Recommissioning WW2 US Battleships
Discussion
aeropilot said:
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.
That^^Along with the need to completely modernise their systems and meet the necessary social & environmental legislation that simply didn't exist back then- or even when they were last in service. The following speaks volumes about the way things have changed nowadays;
article said:
Reactivating the battleships would require a wide range of battleship modernization improvements, according to the navy's program management office.
At a minimum, these modernization improvements include command and control, communications, computers, and intelligence equipment; environmental protection (including ozone-depleting substances); a plastic-waste processor; pulper/shredder and wastewater alterations; firefighting/fire safety and women-at-sea alterations; a modernized sensor suite (air and surface search radar); and new combat and self-defense systems.
The navy's program management office also identified other issues that would strongly discourage the Navy from reactivating and modernizing the battleships. For example, personnel needed to operate the battleships would be extensive, and the skills needed may not be available or easily reconstituted.
Other issues include the age and unreliability of the battleships' propulsion systems and the fact that the navy no longer maintains the capability to manufacture their 16-inch (410 mm) gun system components and ordnance.
They could propose, develop, and subsequently (inevitably) cancel multiple alternative solutions before the reactivation of the Iowa class would even begin to look like economic sense.At a minimum, these modernization improvements include command and control, communications, computers, and intelligence equipment; environmental protection (including ozone-depleting substances); a plastic-waste processor; pulper/shredder and wastewater alterations; firefighting/fire safety and women-at-sea alterations; a modernized sensor suite (air and surface search radar); and new combat and self-defense systems.
The navy's program management office also identified other issues that would strongly discourage the Navy from reactivating and modernizing the battleships. For example, personnel needed to operate the battleships would be extensive, and the skills needed may not be available or easily reconstituted.
Other issues include the age and unreliability of the battleships' propulsion systems and the fact that the navy no longer maintains the capability to manufacture their 16-inch (410 mm) gun system components and ordnance.
Not to mention it was always my understanding that it was the Navy itself who were so strongly against their reactivation (due to costs), and that it was Congress who insisted upon their temporary maintenance in a 'mothballed' state- against the wishes of the organisation who would operate them. The USMC seemed to be the main ones in favour of their reactivation, but without the support of the Navy it's a non-starter regardless of the economics.
k. Get them back in action. Squirrelofwoe said:
The USMC seemed to be the main ones in favour of their reactivation, but without the support of the Navy it's a non-starter regardless of the economics.
Much the same as its the USMC driving the need for spending a stupid amount of money on developing the F-35B, when they have zero need for a stupid expensive stealth STOVL warplane.......when they are never going to go anywhere hot without a USN carrier battle group in tow. If it wasn't for the political clout of the USMC, the F-35 program wouldn't be in half the problems and cost spiralling that it has, and would have been largely what it was originally intended to be - a F-16 replacement (with no B or C model)However, the USMC have a LOT of political clout in Washington, and usually whatever the USMC want often to the detriment of others.
I agree with the skills shortage, but
2) If the West's war machines have to meet 'necessary social & environmental legislation' it shows you how far we've descended. 'It's illegal to run Merlins on 100 octane Mr Dowding, 95 is better for the environment'.
Squirrelofwoe said:
Along with the need to completely modernise their systems and meet the necessary social & environmental legislation that simply didn't exist back then
1) The problem was the 'modernisation' in the first place!2) If the West's war machines have to meet 'necessary social & environmental legislation' it shows you how far we've descended. 'It's illegal to run Merlins on 100 octane Mr Dowding, 95 is better for the environment'.
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 Belgrao (USS Phoenix) for this reason.
Conqueror used MkVIII torpedoes in preference to Tigerfish because the Tigerfish at the time had a reputation of being a useless piece of junk. Nothing to do with ability to blow holes in the sides of ships.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.
aeropilot said:
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.I think its now a 100% certainty that none of the Iowa Class BB's will ever be re-activated.
SystemParanoia said:
rip the steam system out and replace it with a nuclear motor from a nimitz 
job done
use the old fuel tanks to hold more 16" rounds
That would require replacing the turbines as well, atomic kettles generally only make wet steam and the oil-fired boiler system in the BBs produce superheated steam. If you're ripping everything out it would be cheaper to build a new hull around the turrets.job done
use the old fuel tanks to hold more 16" rounds
Simpo Two said:
2) If the West's war machines have to meet 'necessary social & environmental legislation' it shows you how far we've descended. 'It's illegal to run Merlins on 100 octane Mr Dowding, 95 is better for the environment'.
Absolutely, it does sound somewhat farcical!
I do wonder how much of that stuff would genuinely be an issue if it came down to it, and how much of it might be the Navy department going a bit over the top with their report- considering they have no desire whatsoever to see them returned to service...
Simpo Two said:
1) The problem was the 'modernisation' in the first place!
2) If the West's war machines have to meet 'necessary social & environmental legislation' it shows you how far we've descended. 'It's illegal to run Merlins on 100 octane Mr Dowding, 95 is better for the environment'.
In a time of war, I'd agree with you about environmental concerns, but we aren't at war.2) If the West's war machines have to meet 'necessary social & environmental legislation' it shows you how far we've descended. 'It's illegal to run Merlins on 100 octane Mr Dowding, 95 is better for the environment'.
V8 Fettler said:
Park it in the Med and use the hull as a launching platform for cruise missiles.
But why bother when they have countless smaller ships already in service that can do that for a fraction of the cost?The unique thing they offer is their 16" guns in a fire-support role - whilst being extremely resilient to anything fired back in their direction due to their weight of armour.
Squirrelofwoe said:
V8 Fettler said:
Park it in the Med and use the hull as a launching platform for cruise missiles.
But why bother when they have countless smaller ships already in service that can do that for a fraction of the cost?The unique thing they offer is their 16" guns in a fire-support role - whilst being extremely resilient to anything fired back in their direction due to their weight of armour.
V8 Fettler said:
Squirrelofwoe said:
V8 Fettler said:
Park it in the Med and use the hull as a launching platform for cruise missiles.
But why bother when they have countless smaller ships already in service that can do that for a fraction of the cost?The unique thing they offer is their 16" guns in a fire-support role - whilst being extremely resilient to anything fired back in their direction due to their weight of armour.
aeropilot said:
It would depend on the enemy capabilities, but they weren't a liability when they were used in that off-shore fire support role in the WW2, Korea, Vietnam & Middle East (Lebanon & Gulf War)
The size is not a problem to any anti ship missile system that has locked onto a target, size does not matter. You also have lots of space to mount systems to defend against such threats. Air threats are also equally covered by the normal systems provided for smaller ships. With "off ship" targeting from long range drones/aircraft fire control is rather good.Most Anit-Ship missile systems are not designed to penetrate large amounts of face hardened armour.
Well off of the Gulf one nearly got hit by Iraqi anti-ship missles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silkworm_missile#Gul...
Against more modern missles, it could be a different matter.
Against more modern missles, it could be a different matter.
Squirrelofwoe said:
Absolutely, it does sound somewhat farcical!
I do wonder how much of that stuff would genuinely be an issue if it came down to it, and how much of it might be the Navy department going a bit over the top with their report- considering they have no desire whatsoever to see them returned to service...
It wont even hurt the enemy....
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff