What if Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

[zadmiral]

Now that being said....
To bring the Iowas back into service would be a monumental task.

First...there would have to be a "purpose" to bring them back. They would have to have a clear mission.

Second. The modernization would have to be extensive, spare no expense.

My basic Idea is.
Remove the entire superstructure down to the second deck. Remove all three 16inch turrets and their barbettes.
16inch guns are woefully obsolete, and too short ranged.
Remove the armored conning tower and all the GFCS systems now on board.
Remove all the boilers and re-arrange the the turbines and reduction gears by moving them as far aft as possible, basically moving them all into the last two machinery spaces. Shortening the shafts accordingly. Install nuclear reactors in the above vacated machinery spaces.
This eliminates the need to carry 8000 tons of fuel oil, AND takes the load off of the fleet train needed to supply BBs with DFM
It also frees up more space for VLS systems. does not require two stacks which also frees up space for Aegis or any other type of phased array sytems.
Next reinstall two smaller diameter forward barbettes of thinner , lighter armor and mount two TWIN 16inch smoothbore guns which would allow the use of saboted 13inch projectiles. With fin stabilization and rocket assist this would allow the 4 guns to fire any type of PGM now in use and with RAP give them a much longer range.
Mount the latest Cruise and antiship weapons.(harpoons Tomahawks or equivalent)
Remove all of the 5inch guns and install four or six twin 57mm swedish type naval guns. EXTREMELY efffective against motorboats with explosives.
And of course CIWS.
Then carry a detachment of Marine VSTOL aircraft. F-35s or equivalent aft where turret 3 used to be.
Leave only the belt and deck armor at its original thickness, only because its so difficult to remove.

This would then bring them up to modern standards,
And would be an excellent strike platform for Marine operations. Would be able to stand off further from shore and provide more effective fire support with PGMs
Plus it would be a more serious threat for battles at sea.
In fact...it might even entice future naval planners to build MORE heavy support BBs just like them(or similar) once they get too old.
Who knows...A Newly designed MONTANA class BB
Yeahhh

[navydavesof]

what you propose is not doable & way more expensive than building what you want from scratch.

Yeah, don't worry about it. I didn't respond to his post, because I don't think he's serious. What he suggests would cost an ungodly amount of money and would destroy the ships. What I propose would bring the existing ships up to modern standards very cheaply in comparison to any kind of new warship construction, providing the USN 4 battleships for another 20 years. Really, which seems serious to you?

[zadmiral]

That's the point, you didn't need to respond and I didn't expect one.
It was only to illustrate that these ships are done. There is no place in the modern navy for ships like this...and certainly no mission.
With the new weapons the military has like pgm's, the weapons that an Iowa carries at the moment aren't sufficient for the modern era.
Any "modernization" would have to be extensive enough to bring them up to current standards.
A ship of this size and its manpower requirements do not fit within a specific mission or need.

The Marine Corps need a heavy assault platform. A modern "battleship" to serve the Corp[s needs would have to be able to deliver ordnance on shore with great accuracy. The 406s aren't accurate enough. PGM munitions are. In addition there is a need for air support.
If you have to tie down a carrier for that purpose then you don't need a BB.

Sure its expensive...and extreme,,, but would create a truly new class of "battleship".
It would be able to support the USMC on missions ashore, and would be a real threat to enemy naval vessels for sure.
The weight removed would bring the speed up to about 35kts. The new weapons would greatly extend the range and accuracy.
The F35s and Apache choppers would be perfect for the MC needs.

Keep in mind that I am a BB nut myself. But at some point you have to see, and fight, in the future.
Z

[carr]

..

[Sauragnmon]

I've been trying to avoid this debate as I know it's a circular one, because people like ZAdmiral think they know everything and they know what's obsolete without a single clue about the actual realities of the information they're citing.

First - Those who proscribe to his doctrine of thinking assume that somehow, big guns are a fixed and set in stone concept, that they cannot be improved upon. I will cite as argument, ALL of the work done by the God of Artillery, Gerald Bull, with the exact same 16" gun as mounted on an Iowa Class, AS A BASE OF WORK. Vastly improved Range, Vastly improved Accuracy, without sacrificing a single ounce of the whole capacity to Strike with Impunity. Modern radar and detection equipment can see the two main methods of ordnance delivery these days - Missiles and Aircraft. To bring a two thousand pound warhead to bear, requires a heavy missile design, or it has to be delivered by a plane. Both have vectors of failure - they can be detected and engaged. Comparatively, a modernized 406mm gun can deliver its two thousand pound payload out to easily sixty nautical miles with a far lower capacity for detection, and do it in Bulk.

Second - People love to point out Aircraft vs Battleships. They don't have a flying clue that the information is actually Slanted, because there was only ONE class of warship in WW2 that was BUILT from the KEEL UP with the threat of aircraft in mind - the Iowa Class, which earned the nickname of "The Floating AA Battery" - BUT they never actually went up against aircraft without being near a Carrier. Musashi, Yamato, Prince of Wales, Bismarck, what do they have in common? They were MODIFIED to improve their capacity against aircraft, out of necessity after the demonstrations of Taranto and Pearl Harbour. Thus the information is inherently Slanted, owing to that fact.

Third - Another point the doctrine likes to aim at is Submarines and Torpedoes. But, they forget to put it in proper perspective - ANY ship is equally weak against these methods of attack, subject solely to the presence of escort ships and submarines. Even the massive Nimitz class can be mission killed by under keel detonations, it's not a specific weakness unique to Battleships. Admiral Belgrano proved that, and she was A MODIFIED COMMAND SHIP FOR THE ARGENTINE ASW FLEET, and they had no idea what happened until AFTER the attack.

Seriously, I hate this circular debate by the intelligent vs the rhetoric-spewing. Read it, Research it, Understand it. Don't come in here waving the words of other people that have been Discussed and Debated Numerous times on these lines.

As a final point, Let us go to the Ground Forces, who are realizing that 127/152/155mm Shells are insufficient for some applications, and that current missiles are similarly unable to carry out the effect efficiently, nor can Aircraft do so with a timely fashion. The sheer kinetic force of a 16" Capped Shell, with Rocket, Ramjet or Scramjet assist, would be an incredibly devastating force upon a hardened target.

[zadmiral]

Well than we disagree. And I think I gotta pretty good clue about the actual realities.
FIRST The 16inch gus are limited range, 60 miles is limited range when considering the targets these guns have to engage.
Its a good range for shore bombardment, but in a naval engagement at sea they are short ranged.
They did experiments and started developing 13inch sabot rounds, but political budget cuts axed the program.
With smoothbore 16inch shooting fin stabilized 13inch rocket assist, guided weapons theres better range and it can use
any up to date type munitions for a wide choice in projectile types. .In addition the current gun turrets and associated equipment
suffer from lack of spare parts and would have to be completely rebuilt anyway. That's the facts.
Shooting the smoothbores you can be on target first salvo, and fire repeat salvoes similar to the US Army's Palladin weapon.
And you could probably shoot the 1900lb hicap if you modified the cannelure area and adapted it to the smoothbore.

SECOND The Iowas final design contract included improved horizontal protection, but did not include any 20 or 40mm guns.
4 quad 1.1 cannons and 12 .50 cal machine guns. were assigned as ordered. The addition of the later guns came long after
the keel laying...

THIRD You can shoot a 13inch saboted bunker buster that would do the job. the troops would get plenty of fist weapons.
And the real world now is in fact subs and targets...carriers or BBs it wouldn't matter.

FOURTH Rebuilding the superstructure with a more radar unfriendly design would be a welcomed asset. The heavy armor of the turrets and barbettes is no longer needed unless a prospective enemy build large naval guns or AP weapons, an unlikely event. The new turrets
could be protected with a lighter more up to date armor system., as would be the new barbettes. These would be the prototype for a new kind of "battleship". Evolve
Z

[Sauragnmon]

Alright, I see your points and raise the following counterpoints.

First - you say 60NM is insufficient for a naval engagement. Against Who? Yes, the Moskit, the Granit and the Bazalt can all reach out past 200NM, but that proves nothing, as we have all seen the demonstrations of those missiles being turned into nice fancy explosions between SAM and AAA weapons. I don't recall modern torpedo ranges, but the longer the range, the harder it is for them to hit the target accurately, unless it's being delivered by an ASROC style Missile-turned-torpedo-bomber platform. Battleship gets within gun range, which with a realistic escort it will, and we see the capital problem that would be fighting an Iowa Class. Yes, the British demonstrated the capability to shoot down a 4.5" Gun Shell with a SAM, but how many SAMs does a fleet carry? To my Recollection, an Iowa class carries some 900 rounds for its main guns, which should be more than sufficient, especially after the missile barrage from the fleet around it, to penetrate their defenses by sheer volume of fire. And with most ships out there, it only takes One 406mm shell to turn that ship into a very pretty wreck.

Additionally - the Battleships have the most of their supporters in the Naval Surface Fire Support mission category. 60NM is a conservative number when you start putting in Ramjet and Scramjet assisted projectiles. Guidance is similarly quite capable, especially if you're talking Fin-Stabilized shells from smoothbore guns, which means that hard hitting projectile has a very very narrow CEP for impact. PGMs are not impossible with heavy caliber guns.


Second - The Iowas were still Built, during Construction, with AAW in mind. They were redesigned while under construction, with their additional guns, as opposed to all other competitors that were Drydocked and Refitted with their AA suite. The Iowas were modified, during construction, with their AAW suite, which would have given them a substantial advantage, as the guns were placed and built into positions meant to work with the ship's hull.


Third - Congratulations, you realized that fact. Now, if you could be so kind as to stop bringing up Torpedo attacks as some kind of special case against Battleships, you would serve to prove that you have that understanding of the reality of naval warfare with Submarines in the equation.


Fourth - I return to the point of being able to strike with impunity - a Carrier's aircraft have to get closer to the target to deliver heavy ordnance. Missiles cost an arm and a leg for a single shot. Consider the 1.5 Million for a single TLAM, vs 150,000 for an Excalibur Round. Redesigned, a 406mm PGM Package would Still cost less than a TLAM, and be harder to detect, harder to destroy, than the TLAM. Yes, the TLAM has more range, in principle, but it's impossible to actually calculate the range a Scramjet-assisted round would be able to achieve without actually building and Firing a few.


Fifth - You're not very knowledgeable on the concept of Battleships and Radar Signature. Missouri actually has a better RCS than a Ticonderoga, as has been documented - She returned signals of a Tug towing a Barge, look it up. Her returns are actually not as bad as so many often claim, contrary to actual documented evidence.

[carr]

..

[Guest]

I agree lets be fair and logical.
To say a prospective enemy can reach you from 200nm "proves nothing" is ridiculous. You have to be able to reach back.
Any conventional artillery shell, naval or otherwise, is dependent on its initial muzzle velocity to be accurate shot after shot.
The initial muzzle velocity acceptance standards for the powder for these guns was +/- 5 feet per second. The powder was reconstituted in the 80s after the New Jersey couldn't hit anything in the Lebanon conflict. It brought the the variance down to +/- 10 fps.(look it up)
This would be considered superb if engaging targets out to abt 20 miles.
Once the shell is fired it has no guidance or does it have the ability to have course corrections in flight..the further you shoot it the more off targetit will be. Not so superb...
And the CIWS can shoot down a 5-inch shell...Ive seen it. A comparable heavy metal CIWS on a prospective enemy could indeed shred
a 406 shell. If enemys CIWS radar is as good as ours, then it could pick out the prospective "hits" and leave all the misses alone.
Or at least it would have that capability. The 406 round mite take a bit more ammo than other lighter targets.
Fin stabilized rap rounds don't need rifling, that's why I advocate the smoothbores.and Im glad we can agree on the expected use of the latest pgm.

The Iowas were modified "during" construction, and as a result, like all other WW2 built BB of any nation,Overweight when entering service. This is not the same thing as "from the keel up"
my statement on torpedoes vs. battleships was not just for bbs but for all ships, doesn't matter theres no defense.

As far as radar signatures? your statement "contrary to actual documented evidence", really??
Theres actual documented evidence that says differently than what you have....Oh ok you got me there.

So we agree on the smoothbore idea...

where do we get parts for the turrets? all the vets I talk to said the main guns and engineering areas were very labor intense to keep running. And they were thirsty, needing more resources in the fleet train, a primary reason in the decoming of the America CV-66.
Very manpower intensive ships...a trend the current navy and budget cutters are shying away from. The conversion would cost alot
But these new versions would be far more capable and devastating with less maintenance and manpower.
They would be really cool ships.

[Sauragnmon]

Smoothbore also eliminates the problem of driving bands and rifling, which allows the gun to use heavier propellants, which would extend the range capability as well. The 406mm rounds, last I knew, did not even have Base Bleed enhancements, which with the 100mm bracket guns has produced extended range and improved accuracy over that range.

