Last Two Battleships!
 

Just reading an article about the last two battleships (iowa class) still in reserve status with the USN. I thought all battleships were decommisioned? if not, have the last two who still remaine active been upgraded with up-to-date weapon systems? sm-2's? ssm's? in addition to their 16" guns?

Wouldn't it be nice to go back to building battleships again? but include all the new mod cons! imagne a new age 16" or 20" 4 set gun platform!! then you could neatly tuck away some VLS tube at the front n back from extended capabilities! would give the marines great cover range! Please read the following below.




Full Cost and
Schedule for
Reactivating and
Modernizing
Battleships Have Not
Been Analyzed



To reactivate two Iowa class battleships to their decommissioned
capability, the Navy estimates costs in excess of $500 million. This does
not include an additional $110 million needed to replenish gunpowder for
the 16-inch guns because a recent survey found that it is unsafe. In terms
of schedule, the Navy’s program management office estimates that
reactivation would take 20 to 40 months, given the loss of corporate
memory and the shipyard industrial base.
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 ozonedepleting
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. Although detailed studies would be
needed to identify the full extent of modernization needs and costs, the
Navy has no plans to conduct these studies.
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 gun system
components and ordnance.


Validated
Requirements for
NSFS Overall Have
Not Been Established


The role of naval surface fire support has been evolving in tandem with the
Navy’s amphibious assault doctrine, and for well over a decade, since the
decommissioning of the last of the Iowa class battleships, both the Navy
and Marine Corps have strived to address the specifics of how to fulfill
NSFS requirements. Until recently, these services have had difficulty with
reconciling their respective positions. Operational requirements
documents for several systems, such as the new destroyer, that will
contribute to the NSFS mission have been developed. On several
occasions, the Marine Corps has specified to the Navy what they believe
the replacement NSFS capability should be and the timing of the
capability. However, no single document has ever addressed the overall
capabilities and the balance between different systems that will be
required to provide effective, continuous, and sustainable supporting fire
for increasingly capable expeditionary forces operating ashore.
Although no formal NSFS requirement currently exists, in August 2004, the
Navy and Marine Corps agreed on an approach to correct the problem by
formally agreeing to develop an Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) that
would address the overall capabilities needed for naval fire support. The
goal of this ICD is to document and address the overall capabilities
required of naval fire support. This will assist in determining the most
effective and efficient balance of capabilities and in determining the
cumulative offensive power that naval forces must be capable of
generating. An integrated product team chaired by the Marine Corps’
Deputy Commandant for Combat Development office, in coordination
with the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, will conduct the required
analyses, develop the ICD, and endeavor to gain the Department of
Defense’s approval for the ICD.

I'd love to see battleships again. Last I checked, it seems pretty hard stop a huge shell coming at you. :88)

few shells from that there fine ship the iowa onto the kirov class would certainly do mighty damage.

yet these fine ships are the only ships capible of single handedly engauging a kirov what happens if china accidently build 20 improved kirovs ?

opps

Last time I looked no western Navy does "Single Handly Fight" anymore. Slugging it out 1vs1 is not only stupid from a tactical point of view it simply doesnt happen, unless those two ships are the last ones on the battlefield left. Whenever such comments come up I think about the saying ... "When you go to a gunfight, bring the biggest gun you can and all the friends you have with their guns" ... my personal addon to that ... "and when you can trick the other guy, shoot him in the back, or have some other option of cheating and creating a one sided fight - DO IT". War is not fair - 2nd place means you are dead.

So when you compare the numbers, you end up with such statements like "only class left to single handly fight the Kirov" but that simply doesnt work.

Back on topic ... it would surely be cool to see the Battleships resurface, they are one hell of mean looking ships. And I don't want to be the enemy on the beach when they do NGFS *shudder*

Imagine this, battleship-sized warship with a pair of 20in rail guns (they are working on them), a few hundred VLS tubes, and a F/A-35 capable flight deck... :rock:

TLAM, I think I just filled the cup.

Couldn't agree more! think about it! the DD(x) programme is still a very long way away, these ship resresent the might and power of the US, and they are available now! whats 18 months in the grand scheme of things? and really? 500 million to the us is a one day of bad arms trading between russia and china!

Despite the ship v ship engagements, which i must say wouldnt be ideal for the BB's, the shore engagements is what counts! keeping our boys on the ground safe and sound, whilst at the same time, have the capability to launch sm-2's, and a volley of Harpoons.

Keep in mind! Iowa;s 16" can be launched from 24 nm away via radar guided turrets. No other navy in the world can support such an act! nor would they ever contemplate taking it on!

This gentlemen represents the ultimate might in world navy's! im sure china would certainly reconsider its expansion of it's carrier fleet should these two momoths appear around the waters of Tiawan!

Something to think about is when the Wisconsin was stationed off of Kuwait during Gulf War I, the Iraqi's flew the white flag when a drone was flying over them because they saw another unit be hit by those 16" guns! :rock: :rock: :up:

I thought the current US doctrine was to secure the ground by air superiority provided by carriers. I don't really see what would be the use of battleships in a modern battle, apart from being a big and juicy target for torpedoes or exocets.
If you remember, the General Belgrano did not fare too well during the Falklands war.

I would rather see them becoming floating museums.

Edit: A few spelling corrections

The modernized Iowa's are MILES and MILES away from the Brooklyn class light cruiser that was the General Belgrano.

1) The GB was hopelessly unmodernized and poorly crewed

2) The GB was operating without proper ASW, and AAW screens.

3) There is simply no other ship with persistence, survivability, and firepower of a modernized Iowa BB. With proper screening they are virtually unsinkable short of a nuclear warhead.

If those ships were fully modernized, within the context of a CAG or, especially an amphibious assault group, their capability to support American operations would be unmatched by any other ship afloat, not even close, not by a long shot.

erm hell no GB had the most modern destroyers to date at the time of the conflict not to mention the newly bought in type 22 frigates.

poorly crewed well according to america france and a great deal of naval powers through out the world britain has the most grueling training reghieme on the planet, not to mention the highly trained crews and according to american officals and analysts they are envious of the royal navys training and tactical ability and have ranked the RN as number 1 in this field PERIOD.

type 22 and type 12 and a few other ships are fully capible of intercepting and sinking nuclear and conventional submarines as they are today, type 42 is an air defence destroyer capible of engauging multiple targets and destroying them.

type 22 is capible of anti air warfare and anti submarine and anti ship warfare and is partnerd to a type 42 for tactical advantages so the entire spectrum is coverd not to mention the helicopters they both carry giving the ASW and AAW field a broader out look.

to me luftwolf and no offence but thats a load of BOLLA**S no ship is unsinkable even the iowa you americans sank the yamato which was alot more powerful advanced and stronger than any iowa with primative torpedos and bombs.

6 SS-N-19 or 6 SS-N-22's should sink an iowa no problem or render it so badly damaged there is no use for it bar scrapping.

if you want id rather take a kirov than an iowa simply because you maintain a 16inch gun yes but it has a meek range of only say 24 miles i can sail out side that range and out side the range of your harpoons (70 miles) and yet i can still launch on you with a battery of 24 SS-N-19 which would certainly destroy you.

Iowa is old very old and the strength of the steel isnt what it used to be.


in terms of weapon battery the kirov surpasses the iowa despite only having 6 inch main guns the kirov a battle cruiser is faster and more agile than the iowa and can travel greater distance at greater speed in a 1 v 1 id take a kirov simply because my weapons out range yours and are more effective.

dont think the kirov was ment to just sit in port looking innocent they were designed specificly for such a ship


belgrano was obsolete even when she first was built the argentine navy was not well funded 90% of thier navy was ex WW2 at that time the captain of conquorer recals sighting US allen m summner class destroyers these were 1940's relics floating antiques by this time.

ultimutly the most unique thing that happend to the belgrano was the fact she was sunk by WW2 MK8 torpedos not wire guided tigerfish.

the crew were inadiquately trained the ship was poorly maintained (feture which showed on the 25th of may aircraft carrier) and were lacking funds to even support extended trips to sea.

the kirov is the only modern battle ships at sea infact they are very very large cruisers classed as battle cruisers 2 are in reserve 1 active one in repair pending scrap

just think if the wall came down 10 years later there could have been 24 or even 30 kirovs romeing the waves along with 12 typhoons

You totally misunderstood me.

GB=General Belgrano

:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: thought you ment great britain :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

i realy need to change the GB sticker on the bumper of the car :oops:

my appologies

In terms of the Iowa:

What is the operational state of the Kirov and what is the quality of its support ships? :hmm:

One Nimitz, one Iowa, plus 6+10 AEGIS cruisers and destroyers, plus multiple Frigates and 2-4 marine landing ships=power projection.

Minus the Iowa, the USN can do that a few times over.

With the two Iowa class BB's supporting the current capacity of the USN, talking about the Kirov is kind of silly. :up:

NP. :lol: