Recommissioning WW2 US Battleships

Recommissioning WW2 US Battleships

Author
Discussion

Jonmx

Original Poster:

2,535 posts

212 months

Friday 14th April 2017
quotequote all
Given all that's going on in the world at the moment, I recalled something I'd read a while back about Trump suggesting recommissioning the Iowa and the Winsconsin. I thought the costs of this would be massively prohibitive, but then discovered that congress actually covered this contingency when the ships were laid up with the requirements below.

1-Iowa and Wisconsin must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility;

2-The battleships must be preserved in their present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection, dehumidification systems, and any other preservation methods as needed;

3-Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16-inch (410 mm) gun barrels and projectiles be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa and Wisconsin, if reactivated;

4-The navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Iowa and Wisconsin should they be returned to the navy in the event of a national emergency.

I have to confess I'd actually love to see this go ahead and to have these huge beasts out on the ocean again. What are people's thoughts; a feasible and achievable option, or a crazy Trump pipedream?
A good article here http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm
And a gratuitous photo for no real reason.

Stickyfinger

8,429 posts

104 months

Friday 14th April 2017
quotequote all
They are the only way of moving Hill No1 to Hill No2

Starfighter

4,908 posts

177 months

Friday 14th April 2017
quotequote all
What practical use would they be?

Whilst spectacular, the main armament is of limited range and accuracy and all the secondary armament is duplicated elsewhere within a battle group. The only advantage they have over modern ships is the ability to withstand a good portion of missile and torpedo hits. The Royal Navy had to load old weapons to deal with General Belgrao (USS Phoenix) for this reason.

Jonmx

Original Poster:

2,535 posts

212 months

Friday 14th April 2017
quotequote all
I think the idea is to use them as fleet command flagships or similar. I'm of the opinion that it's a bit of an expensive pipedream, but having watched Under Siege (I know I know) again the other night it reminded me of how impressive they are.

TEKNOPUG

18,843 posts

204 months

Friday 14th April 2017
quotequote all
Starfighter said:
What practical use would they be?

Whilst spectacular, the main armament is of limited range and accuracy and all the secondary armament is duplicated elsewhere within a battle group. The only advantage they have over modern ships is the ability to withstand a good portion of missile and torpedo hits. The Royal Navy had to load old weapons to deal with General Belgrano (USS Phoenix) for this reason.
confused

It was sunk by a nuclear submarine firing 2 torpedos. True the Mark VIII can trace it's roots back to the 1920's but it was still in front line service during the Falklands due to it's reliability over more modern type. Not because it was the only thing capable of punching a hole in a 1930's light cruiser.

Simpo Two

85,147 posts

264 months

Friday 14th April 2017
quotequote all
Starfighter said:
What practical use would they be?.
Shore bombardment. The enemy has no air power so they're immune from counter attack.

Carrol Shelby said there ain't no substitute for cubes. Equally there ain't no substitute for f*cking great shells and lots of them biggrin

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 14th April 2017
quotequote all
As Simpo said, their only practical use is shore bombardment against a weaker enemy (as they were used in Iraq). In a war against a peer they would be simply be an expensive, and very exposed white elephant, in my view.

Having said that, I think there is some sense in keeping them in a condition where they could be reactivated, but there is no need for that to be now, other than for Trump to use them to show he's bringing back the good old days. Next he'll be bringing back asbestos and sending children up chimneys.

IforB

9,840 posts

228 months

Saturday 15th April 2017
quotequote all
Inkyfingers said:
As Simpo said, their only practical use is shore bombardment against a weaker enemy (as they were used in Iraq). In a war against a peer they would be simply be an expensive, and very exposed white elephant, in my view.

Having said that, I think there is some sense in keeping them in a condition where they could be reactivated, but there is no need for that to be now, other than for Trump to use them to show he's bringing back the good old days. Next he'll be bringing back asbestos and sending children up chimneys.
This.

Without modern radars and integrated battle command infrastructure, they would simply get in the way and offer little in the way of additional capability. Big guns of course, but flattening large swathes of shoreline can be achieved by other methods if required.

This is the sort of thing that gets the hard of thinking who get all nostalgic about the "good old days" fired up whilst they forget that the good old days had things like rationing, rickets and polio.

Regiment

2,799 posts

158 months

Saturday 15th April 2017
quotequote all
They'd make an awesome private yacht, especially moored off Monte Carlo.

eharding

13,597 posts

283 months

Saturday 15th April 2017
quotequote all
Regiment said:
They'd make an awesome private yacht, especially moored off Monte Carlo.
Iowa class has a range of 15000nm on 8750 tonnes of fuel oil, current price of fuel is roughly 325 USD / tonne, so that's 2.8 million USD to refuel, and then costing you 190 USD per nautical mile to move.

Actually, the cost-per-mile seems on a par with a P38 Range Rover, and with a slightly more nimble turning circle.

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 15th April 2017
quotequote all
eharding said:
Regiment said:
They'd make an awesome private yacht, especially moored off Monte Carlo.
Iowa class has a range of 15000nm on 8750 tonnes of fuel oil, current price of fuel is roughly 325 USD / tonne, so that's 2.8 million USD to refuel, and then costing you 190 USD per nautical mile to move.

Actually, the cost-per-mile seems on a par with a P38 Range Rover, and with a slightly more nimble turning circle.
Yeah but you'd dominate the marina like a boss if you turned up in that thing. Imagine turning up to the Grand Prix in Monaco and showing all those Euro trash monarchs and oligarchs who the daddy was.



Know your place.

4x4Tyke

6,506 posts

131 months

Saturday 15th April 2017
quotequote all
Exactly, very cheap application of Fleet in being doctrine.

LimaDelta

6,507 posts

217 months

Saturday 15th April 2017
quotequote all
Turret of the Yamato - pretty mindblowing size!



Yep, the Tiger tank is at the same scale!


Also, regarding the Belgrano, IIRC it was ex-USN WWII and a survivor of the Pearl Harbour attack.

FourWheelDrift

88,375 posts

283 months

Saturday 15th April 2017
quotequote all
The new Zumwalt class destroyers (32 planned, 29 cancelled, 2 built, total program cost was $22.5 billion with an average cost of $7.5 billion per ship) is armed along with the same Tomahawk missile systems that the Iowa class have installed and is also carrying 2x 6" guns for shore bombardment purposes to cover amphibious landings. Iowa/Wisconsin have 20x 5" guns and of course 9x 16" guns so they make a bigger bang.

During the 1980s all 4 Iowas were reactivated and upgraded at a cost of £1.4billion. Today Iowa and Wisconsin are stored in full readiness state by the military (£1.5m spent each year and surveys to check) it might cost $2bn to reactivate a ship fully, including the 1,500 crew and to fully arm and provision them. If the US are thinking that landing troops (Syria, North Korea, Iran, France biggrin) is the main need in current or future conflicts then it may well make sense and cheaper than building more expensive ships that are doing something they are not totally designed for. Use equipment that is best for the job.

Effect the big guns had during Desert Storm - http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/battleships-pulle...

IforB

9,840 posts

228 months

Saturday 15th April 2017
quotequote all
eharding said:
Regiment said:
They'd make an awesome private yacht, especially moored off Monte Carlo.
Iowa class has a range of 15000nm on 8750 tonnes of fuel oil, current price of fuel is roughly 325 USD / tonne, so that's 2.8 million USD to refuel, and then costing you 190 USD per nautical mile to move.

Actually, the cost-per-mile seems on a par with a P38 Range Rover, and with a slightly more nimble turning circle.
Servicing costs on the Iowa class is a bit lower though.

aeropilot

34,297 posts

226 months

Wednesday 19th April 2017
quotequote all
Jonmx said:
Given all that's going on in the world at the moment, I recalled something I'd read a while back about Trump suggesting recommissioning the Iowa and the Winsconsin. I thought the costs of this would be massively prohibitive, but then discovered that congress actually covered this contingency when the ships were laid up with the requirements below.

1-Iowa and Wisconsin must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility;

2-The battleships must be preserved in their present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection, dehumidification systems, and any other preservation methods as needed;

3-Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16-inch (410 mm) gun barrels and projectiles be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa and Wisconsin, if reactivated;

4-The navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Iowa and Wisconsin should they be returned to the navy in the event of a national emergency.
While that was true for the ships between 2006 and 2009, its no longer the case.
On 14 December 2009 the US Navy officially transferred Wisconsin to the city of Norfolk, ending the requirement for the ship to be preserved for possible recall to active duty. The US Navy had paid the city of Norfolk $2.8 million between 2000 and 2009 to maintain the ship.
A formal ceremony transferring the ship to the city of Norfolk took place on 16 April 2010. Wisconsin was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on 28 March 2012 (like wise with the Iowa, which was similarily handed over the same year)

So absolutely zero chance of the Wisconsin (or Iowa) ever being re-activated.

I saw the Iowa moored off Portsmouth back in the late 1980's, and have seen the Mighty Mo moored at her berth in Pearl Harbour. They are impressive beasts. Seeing them firing a broadside live must have been an awsome sight and sound.

Simpo Two

85,147 posts

264 months

Wednesday 19th April 2017
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
So absolutely zero chance of the Wisconsin (or Iowa) ever being re-activated.
If the will and the money are there, anything is possible. They got 3 men to the moon in a bean tin in the 1960s you know.

aeropilot

34,297 posts

226 months

Wednesday 19th April 2017
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
aeropilot said:
So absolutely zero chance of the Wisconsin (or Iowa) ever being re-activated.
If the will and the money are there, anything is possible. They got 3 men to the moon in a bean tin in the 1960s you know.
The bigger problem isn't the ship and re-activating it, its the crew and trying to re-train, re-learn what would effectively be skills sets for operating a WW2 era ship, such as steam systems and all sorts of other stuff just simply not used in any current USN vessel, and not used now for over 20 years. Even with will and funds that's no easy or quick and simple task....and the more time that passes the less likely it gets.

I think its now a 100% certainty that none of the Iowa Class BB's will ever be re-activated.


SystemParanoia

14,343 posts

197 months

Wednesday 19th April 2017
quotequote all
rip the steam system out and replace it with a nuclear motor from a nimitz smile

job done smile

use the old fuel tanks to hold more 16" rounds biggrin

Funky Panda

216 posts

86 months

Thursday 20th April 2017
quotequote all
Even in the 1980's the USN struggled to operate them safely. Time has passed since then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_expl...