Whats with the iowa?

[Akotalaya]

so, ive done alot of research and found out that an iowa would be more cost effective to operate, has more range than most warships today, packs more firepower, actually has a few more uses, its faster than most ships we use..it would cost less than a new Oliver hazard to upgrade to modern specs, the iowa has nothing but good things going for it, including, if damaged, repairs would be simple and in expensive compared to a modern ship, i have counted things up and its starting to look like the operation of an iowa seems like a better choice, also...most modern ships cant even compare to the operational range and endurance...basically what im getting at, is the iowa, would actually be a better choice of warship when it comes down to it. (yes, i know there old but they were built when things werent made in china) so, im wondering...if they are actually superior to most ships we use today, why dont we use them? it just doesent add up...please, im eager to hear what you all have to say!

[Dread Knot]

Well, other than the obvious issues like being vulnerable salvos of cheap missiles and torpedoes there is the personnel problem. People are the most costly expense for the military, and the Navy has been on a campaign to reduce the numbers of sailors per ship. The newest surface ships call for a crew of fewer than 150, whereas in its 1992 configuration, the New Jersey required a crew of almost 2,000 sailors. Except for Nimitz-class aircraft carriers (with compliments of about 3,200) no ship in the U.S. Navy approaches that many crew. And the Nimitz is a far more versatile vessel.

More important, the shells from the battleships are unguided. Even with a talented gunner the accuracy of the ship’s main guns was only about 32 percent at nine miles against a battleship-size target, according to a Naval War College study during World War II. For ground targets that could mean shells striking hundreds of yards away from the intended point of impact.

(To be fair, during the battleships’ last hurrah in the 1980s and early 1990s, improvements to the Iowa-class guns were paired with a radar system to increase the accuracy. Noncombat tests saw hits with in 150 yards of a target at a range of about 19 miles).

In the modern era of guided weapons, the margin of error for those old 16-inchers is too high to justify the cost and the trouble of getting the battleships back to sea.

There are, of course, a host of other issues that make reactivation of the Iowas impractical—parts, training and maintenance among them. At some point even the venerable B-52 bombers will have to be retired due to the same issues.

[Akotalaya]

i do see where your coming from, but if you look at the Vietnam war, the Iowa that assisted there actually hit its targets pretty accurately, not to mention, she also took out more fortifications than expected, when it comes down to it the numbers have added up, it costs over 160 million to operate the russian kirov for a year, and the iowa was somewhere around 99 million per year to operate, that includes crew costs, fuel and any repairs, the basics pretty much, it was also said she was easy to adapt and modify, large amounts of space made this easy, and they also stated it would take less money to modernize and re fit than it would be to build a new oliver hazard, i think i stated that in my op, also, her 5 inch guns had rocket propelled ammunition from what i have read, and i also read that she can maintain continuous fire for 70 days straight, unlike todays ships, that can only maintain about 8..she has litterally proven superior in almost every way, from being cheaper to actually operate and maintain to having more range and endurance than a modern ship, the iowa also carried tomahawks and harpoons, so that was a plus, she doesent carry near the amount as some ships but she has them! also, she was proven to be able to lay down as much firepower in a 30 minute period as 25 or so b-2 spirits, thats pretty impressive really..and activation costs of the iowa were much cheaper than they thought they would be, it was about 6 million cheaper, and it only cost something like 100 million, dont quote me on that, but it all in all from my research, the iowa actually came out on top, not to mention, she could actually extend the endurance of the ships around her, meaning she could also double as a tanker! thats what she did in the second world war to increase the range of the ships around her, she has a range of 15,000 miles, they have only 6,000 and 8-10 days or something like that endurance time when the iowa has something like 40, but can maintain constant fire at 100 rounds a day for 70 days and still have shells left over, she also doesent have to go back to port to re load and thats another plus over other ships! anyway, like i said the numbers are adding up and it would actually be cheaper to re activate the iowa's and modernize them to todays standards than it would be to build new ships, like i said yearly operational costs is under 100 million dollars, while others are skyrocketing over that!

[captgeo]

and what does this have to do with SH4 ??????:hmm2::Kaleun_Yawn:

[merc4ulfate]

It takes all of the Iowa's arsonal to level a city ...

It takes one missle,
One torpedo,
One nuclear weapon,
One modern bomber,
One stealth ship,

To sink the Iowa.

When you look at it this way ... it really isn't all that cost effective to me.

[Akotalaya]

yea i never said they were invincible, but the iowa alone carries more ordinance than 35 modern bombers...and honestly, any ship can be sank with a nuke, thats not that special, and a torp? yea, well..you tell me where you got that data since none of the iowas have been sank yet? and a stealth ship? ok, you forget missiles CAN be caught on radar..and since the us is really the only country with stealth ships i dont think thats much of a problem, i also wouldn't be too worried about missiles since like i said, countermeasures, anti air..all sorts of things, missiles also malfunction..not to mention it does take awhile to get a lock with a missile..also, no it wouldent take all the iowas ordinance to level a city, since like i said she carries enough ordinance to fire as fast as she can for a total of 30 minutes and equal 35 b-2 spirits, and she would still have ammo left over, and as far as torpedos, doesent she have a bit of extra armor? also, modern ships have survived hits from torps lol..im enjoying this debate

[TorpX]

I think you are comparing operating costs of the Iowa then, to modern ships today. The Iowa uses more fuel, has a much larger crew, and when the guns need to be fixed/barreled that will cost more.

Modern ships are designed around the missile, old battleships around the gun. Missiles can hit targets well beyond the range of the biggest guns. It is really a question of operating one Iowa, or several modern missile cruisers. Putting too many eggs in one basket often leads to disaster.

[Lokisaga]

I agree that this thread should be moved to the General Topics section, but these are my thoughts on an interesting question of naval strategy. The reason no one uses big gun battleships, like the Iowa, anymore has nothing to do with the amount of firepower they can land on a target in a given amount of time (their dps, if you will). It's because of the limited range of that firepower. For example, the Iowa's main 16"/50 cal. guns have a maximum range of 38 km, and fire will be very inaccurate at that range. On the other hand, an F-18 has an operational radius of 720-740 km with a full combat load-out, but this is effectively limited only by pilot fatigue with the addition of in-air refueling. The Tomahawk cruise missile has a range of 1,300 to 2,500 km, depending on sub-type, with pinpoint accuracy. This allows modern aircraft carriers, and guided missile ships, to launch attacks while in a different time zone from their targets, and that range makes them less likely to be engaged and possibly sunk by the enemy. That brings me to my second point. We've talked about the horrendous expense of both aircraft carriers and battleships. Aircraft carriers, and guided missile ships, are seen less likely to be lost in a battle because they stay so far away from the enemy; therefore, they're seen as a better investment. The thinking is that even though a carrier may cost more than a battleship it's less likely you'll have to replace a carrier.

[razark]

Wasn't the question of battleship vs. carrier answered in the 1940s?

[Sailor Steve]

Moved to appropriate forum.

[Akotalaya]

the navy is said to have talked about guided missile ships, they said during an assault, it wouldn't be feesable, nor effective because of the time it takes for the missiles to lock onto a new target, but what i think alot of people are forgetting, is that the iowa was upgraded with tomahawk missile launchers and harpoons, her main guns may only be considered close range, but when you look at it she also has the long range fire support that modern ships have, not to mention i think i said earlier, she can actually increase the endurance of every ship in the fleet, can stay on station longer and has the capabilities to defend herself from many threats, i say the battleship idea isnt obsolete at all, it does need to be modernized..but if there so out of date then why have they made it into the age of missiles and still proven to be useful? my grandpa was in vietnam when the iowa was firing on the enemy and he said she helped out a great deal AND took out more structures than planned, it has also had more of a service life than any modern ship today, it seems they have re called her back into action for every major conflict since the second world war, im not sure they have done that before. also back in the 1800's they said battleships were obsolete, but we still got em! and one country was using a first world war era battleship until the 70's..not to mention the uk and russia were looking into battleships in the 50's and i think even in the 60's, russias problem was a power shift, that caused the fall of there ships! i love history dont you?

[ETR3(SS)]

Wasn't the question of battleship vs. carrier answered in the 1940s?This. Pearl Harbor anyone? No? How about the Bismarck? Yamato? Should I continue?

[mapuc]

Was searching the Internet for information about future warship when I found this page. While reading it I remembered this post.

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/7448-battleship-2016-future-fleet-project/

Markus

[Seahawk14]

I visited the Wisconsin in Norfolk, Va a few years ago. During the tour, the docent told us the ship cost $1 million per day to operate.

Per day.

Aside from the whole "wasn't the carrier v battleship question answered in the 40's?" thing, using just that metric alone renders an Iowa-class (or any other large "big guns only" warship) cost-ineffective. And that's being conservative and assuming that the $1 million/day cost of operation was in 1991 dollars. Put in today's dollars? No way.

Sorry folks, the Iowa-class' contributions to US Naval history are just that: history.

[Aktungbby]

Sorry folks, the Iowa-class' contributions to US Naval history are just that: history.

Seahawk14!:Kaleun_Salute: Still worth the hike up four levels at Ft. Point under the Golden Gate Bridge to watch USS IOWA going by though! Probably the last time a Iowa class 'Battleship' passes under the Golden Gate!...and a :subsim: kaleun was there!:up:!http://histbase.com/USS_Iowa/Images/USS_Iowa_Golden_Gate.jpg

[Seahawk14]

Seahawk14!:Kaleun_Salute: Still worth the hike up four levels at Ft. Point under the Golden Gate Bridge to watch USS IOWA going by though! Probably the last time a Iowa class 'Battleship' passes under the Golden Gate!...and a :subsim: kaleun was there!:up:!http://histbase.com/USS_Iowa/Images/USS_Iowa_Golden_Gate.jpg

Oh, no doubt! And cool photo, man. Wonder if the Pampanito had any parting words before she left. :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

Welcome to SubSim Seahawk14 :sunny:

[Aktungbby]

Oh, no doubt! And cool photo, man. Wonder if the Pampanito had any parting words before she left. :hmmm:

Actually no! I had just been aboard Pampanito and the Liberty, Jeremiah Obrien, just forward, along Fisherman's Wharf, when word of the Iowa's passing down the Bay toward her (present)new berth in Southern CA caused my dash to the Fort Point across town-no mean feat in 'Frisco. Throwing in joggers, tourists, lookie-loos, and considerable surf crowd... and the trot up the circular stairs to the parapet (at my age!)....I made it with two minutes to spare-literally! Someone had brought an old WWII naval scope, so viewing was a real treat. Of course it helps not to be breathing hard to steady the 34" optics:O: a crash course in "don't run-you'll just die tired" if ever!:up: http://www.scientificcollectables.com/PHOTOS%202012/sc1418-2.jpg (http://www.scientificcollectables.com/page_enlarge1418a.htm)

[Aktungbby]

The overall view: about one minute later, of the Fort, the Golden Gate and The USS Iowa and Me...somewhere up there under the flag:up: Three famous warships in one day ...is a VERY good day! IMHO:yeah:https://vonnscottbair.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/dscn2007.jpg?w=652 (https://vonnscottbair.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/dscn2007.jpg)

[mapuc]

Iowa and her sisters are no good in todays way of warfare at sea or tomorrows warfare at sea. I guess it would cost to much to get them rebuild so they meet current and future needs.

Todays warship have almost the same firepower.

If USA or other countries would go back to things like battleship they have to be built from scratch like the person described in my link posted in my former post.

But what do I know...

Have one of her sister standing on a shefl "BB 62 USS New Jersey" scale 1:350
On my wish list The Mighty Mo

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Iowa and her sisters are no good in todays way of warfare at sea or tomorrows warfare at sea. I guess it would cost to much to get them rebuild so they meet current and future needs.

Todays warship have almost the same firepower.

If USA or other countries would go back to things like battleship they have to be built from scratch like the person described in my link posted in my former post.

But what do I know...

Have one of her sister standing on a shefl "BB 62 USS New Jersey" scale 1:350
On my wish list The Mighty Mo

Markus

What vessels today have a gun the equal of a 16" or armour protection even approaching that of an Iowa class?

[Ishmael]

I smoked a joint in the captain's chairs of both Iowa and Wisconsin when we were in drydock next to them in Philly in 77. Went aboard Missouri and New Jersey in SF during the first two Fleet Weeks there as well. So, I've been aboard all 4 Iowa class BBs.

[mapuc]

What vessels today have a gun the equal of a 16" or armour protection even approaching that of an Iowa class?


Sorry for this late answer.

Not guns, but missiles like the RGM-84 or the french Exocet.

They can of course be fooled, which a dumb shell can't. A missile have countermeasures which a shell haven't, a missile can travel up to 80-90 nm a shell can't a.s.o

Well even a shell can today be shot down by modern air defence(I know the Swedish Bofors 40 mm radarguidede gun can.)

In WWII a warship needed some shots to get "in range" of the target. Today a modern warship need only 2-4 shots to be "in range" of the target.

My thoughts what is easiest to engage for a warship?

A missile or a shell from a 16" or a 20" ?

Markus

[Jimbuna]

I'll put it another way and in a hypothetical scenario....modern guided missile warship v Iowa:

Modern warship fires missiles at approaching Iowa who in turn responds with Tomahawk (which more than likely have a far greater range than the missiles from the modern warship) and or Harpoon. CIWS engage both sets of missiles, any getting through to Iowa fail to penetrate thick armour protection but any getting through to modern warship are probably catastrophic therefore game over.

Moving on...Iowa gets within 16" main armament range (21nm)and fires a broadside of nine shells...game over.

[mapuc]

I'll put it another way and in a hypothetical scenario....modern guided missile warship v Iowa:

Modern warship fires missiles at approaching Iowa who in turn responds with Tomahawk (which more than likely have a far greater range than the missiles from the modern warship) and or Harpoon. CIWS engage both sets of missiles, any getting through to Iowa fail to penetrate thick armour protection but any getting through to modern warship are probably catastrophic therefore game over.

Moving on...Iowa gets within 16" main armament range (21nm)and fires a broadside of nine shells...game over.

How could I forget TASM who has a range of 250 nm which is far longer than RGM-84E and why not armed Iowa with the new ASM LRASM which has a range of ca 500 nm.

And if all their LRASM, TASM and RGM-84 have been used and no hit they have to use their guns and here Iowa is the big winner-I guess she would be.

Markus

[TorpX]

I'll put it another way and in a hypothetical scenario....modern guided missile warship v Iowa:



I don't think it's a question of a "modern guided missile warship v Iowa", but rather several modern ships v Iowa. A group of ships would likely have more survivability than Iowa. I question whether the armor would be worth much against modern missile hits. I suspect a few hits would leave a BB operationally 'dead in the water'.

This reminds me of Benjamin Franklin's advocating the use of pikes and bows in the Revolutionary War, supposing them to have worthwhile advantages. Of course, the Continental Army never adopted this suggestion; probably because they had more sense.

[Aktungbby]

this reminds me of Benjamin Franklin's advocating the use of pikes and bows in the Revolutionary War, supposing them to have worthwhile advantages. Of course, the Continental Army never adopted this suggestion; probably because they had more sense. Jimbuna: What vessels today have a gun the equal of a 16" or armour protection even approaching that of an Iowa class?
The Druze militia didn't appreciate this 'ol' pike' off Beruit which killed one of their generals; half the job of a BB is to be a "threat in being" such as Bismark and Tirpitz; tying up much of the enemy's attention and resources. As Von C. says: "whenever possible increase firepower"...these still fill the bill and inspire 'shock and awe'... ever a favorite American tactic! PHOTO: USS New Jersey off Lebanon 1984...Personally I'd like to resurrect The Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri and New Jersey, paint them Teddy Roosevelt white and send 'em to the South China Sea just to see which Chinese frigate captains are feelin' 'bully' on Sino expansionism; suitably cruise-missile equipped and a carrier group or two just over the horizon for an ambush as needed. A little old-school OOOMPH in the RIMPAC exercise IMHO Nothing Lord Nelson couldn't tackle!:salute: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/USS_New_Jersey_firing_in_Beirut%2C_1984.jpg/1024px-USS_New_Jersey_firing_in_Beirut%2C_1984.jpg4

[TorpX]

I kind of regret the reference to Franklin's quote. I know the Iowa class is more viable than pikes and bows, but I assume the DOD had their reasons for taking them out of commission.

If they were to be upgraded, and possibly have improved armor, so as to be missile resistant, they could perhaps be formidable ships again. (Less clear to me is how valuable the guns would be. Also, wonder if it might end up being torpedo bait.)

BUT, in the present era, with our Great Leader Obama, and a Nitwit Congress, can we even afford such projects?

[Buddahaid]

Given what the people en masse deem to be news. The US is a country of nitwits just wanting enough lolly to be entertained one more night.

AS much as I love the big ships I can't see one ever being viable again unless we need a big target to float around.

[Aktungbby]

half the job of a BB is to be a "threat in being" such as Bismark and Tirpitz; tying up much of the enemy's attention and resources. ; suitably cruise-missile equipped and a carrier group or two just over the horizon for an ambush as needed. A little old-school OOOMPH in the RIMPAC exercise IMHO Nothing Lord Nelson couldn't tackle!


AS much as I love the big ships I can't see one ever being viable again unless we need a big target to float around. Precisely! Luring the Persian fleet into at Salamis, to the old lure and bait cruiser tactics of Hipper vs. Beatty in WWI leading to Jutland; and the pre-Pearl Harbor picket island Pacific plans of Yamamoto and Kimmel culminating in Midway...nothing new really, just the biggest bang platforms ever invented with air cover to wipe out whatever ventures forth to assert its ambitions ...probably resulting in the battle of Taiwan...:hmmm:

[desertstriker]

I am just going to put my 2 cents in here
The Iowa BBs are a ruggedly beautiful ship I admit and are cans of whoop *cough*.

They however do not have the speed of todays warships. They are more vulnerable to today's torpedos. And lets just face it today's missiles will tear right through their armor (as has already been stated).

Again as has already been stated the costs to retrofit these old girls will be exorbitant. Adding armor will make a slow ship even slower. The power plants in the ladies would need a further overhaul, nuclear perhaps, just to give it the aircraft carriers range.

Practicly the only thing I would use a Iowa BB for is to give the enemy something else to shoot at other than my aircraft carriers, and the good ol off shore bombardment for chits and giggles.:har:

I love them as much as I love Uboats (WW2) but the practicality is not there anymore same as the WW2 Uboats. We are in a different era now Just like muzzle loaders have no place in today's ground warfare the BBs have no place in the naval warfare of today. Eventually aircraft carriers will go the same way.

[Drax]

I must join my voice in support of the battleships. Many nonsense arguments have been said about them, for instance their high costs or their vulnerability against air attacks. Yes an Iowa requires more men than any modern destroyer but they can supply a devastating fire support against any sea or land target. Should I remember that a 16 inch shell is much cheaper than any missile?

Regarding the so called vulnerability of the battleships I must repeat that's greatly exagerated. Any ship sent alone without a proper escort and air support is vulnerable! Don't tell me about the Bismarck or the Yamato, they are the perfect demonstration of what I've said just before! In fact a battleship with an upgraded computerized fire control and modern radar is a formidable opponent and impossible to sink if he has air support!

An Iowa can take much more damage than any modern ship because they are designed to withstand brutal poundings! An Iowa can sail at full speed even in bad seas and provide a useful support to any carrier battlegroup! They can deploy helicopters to detect and attack any menacing sub.

In fact if we analyse the battleships lost during the WW2 they have been sunk at anchor by sneaking subs (Royal Oak), torpedoed at anchor (Tarento) destroyed by planes due to inadequate AA defenses and lack of air support (Yamato/Musashi) or sunk by overwhelming forces and crippled by the lack of steering (Bismarck)

The Iowa's battleships have fought during WW2, Corean War to Gulf Wars without problems, providing escort, fire support, bombarding targets with supreme efficiency.

Of course they are old but they are still able to sail and fight! The US Navy should reconsider their return to the active service.:know:

[Drax]

Quote:They however do not have the speed of todays warships. They are more vulnerable to today's torpedos. And lets just face it today's missiles will tear right through their armor (as has already been stated).

:arrgh!:An Iowa could sail at 32.5 knots, that's faster than an Arleigh Burke destroyer! And in all type of weather! Just seeing the tin can modern ships during the Falkland's war destroyed by Exocet's missiles prove that an Iowa is better armored. No, the Roma's fate is not a proof because an Iowa has much better AA's weaponry.

More vulnerable to today's torpedos!? Are you joking?The Iowa-class torpedo defense was virtually the same as the South Dakota '​s. Each side of the ship was protected below the waterline by two tanks mounted outside the belt armor, and separated by a bulkhead. These tanks were initially planned to be empty, but in practice were filled with water or fuel oil. The armored belt tapered to a thickness of 4 inches (100 mm) below the waterline. Behind the armored belt there was a void, and then another bulkhead. The outer hull was intended to detonate a torpedo, with the outer two compartments absorbing the shock and with any splinters or debris being stopped by the armored belt and the empty compartment behind it. Just tell me wich better system is in use today?

The great mistake after WW2 has been the wrong conclusion that the age of the battleships was over, in fact they are more needed today! And the once powerful aircraft carrier should be always protected by a battleship.

[ETR3(SS)]

More vulnerable to today's torpedos!? Are you joking?The Iowa-class torpedo defense was virtually the same as the South Dakota '​s. Each side of the ship was protected below the waterline by two tanks mounted outside the belt armor, and separated by a bulkhead. These tanks were initially planned to be empty, but in practice were filled with water or fuel oil. The armored belt tapered to a thickness of 4 inches (100 mm) below the waterline. Behind the armored belt there was a void, and then another bulkhead. The outer hull was intended to detonate a torpedo, with the outer two compartments absorbing the shock and with any splinters or debris being stopped by the armored belt and the empty compartment behind it. Just tell me wich better system is in use today? Modern torpedoes detonate under the hull, they don't impact the side. So all that engineering to nullify a torpedo is, in fact, null and void.

[desertstriker]

Modern torpedoes detonate under the hull, they don't impact the side. So all that engineering to nullify a torpedo is, in fact, null and void.

:agree:

[Sailor Steve]

They are more vulnerable to today's torpedos.
Yes they are.

And lets just face it today's missiles will tear right through their armor (as has already been stated).
Which missiles are those? Data - speed and armor-piercing ability? Every missile I've read about is no more powerful than the typical high-explosive shell, with no function for countering armor at all. Of course I'm sure there is technology I haven't heard of.

Don't get me wrong; I agree that the battleship is not remotely cost-effective in today's market, or particularly useful.

Modern torpedoes detonate under the hull, they don't impact the side. So all that engineering to nullify a torpedo is, in fact, null and void.
And there's the real problem.

[desertstriker]

"Which missiles are those? Data - speed and armor-piercing ability? Every missile I've read about is no more powerful than the typical high-explosive shell, with no function for countering armor at all. Of course I'm sure there is technology I haven't heard of.

Don't get me wrong; I agree that the battleship is not remotely cost-effective in today's market, or particularly useful."

Primarily cruise missiles. though that doesn't help narrow it down since there are different variants that is of little help. The new generation of the "TASM" from what I heard from some naval friends could punch a hole through the Iowa's armor and utterly destroy it with a magazine hit.

[Sailor Steve]

The new generation of the "TASM" from what I heard from some naval friends could punch a hole through the Iowa's armor and utterly destroy it with a magazine hit.
I just now looked at the stats for those missiles, and I fail to see how it would do that. The armor was designed to be proof against shells moving at better than mach 2. Even then the standard HC/HE shell didn't have a chance of penetrating 12" of face-hardened armor. It took a specialized armor-piercing cap. The cruise missile - even the TSAM - has no such hardened head and is moving less than 600 mph - mach 0.8. It's the equivalent of a fast kamikaze, and there is no way it could reach the magazines.

