Iowa to the hull, drop in GE's latest reactor (better yet - two, or leave room for two) and upgrade everything from propulsion to piping, obviously all new electronics, etc.  All new superstructure keeping with the armored heritage of a BB.  Perhaps add the naval version of 'slat armor' or even explosive-reactive armor in case a Silkworm or Shipwreck makes it through an upgraded air defense system (multiple twin 57mm or 76mm guns for extended range, with multiple 30mm Goalkeepers too.  We got plenty of real estate to work with.)
 
Now don't forget about the guns.  Keep 2 of the 16" turrets and convert the dual 5" mounts into single 155mm AGS guns (or swap a 16" turret for a quad AGS mount).
 
Remove the cruise missiles and add Standard 3 to augment air/missile defense.  Everything from DDs to Ohios and Virginias carry Tomahawks, and the new BB really doesn't need the stand-off range.
 
We get an untouchable shore-bombardment platform with the energy and capacity for the deployment and development of future weapons.
 
Do both the Iowa and Wisconsin so one can be deployable for the shore-bombardment role while the other is being fitted/tested with the latest energy weapon.
 
I'm looking at a 40 year timeframe here.  The investment is well worth it. 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics