Posted: 7/3/2007 1:32:07 PM EDT
Isn't that proof that once modernized Battleships can still play a role in todays navy? Is there a way to make those beautiful 16 inch guns a bit more accurate?  What do you mean they can't recommission a battleship just because it would be "really cool" ? Isn't the Iowa the only one left that isnt currently a museum ship?   |
|
Did a little research... "Accuracy of both the Mk 6 and Mk 7 guns was very impressive with a shot dispersion of 1 minute of angle. To put that in perspective, these 16" guns could place rounds into a 35 ft diameter circle at a range of 12 miles making it a very precise and very effective weapon for close support of troops." Did you guys get that? One minute accuracy. As good as a very expensive bolt rifle. What a gun! 
|
Use a JDAM and you can hit inside a 6 foot circle 500 miles from the ship. |
Park your BB 12 miles off a coast and STONEFISH type mines will make your war very short and very exciting… |
or a 16" Copperhead |
|
A missile cruiser can pretty much do anything a BB can do, and cost a lot less. With cruise missiles that can be put within 6' of your target at 500 miles, the advantages of the 16" big guns disappear quickly. Its the day to day peace time costs that made the BB obsolete. |
|
Here is why: 1. Old 2. Maintenance intensive 3. Crew Intensive 4. Lost skill set to even operate the things (no body in the service now could probably fire the 16" gun, or maintain the high pressure steam engines) 5. Inadequate defensive weapons in modern litoral evironment (stealthy subsonic and not so stealthy supersonic antiship missiles, under keel torpeoes from DE subs) 6. Inadequate sensors (see number 5) 7. No spare parts 8. Main guns don't have the range to be relevent for anything but the first few hours of an invasion 9. Massively expensive way to deliver to what amounts to a 2000lb bomb a mere 16-20 miles away 10. Cost to retify 1-9 would buy you multiple multirole surface combatants that can do the ONE job the Iowa can do (Short range NGFS) and can do every other role the Navy needs. So thats why. |
|
I happen to just love the Iowa class. however, instead of retrofitting one, make a new one, just as big, and propell it with dual Nuclear reactors so it could match pace with the Nimitz's for as long as the Nimitz's (or better). Put 3 batteries of triple 16" guns. Figure out how to put smart bomb technology on 16" shells so that every (90%-ile) shell hits its target. Optimize the shells for 40 Km range and lethality. robotize the loading procedures and enable 6 shots per minute. The reason to bring back the big guns is to enable 16" smart munitionss to be "dropped horizontally" on the targets a considerable distance inland (25 miles). These munitions could be guided by lasers from observation posts, from planes/drones, with GPS coordinates, or standard PoA. 24 phalanx defense guns (next generation). Patriotand/or THAD missles if those make sense, 6 cruise missle launchers, 1000+ missles in storage 16" hull augmented with kevlar/carbon/depleted Uranium for the ultimate in survivability. And finally, to the extend possible, make it stealthy. |
Not to be overly critical, because you hit the nail on the head on every other point, but we still operate high pressure steam engines, but the designs are considerably newer. The same principles apply, so it wouldn't be that difficult. My concern would be the physical condition of the plant. No one in service can fire the gun, but I live down the road from people who could easily teach the skills necessary. The knowledge part, while challenging, isn't difficult to overcome. Overall, I give you a 98/100. |
 out of
|
30/100 |
I wonder what the cost per projectile is for missiles compared to Guns.
The site where this info came from |
|
What those numbers leave out is the problem with the powder. One of the reasons the BBs were decommed was because of bad powder, which is why USS Iowa blew up. Improper storage for 40 years tends to do that. You'd have to buy all new powder to launch those projos. That means a whole new development process, including live fire testing, that would probably break my damn windows. It isn't cheap. |
| The Iowa class BB is one of the most beautiful ships to ever sail but it lost it's place to the aircraft carrier in WWII. There was a reason for this, the aircraft carrier can inflict more damage at a further range than the BB ever could. The only reason the BB was brought out of mothballs during Virtnam was because a great many targets were within it's range. Now with the arming of Ohlo class subs with cruise missles it'd be foolish to even think about bringing back the BB. Sadly they were grand ships whose time has come & gone. |
The systems that will allow DDG-1000 have a crew of under 200, compared to the crew of 300 current DDGs have, make up a large chunk of it's $3billion price tag. And DDG-1000s engineering plant is modern in all respects. Not to mention DDG-1000 is ~1/3 the size of a BB. That should give you some idea of the price tag associated with that idea. |
|
Actually, down the street they still have a 16 inch gun on the gun line that isn't used and a mess of 16 inch barrels. The GS-types and contractors still work the gun line. |
Some of these pics are just amazing.       
oooooooooo. GPS. Sexy. |
|
As much as I LOVE the big BBs(I have been on a Iowa class), they are a artifact of a by-gone era. There are just too many things that can take one down WAY too easily. If we do build another BB, it will be for show. It would be a capital ship that is there just to say "we have one..you don't!" |
Montana class BBs were a basically Iowas with a 4th 16" gun turret and more armor. They were projected to be about 5 knots slower than the Iowas. They never got beyond design studies. |
BIG BIG +1 Old 16" Prop Charge bags are a PITA. |
Group buy? |
You live near Dahlgren? I thought they weren't firing the 16"ers anymore. |
a 12-14 mile bolt gun. |
I live in a gated community near the gun line.  No they aren't firing the 16s any more, but the guys who did still work here. At least that's what I've been told. |
 Model of USS Montana BB-67 in 1941 |
|
They'll come back into play if we ever need them. Pray to Jesus Christ almighty we never need them, cus that won't be a pretty war if we have a sudden and urgent need for four more battlegroups. Although in any future war of prolonged duration they'd probably be reactivated more for thier C&C facilities then thier cannons. |
I actually worked on her as a civvy during her decomissioning and layup in Bremerton prior to the one sided prisoner exchange to Pearl Harbor. The ship's interior was amazing compared to other ships of her era. The amount of armor she carried on the main deck and hull was just stupendous. However, efficiency wasn't in the design requirements so the 1 million $$ in JP she burned daily just can't be overlooked. It was a privelege to work with her though. On a side note, the most dangerous ship in the sea in a conventional war is the converted Ohio Missile Boats ala Arsenal Ship! Just plain scary in terms of long range power projection with no warning. |
|
Cruise Missiles can be quite expensive unless you use an AWS.. 16 inch shells are cheaper but...Conventional 16 inch guns have about a range of 20 miles. On the Other hand...a Nuclear Powered Vessel (Nuclear Powered so it will have the electricity) mounted with some Rail Guns...or maybe 16 inch caliber AGS might be a more cost effective way to go. (The DDG-1000 is going to have a 155mm AGS (6" caliber)) I like the Iowa's but.... Metallurgy has improved since the late 30's, and there are more hydrodynamically efficient hull designs out there. Perhaps using Artificial Shark Skin to cover the hull below the water line to reduce barnacle growth and drag or using a hypercavitating hull to reduce drag would be a good way to go. How about a very large nuke powered Battle Cruiser with Rail Guns and a MK57 VLS system? Give it the ability to launch swarms of UUVs and UCAVs The MK57 isn't as efficient in terms of weapons loadout per volume as a Mk41 but on the other hand a ship is more survivable with one than the 41. |
You play your game and I'll play mine. There are two kinds of ships: submarines and targets.  Whatever you build, a submarine, even a "lowly" diesel boat, can sink. Waste of time and money. |
|
I`ll bite. I`d go with a Virginia CGN hull form as a baseline. I`d expand it to 35,000-45,000 tons. Updated Aegis for AAW and over all weapons control. Resurrect the Mk 71 Major Caliber Lt. Wt gun (8") in 2 double turrets ( 1 fore and aft) Secondary battery would be 127" in 4 single turrets (2 port/starboard). VLS fore & aft. Mk# depends on final tonnage. Vulcan CIWS x 4 mounts. two triple torpedo tube launchers for Mk 48. Nixie or similar torpedo decoys. Organic mine neutralization system as currently fitted to DDG 51 types. A single helipad and hanger for HH-60 or UCAVs. Power plant possibly a diesel-gas turbine set up for range and speed. 
|