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.

Batttleships are more useful than ever
 

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:

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.

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:

Yes they are.

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.

And there's the real problem.

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.

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.

so what ^
 

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

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

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.

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.

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).