Iowa Class Battleships and the 16" gun

[archerynut]

I just finished watching an episode of "Tales of the Gun" on youtube. this one was about naval guns, but theres other episodes about John Moses Browning and his guns, Israeli guns. they seem to be very well done and each episode is split into 3, 4 or 5 parts being anywhere from 10 to 15 minutes long per snippet.

part 3 of the episode I just watched dealt with world war 2 naval guns. they mentioned the 18" guns on the Japanese battleship Yamato and her sister ship, forget the name. then they centered on the Iowa class ships and the fact that some of the vessels in that class have been in and out of mothball status several times. the effectiveness of those 16" guns is pretty hard to dispute. they had been in use as recently as the first gulf war in '91.

I guess what I'm wondering is, considering these ships are probably more than just mothballed, being converted to a floating museum. would it be possible, if the situation arose, for the United States Navy, or maybe even the Canadian Navy, to turn their attention and expertise towards one of these impressive battle wagons and return it to operational status. that would mean overhauling the propulsion systems(diesel or maybe even nuclear?) and the fire control, considering the whole thing is computed on an old fashioned analog gun computer and then those amazing guns would have to be returned to top functioning condition. it seems the cost per round is much more economical versus cruise missles fired from a guided missle cruiser at 1.2mil per missle.

would this be a reasonable possibility under ficticious conditions that may call for such a move?

 

[fugawi]

"...in use as recently as the first gulf war in '91."

Where does time go. I can remember watching them fire those guns on the evening news. But back to your question... Probably not.

If you read this article from 2010 http://www.dailybreeze.com/latestnews/ci_16649657 its sounds like the U.S. Navy was going to donate the U.S.S. Iowa to the city of San Pedro for a floating museum. The navy would probably strip the Iowa of most things still useful rendering it not cost effective or time effective to bring back on line.

 

[lcardinal]

Norinco

The electronics needed on a ship that size to defeat the latest ANTI-ship missles developed by CGN's favorite gun supplier NORINCO would't be cost effective,

 

[tootall]

As impressive as huge guns are, they are no comparison to cruise missiles.
A cruise missile has a range of several hundred Km, and is GPS guided.
And a small vessel can carry missiles.

 

[Mk VII]

Theoretically Wisconsin was in maintained reserve until 2009, but not now. If the shafts have seized reactivation would be prohibitively expensive, also the propulsion machinery is like nothing left in the navy now that Sacramento and Camden are gone. The suite of electronics given the ships in the 1980s is also obsolescent now.

I took this photograph of Iowa in 1981 at Portsmouth, England.

 

[Pblatzz]

 

[Pblatzz]

The US currently has no commissioned battleships and the entire line of Iowa class Battleships have all been retired, even though the Iowa is still in the National Defense Reserve Fleet.

As mentioned the Cruise Missile made them more obsolete than they already were.

 

[desporterizer]

The electronics needed on a ship that size to defeat the latest ANTI-ship missles developed by CGN's favorite gun supplier NORINCO would't be cost effective,

I don't know how effective a ASM would be on 15" of armor but a small diameter bomb would make a Iowa class cry uncle. It would be funny to see the effect of a 16' shell on the new composite wonder ships.
Yamato's sister ship was the Musashi.

 

[ATOM]

Possible? Sure.

Cost-effective? Unlikely.

Gonna happen? Not a chance.

There are simply better ways to achieve the same end these days.

The only reason the BBs were around this long was a sentimental Congress ordering the Navy to keep two of them.

As to the concept of the Canadian Navy taking it on, the chance is less than zero, if that's possible. Now that Afghanistan is over, DND's budget is due for trimming. The Navy is already very short of sailors and the BB's took about 2,000 highly-trained sailors to man, plus a substantial shore slice to support them. It would be a black hole as regards money, time, effort and manpower, leaving the Navy, indeed the entire CF, unable to do anything else.

 

[TGC]

These shipe would be great surport for a sea born assult/ landing, huge shells exploding in and on and around the landing area.

 

[ATOM]

These shipe would be great surport for a sea born assult/ landing, huge shells exploding in and on and around the landing area.

Perhaps. But keep in mind that the reason they fired thousands upon thousands of shells, dropped thousands upon thousands of bombs, in previous amphibious landings is because all of them were inherently inaccurate and they needed to put a lot of lead downrange to ensure something would hit the desired target. Air Force planes routinely dropped sticks of bombs in hopes that one of them would be close. We've PGM now - one target, one bomb.

And, in any case, the likelihood of NATO doing another Normandy/Inchon landing is what?

Magnificent ships, but like TRex, overtaken by time, changing circumstances and better technology.

 

[purple]

Apart from the issues of obsolescent machinery and weapons effectiveness relative to today's PGMs, the operating costs of these ships are huge to say nothing of the personnel costs involved in manning the ship with a 2000 plus crew.

There is a glamour about them though. I've been fortunate to have visited the USS Masachusetts, USS Alabama, and USS North Carolina, all of which are 16inch gun precursors to the larger Iowa class. When I was working in an ops center during the course of my US exchange tour in the 1980s it was quite fascinating to monitor the gunfire reports from the USS New Jersey operating off the Lebanese coast.

 

[Canuck223]

From this outsiders view, if you asked an honest question of our chiefs of defence, many of the current fleet are obsolete.

Naval power means something entirely different today than 40-60-80 years ago. The jobs we need a navy to perform today are much different.

When we need eyes close to a situation, satellites are the solution.
When we need to move large numbers of troops half way across the world, they fly.
When we need to be able to attack a target within 20 miles of the coast, we use missiles or bombs.

In todays world, we still have a need to be able to intercept ships at sea. We need a search and rescue capacity. We need supply ships and container/bulk cargo ships.

The role filled by destroyers and battleships seems better suited today to smaller guided missile cruisers.

I'm an outsider. I'm probably off base on many assumptions. My gut tells me many of the current US fleet exist only because it exists currently. If money was no object and there were no political consequences for building a brand new fleet and scrapping the un-needed surplus of the old, I doubt many ships would remain.

If the US had the money, my guess is they would keep the ICBM carrying subs. They'd keep the attack subs and the AEGIS class ships to support the aircraft carriers. They would probably keep the LCAC carriers. They would probably invest in new shallow water boats, and new cargo carriers. Aside from that?????

 

[Pblatzz]

The Royal Navy scrapped it last Battleship HMS Vangard in 1960. Deemed obsolete and to costly. The Iowa class BB's are awesome and amazing.

HMS Vangard Built 1941 commissioned after WWII, The last of the Fast Battleships built.

 

[bear.23]

They are incredible things.. But they are dinosaurs.. you can get faster, better armed, more efficient more stealthy with a smaller package and crew these days.. The price tag unsurprisingly isn't that much more then what it cost to build the monster ships but that was then... The BB's were about 100 million and the new cruisers about 900 million -1.1 billion.. 30 years later...

 

[Pblatzz]

The fate of the Musashi (sister ship to the Yamato) tells all and how fast they became obsolete. She was launched on November 1st 1940 and commissioned August 5th 1942. On October 24th 1944, while participating in the Battle for Leyte Gulf, IJN Musashi was attacked by aircraft from USS Enterprise, Cabot, Independence and Intrepid.
Over a 4 1/2hour period, she was hit by 17 bombs and 20 torpedoes and sank taking 1,023 officers and men with her (approx 43% of her crew).
Fully loaded, she was 71,500 tons displacement with a crew of 2800.
2 years to build, 2800 to train, Not to mention the fuel, munitions, food, etc. Money better of buying drones or long range missiles.

artists rendition from the internet.

 

[bigedp51]

My father was in the U.S. Navy for 26 years, was never assigned to a ship and never left the United States. The reason for this was he was in Naval Aviation Training Command and an "airedale". I always remembered his trick question to new recruits.

Question: "What U.S. Ship had the biggest caliber guns on board"

Answer: The USS Hope Hospital ship, it had three Japanese 18 inch guns in the bottom of the ship used as ballast.

Second trick question:
Question: How many sides to a ship?
Answer: Seven sides

1. Topside
2. Bottomside
3. Portside
4. Starboard side
5. Inside
6. Outside
7. And "Come alongside"

25,000 yards = 14 miles, 36,000 yards = 20 miles or 32.9 kilometers.
(now think about your some of your group sizes at 100 yards)

 

[Pblatzz]

Great Picts, Here's the Mighty Moe

 

[Pblatzz]

USS Iowa BB-61

1942

Commissioning Ceremony Feb. 22, 1943 New York Navy Yard

All four Iowa class battleships June 7, 1954
(this is the only time all four of the Iowa class ships were together)

 

[Pblatzz]

USS Illinois and USS Kentucky (shown here) were never finished, and both ultimately scrapped.

The Armor

A view of the hatch and armor citadel of the battleship NEW JERSEY (BB 62). The armor protecting the pilot house is more than 17 inches thick at this point. The NEW JERSEY is being towed from Bremerton, Washington, to the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, California, where it will undergo reactivation/moderization construction.