I see it is also capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. That will certainly ruin their day.

But remember I'm quibbling over a detail. I agree there is no place for a battleship in today's naval war.

[shotbywolf]

do non of you remember the fact that during the bikini atoll tests first world war era ships with armor designed only to take at most a 14"in shell took two nukes and if they could have been re boarded they could have easily been repaired with modern technology iowa could eat a nuke with its tougher armor and one of those tests was an underwater hit so iowa could eat a modern torp based on this and besides the bismarck had about equal amounts of armour and she took an hour of sustained gunfire to go down from multiple battleships and cruisers

[em2nought]

The problem with the Iowas is that we should have the testicles to fire up the Enola Gay instead. Victory, no dead Americans, no HUGE waste of money, no more problems(except for enemies domestic). :D

[engineerbj]

Well, technically speaking, the Iowa-class battlewagons never left the Navy, there's a little clause in the agreements to have them as museums that requires the battleships to be maintained in a state where'd they'd be ready to be sent to a shipyard to be re-activated and re-commissioned by the Navy at any time, should they be needed again.

It's highly unlikely, I grant you, but even though in the modern era battleships aren't really required anymore for front-line service because of missiles and so on, they could still be put to work in other roles besides this, such as coastal bombardment, the Marines have expressed interest in having at least one Iowa coming out of retirement specifically for this purpose, and although they are an aging fleet, the Iowa class battleships remain one of the fastest, well armored, and well armed warships ever built.

They've been modernized more than once, so I'm sure the Navy could do one again if they really needed them, say by putting on reactive armor such as on a tank over the original armor above the waterline to shrug off missile attacks.

I admit I'm a big fan of the old girls, especially the Missouri (named after my home state), so a little part of me wishes they will come back some day and let their big guns roar one more time, or at the very least one of them might be worked on so it could be sailed under its own steam again for special occasions, but for right now, I am content to know that they remain intact, asleep but still awaiting the call should it ever come again, having performed a job well done and still being fondly remembered.

[Kapitan]

As much as I like the designs and layout and everything about the Iowas they are now just relics, yes once they did rule supreme but now that is all over.
If you look at the facts you get more bang for you buck with a carrier then you ever will with one of these BB's and it will also be more accurate.

Could you imagine a 16in shell landing on a hospital ? that would be a media coup if ever there was one.

And people here know that im a big supporter of the Russian fleet but I have to say even the Kirov's and Slavas have had their day theres no room in a modern navy for a BB or battle cruiser the modern navy belongs to destroyers and frigates the cruisers and battleships are history.

[Ishmael]

I was just sorry that she couldn't be berthed at Mare Island. Since Mare Island was the only shipyard on the West Coast to actually build a battleship(USS California BB-44).

[Aktungbby]

I smoked a joint in the captain's chairs of both Iowa and Wisconsin when we were in drydock next to them in Philly in 77. Went aboard Missouri and New Jersey in SF during the first two Fleet Weeks there as well. So, I've been aboard all 4 Iowa class BBs.

I was just sorry that she couldn't be berthed at Mare Island. Since Mare Island was the only shipyard on the West Coast to actually build a battleship(USS California BB-44).

I sure hope you didn't BBogart that joint! Actually, the Iowa , for years just up river at Suisun ghost fleet, is better off where she's at. Mare Island does not lend itself to tourism. Vallejo is the crime capitol of the county. If you were aboard a certain light cruiser or an Amphib Assault ship in '77 I know where that joint came from:D; my BBY brother, the helmsman on both was also the ships medicinal herb and liberty-cash loan officer...the last word in usurious interest rates-generally 50%! He got caught with a back pack of the ship's supply in San D. and bought his way out with his illicit proceeds and retired honorably after doing his 20...from Scapa Flow to Thailand: CRY BLUE and GO NAVY!!:k_confused:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XhDpSgHrs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XhDpSgHrs)