USS Iowa lives!

See: Do Battleships move sideways when they fire?
They did on occasion fire 9 gun salvos but there was a delay coil on the middle gun I believe which caused it to fire just after the other two. This was for accuracy because the barrels were close enough that shells could disturb each others flight path if fired simultaneously.

 

How did we go from Iowa as a museum, to gun recoil and sideways movement?

 

problem is now days no one is calling for massed bombardment. Precision weapons are what's in vogue. Indeed some weapons are being favored because they are less powerful. For instance see some of the articles here:
Military News Military History Military PHOTO VIDEO
They've also got some good ones on smart artillery rounds. That's not to say that things might not change in the future but ...

 

They already have that capability. The original Tomahawks fired during Gulf War I were fired from Iowa class BB's.
The problem, as I see it, is that they're costly in terms of personnel required to operate them and their propulsion systems are old and worn out.

 

The thing about Tomahawks is, you can put them on anything, including as USMCPrice mentioned sitting about as many as you want on the decks of a battleship. Carrying Tomahawks is not a rationale for any particular platform. Spruance class DDs could carry 61 of them in vertical launchers. I understand that for the Iraq war the Aegis cruiser San Jacinto had all or nearly all her 122 cells loaded with Thawks. The refitted Ohio class subs carry 154. We don't need battleships to carry all the Tomahawks we can afford to buy and shoot.

The unique capability the Iowas offer is the 16" guns. A decision to bring them back should be based on that - is 16" gunfire worth X million dollars? (plus Y million per year to operate them)

 

That is the absolute no "shinola" statement of the day.

Here is a link to the battleship thread we had last year:

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/31419-what-made-battleships-obsolete.html

It's closed. Some of the people that posted in it aren't around anymore; but, there are some pretty good links in it and a lot of great information.

 

After seeing the figures for the DDG-1000, at 2.2 to 2.5 billion each maybe the Iowa's cost isn't that big a deal. If their hulls are in good shape and you were going to spend, say the cost of one DDG-1000 on two Iowa's it might be a bargain. When the Iowa's were brought back the last time survivability was one of their assets. (Think all the ships sunk in the Falklands War and the USS Stark all victims of Exocet anti-ship missles) They still maintain that asset plus they pack the biggest tube on the block. I know that the inaccuracy associated with the Iowa's 16inch guns when they were fired in support during the Beruit Peacekeeping mission was due to the fact that Navy ordinance personnel had re-mixed various batches of powder. This could be corrected with propper propellent. You could gain additional precision by upgrading the 16" round with features contained in modern artillery rounds like the Copperhead, Excaliber, etc. They have good range now but just like with modern artillery you could incorporate a RAP (rocket assisted projectile) round for additional range. Anything further out could be dealt with by Tomahawk Cruise missles, which they're already equipped with. Also, you can fire a lot of 16in conventional munitions for the cost of one cruise missle.
Now I have questions for some experts.
--Why can't her powerplant be replaced by a nuclear reactor mated to a modern propulsion system? Save on fuel, continuous high speed sailing, less requirement for refueling vessels.
--Why can't her twin 5"DP mounts be replaced with the more modern 5" single auto mounts? With 6 of these she'd have more firepower than she'd have with her current 12 5"/38's.
--She'd be a perfect platform for flying off UAV's.
--I can't imagine that upgrading her electronics suite would cost any more than equipping a DDG-1000 with it's electronics suite.
--Can her systems be automated to the point that you can significantly reduce the number of crewmembers?
--Are the 16" mounts safe and reliable enough for continued use?
--Many current field artillery pieces still use bagged powder. Why can't the manufacturer just create a larger charge of the same propellant already being used for use in the 16" GUN?
There is nothing more intimidating than a BB sitting off your shore. If it's mere presence is enough to avoid a diplomatic impasse and avert actual hostilities she'd pay for herself.
The military also unfortunately tends to be short sighted and tends to fight the last war. Capabilities in ships may not be those needed for future conflicts. A good general purpose ship will probably come in handy. You can be penny wise and pound foolish and you can become so overly specialized that you become ineffective, because the enemy gets a vote.

 

Tends to happen, Gromit.
I highly doubt anyone was serious about reactivating the Iowa. I'd certainly hope not.

 

I think in a modern version of a BB, one triple turret, and the rest made up of missiles of various types.

 

I'd go with one or two singles instead.

 

The big gun is obsolete. It is unnecessary for shore support, PGMs and smaller rapid fire guns do that better. It is unnecessary for naval action, missiles and aircraft dominate that battlefield completely.
Heavy armor is not worth the cost or weight. It simply was found not to work the way it was supposed to in theory. Lighter armor is good, fragment proof armor is highly useful... This is why modern US carrier hulls are made of 1/4 to 1/2" armor over their entirety... To keep fragments and fragment damage out. Deck armor is the same.
A smaller ship with a smaller crew using missiles and technology supplied in greater numbers is far more valuable than a small number of high value larger ships. The exception here is the carrier. That has to be big enough to carry a large air wing capable of both offensive and defensive action over a wide radius.

 

Even there as UAVs become more dominant you may see the super carrier also as a thing of the past. On the other hand a big gun can provide support over a very long range if using sabot or rocket assist and with a smart round you won't need all that many of them. The point about armor is well taken. Now days you are better off defeating the rounds before they hit you rather than afterwards.

 

One of these days all the electronic "gee whiz" shiny stuff is going to fail and we are going to have the need to put steel on target. That is why the Iowa is still around.

The basic weapons system of the Iowa Class is not dependant on satelites and microwave transmitters; all it needs to make rounds impact a target is : a map, a compass, a radio and a Marine.