There are a wealth of potential to improve the accuracy and destructive force of the 406mm shells as well as improving ranged performance. And yes, while prospective enemy CIWS capability could shoot down 406mm shells, if you're in a slugging match against a Battleship, it comes down to the inherent problem in most if not all CIWS mountings of Limited Supply of Ammo. To my knowledge, there are NO CIWS platforms capable of sustaining fire over a long period, without either jamming, overheating, or running out of ammo, in any of those situations. Be it the AK630, Kashtan, Phalanx, Goalkeeper, or Sea Zenith, none of them are perfect, they All have faults, and share some in common. Yes, they can shoot down one, or two, or ten shells, but guess what - the battleship still has a whole lot more where that came from. It's not like a Ticonderoga, that has a maximum of 128 with full upgrades to the Mk41 emplacements, LRASM or TLAM, and a few more Harpoons, there are HUNDREDS of rounds stored on a battleship, per gun. If the enemy is reliant solely on missiles, they will expend that ammount quickly, and if they have not disabled the battleship significantly, they would probably be well advised to come about, and go flank speed in the other direction, before they wind up in range of the severe ass kicking that will ensue when they get in gun range. Even a Kirov's Battlegroup has a very limited number of Granit and Bazalt missiles, with a few Moskits thrown in for good measure. Between Standard, ESSM, and Phalanx, the number of successful hits will be questionable, depending on the composition of the task group supporting the Battleship, not to mention if the ship is carrying its own defensive missile suite as well. You put into play a Tico, two Burkes, that's easily 200 SAM systems engaging against the enemy missiles, plus CIWS. There's only so much firepower the enemy can bring to bear, at longer engagement ranges.

In summation - Modernizing an Iowa Class would logically involve a very large ammount of ultimately cost-saving modifications and rebuild portions that would upgrade the machinery and the main weapon suite, those 406mm guns, which are the main attraction for a battleship. I'd bet dollars to donuts, even just the psychological effect of a Battleship pulverising the enemy in support of a MEF would both boost friendly and cripple enemy morale. If their finest hardened hideouts are being collapsed from explosive and kinetic devastation, and they have no means to retaliate, the enemy will quickly find out they want to be somewhere else.

[carr]

..

[carr]

..

[Sauragnmon]

I was not intending to directly imply the Moskit, Granit and Bazalt have been demonstrated for shootdowns, but that heavy Anti-Ship missiles have been engaged and shot down. See the missile that was taken down in the Gulf by a Sea Dart, or the demonstrations that many forces have taken, of their own CIWS systems, against missile-grade targets. The USN might not field powerful supersonic missiles, they do however operate target systems that operate under similar profiles to the missiles in question.

[Seasick]

The Royal Navy has brought down a Silkworm with Sea Dart. It happened in the first Gulf War.

The SCRAM jet round for a gun is a line of sight weapon.

[Sauragnmon]

That was the incident I was referencing in my last post, Seasick - the sea dart taking down a Silkworm. the missiles haven't changed much in size since then, when it comes to the Granit and Bazalt, with Moskit slightly smaller than those.

I would dispute the declaration of Scramjet rounds being purely line of sight, considering they have a limited burn time. If used in a high-angle ballistic profile, the potential range of the shell with the speed kick from the Scramjet burn, would be significantly far. After all, the rounds are still in their concept phase, and the applications are still unexplored in full depth.

Of course, the velocity and flight range of a Scramjet round at low angle profile, would mean it would have significant range even in low-arc flight, and its profile would be low altitude and high speed, a little hard to intercept a barrage of them against an enemy group.

[carr]

..

[navydavesof]

repeat post. sorry

[sandy]

Interesting to see HMS Gloucester's Silkworm shootdown in the same thread as CIWs talk as Missouri was 'saved' by a Sea Dart but remains the only battleship (ever) to be damaged by CIWS gunfire.

[zadmiral]

And the CIWS can shoot down a 5-inch shell...Ive seen it.

Ah, where and when have you seen that? Are you referring to the C-RAM adaptation?

Regardless, accepting for the moment that a CIWS can shoot down a BB shell, a full battleship salvo of 9 shells arriving simultaneously can't be countered by any modern vessel with CIWS. Generally, ships only have about two CIWS that can be brought to bear (Soviet designs had more but they were also far less reliable). Given the very short engagement window, it would seem unlikely to be able to shoot down even two, let alone nine. Am I missing something, here?

What your missing is 2 things.
1. is that CIWS wont shoot at a miss, that is it tracks incoming threats and will only engage the ones that have the trajectory to hit.
2. Battleships are, by todays standards, inaccurate. You may have to fire several salvoes to get ONE hit. The other rounds will be large waterspouts and will not be engaged by CIWS.

[carr]

..