USS Iowa lives!

Great post! You cut right to the heart of the matter.

 

....and a fire control computer! I think the originals (mechanical) were removed from the Iowa's and replaced with digital.

 

Negative ghost rider...........when I toured the Missouri in 1989 the mechanical stuff was still there and the gunners were awfully proud of being able to use it. Their joke was that the old technology meshed perfectly with the end users....Marines; it took a while for that to sink in.

 

I stand corrected..... analog style!

 

I think this is a reasonable opinion, battleship shells indeed do not get shot down or confused by countermeasures, they simply slam into the ground and make swimming pools sized holes. Modern "gun powder" would allow for larger ranges and even bigger guns and much bigger swimming pools at the other end.

Modern fire control, defensive counter measures, computers, possibly even the new laser defense systems could be deployed on such a platform.

Is it likely a battleship will ever go into battle directly against another ship? No, highly unlikely, but a battleship is very good for ground support in a marine invasion.

A battleship makes an incredible platform for lots of other defensive weapons as well.

If modern technology was applied to a "battleship" you could indeed have a devastating weapon of war, nuclear powered. Very fast even if it was bigger and heaver armored than the biggest ever battleships.

It would be excessive but so are lots of other weapon systems that have no real use in the modern world, (who really needs a sub fitted with multiple ICBMs now days, how useful are they in conventional ground actions?) at least a battle ship or two could be useful in the event of a land sea invasion or support of ground troops.

Think of how impressive a nuclear powered battleship, maybe 25% bigger than anything ever built, heavy armor, nuclear power could allow armor of outrageous amounts and still be a fast maneuverable ship. Showing the Flag would take on awhole new meaning.

Of course no one will ever build one but it's a nice fantasy.

 

It was called the Kirov and its welded to a pier somewhere in Russia as to grotesquely expensive to operate at sea.

 

Considering Russia's record of nuclear powered vessels, I'm quite happy the thing isn't at sea.

 

Actually, if those rifles still exist, they're 16"/45s, not 16"/50s.

 

Ah! Wonder where I got 16"/50's from? Oh well. I can tell the brain is beginning to come to grips with all the solvents, thinners, and liquid cements used in a lifetime of model building.

 

The Iowas used 16"/50s, while the NCs & SoDaks used 16"/45s.

 

Well see, I'm only 2/3 crazy then.

 

Last time I read anything about it there were still a bunch of 16"/50 cal barrels around that had never been used.

 

In the 1920s there was a stockpile of 16" 50 Cal Mk 2 guns which had been ordered for South Dakota* class battleships and Lexington class battle cruisers cancelled under the Washington Naval Treaty. Many of these, if I recall correctly 44 in batteries of two, were used by the Army coastal artillery, placed on one or both sides of entrances to major bays or estuaries. In this configuration they had a range of 44,000 yards. Apparently there were enough more of these guns that consideration was given to using them in the Iowas, but the new 16" 50 Mk 7 was developed instead. Supposedly confusion between the Bureaus of Ordnance and Construction and Repair led to the ships' turrets and barbettes being 2 feet too small to accommodate the Mk 2.

Heavy guns are long-lead items, usually ordered early in a ship's construction process. Since two more Iowas - Illinois and Kentucky - were under construction, it would not be surprising if additional guns had been procured. There would also be a proportion of spares as guns were periodically changed out for relining etc.

* not the WWII South Dakota class. The other cancelled ships would have been named North Carolina, Indiana, Massachusetts, Iowa, and Montana. Montana ended up being the only US battleship name ever cancelled twice and the only state of the lower 48 never to have an active battleship named for it.

 

So you are saying that because the Soviets couldn't do it the USA couldn't either? I think the USA did a much better job of employing nuclear power in the Navy.

 

What is being said is that the conversion isn't worth the expense. The lighter and faster Ticonderoga class crusiers and new class of destroyers are more deadly, faster, less of a target on the surface, and less expensive.

 

Here is something else on this subject of surface ships.

The 28 ships in Ticonderoga class were not nuclear either, they used gas turbines and their speed and maneuverability is without question a "killer" combination. Only five of them are "out of service" due to age, the others still serve with speed, and deadly effect.

They might not look as "impressive" as a BB with a "bone in her teeth", but a single one of them probably could do in every BB in WW2 without reloading or spilling the coffee in the ward room.

See:

CG-47 Ticonderoga-class

Hell’s bells even the 27 new Arleigh Burke class Aegis destroyers are better ideas than retro-fitting an aged Battleship to combat status.

Goto:

Arleigh Burke Class (Aegis), Guided Missile Destroyers - Naval Technology

 

No doubt they are deadlier. But with the exception of their 5' guns, every single weapon they fire, can be jammed, spoofed, or shot down.

That's the beauty of a 16" shell. Once it's in the air, RUN AWAY.

 

Too true, unless you are thirty+ miles away, then you just stick out your tongue and go "pblsst"!

 

As I recall, they were working on a version of a sabot round for 16" gun with a range of about 50 miles. Fin guided, helped by a UAV in the air. Shoot from behind the horizon. And remember, the Iowa's also had Harpoon's and Tomahawks. Probably so would a new BB.