Iowa class BB, they don't build them like that today

FYI thread:

One can see why when President Ronald Reagan activated the four Iowa class battleships during the 1980's why the Soviet Union got their red panties all wadded up in a bunch. The Soviet navy had already figured out how to sink American super carriers with their super sonic Mach 2.5 with SS-N-12 (Sandbox) anti-ship missiles but they were never able to figure out how to sink an Iowa class battleship.

Iowa Class: Armor Protection

One of the main characteristics of a battleship is its ability to withstand an attack. Few ships from the past and no modern ships can equal the survivability of the Iowa Class Battleships. The decision of where to armor and how much armor to use is a very complicated and sometimes frustrating process. Simply adding armor can not be done since this greatly increases weight and reduces the top speed of the ship. The process of protecting a battleship is an art that has been perfected over decades of battleship design. Iowa Class Battleships are an excellent example of superior armor protection and high top speed.
The armor systems of the Iowa Class ships can be divided into two basic sections. First is the above water armor, which is designed to protect the ship against gun fire and aerial bombing. The second is the below water armor (side protective and triple bottom armor), which is designed to protect the vessel from mines, near miss bombs and of course, torpedoes.

Some good photos can be found at the link below:

 

Proposing building battleships is as absurd as it gets. It takes an entire flotilla to protect one, making them the most expensive possible ship to operate - meaning requiring a radical reduction in the size and diversity of the Navy. The cost of just one along with a support fleet would cost well into the many tens of billions of dollars.

One battleship group on the East Coast. One battleship group on the West coast. And no other Naval forces here or anywhere else in the world. Then all we have to do is coax the enemy to concentrate all their forces within 20 miles of the shore and take them out with the one battleship.

Old ex military personnel are the worst curse of the military as they like to play pretending they are refighting past wars with technology that is no longer relevant.

The P47 was a helluva an aircraft too.

 

Nobody is saying we should build battleships because the ship yards and foundries that use to build battleships are no more along with those who knew how to build battleships.

Just recently as Donald Trump stood on the fantail of the USS Wisconsin and commented "They don't make ships like this today" and suggested that the Iowa's be recommissioned, not even that is possible because President Clinton broke the law and had all of the Iowa's spare 16" gun barrels cut up and sold as scrap.

Why wasn't Clinton impeached for that "high crime" ? The answer was, "He has already been impeached once, what good would it do" ?

The thread topic is the Iowa's armor.

But if you want to talk about the Iowa's survivability today on the modern naval warfare battlefield, they are always fun and the final conclusion always ends up being what the Soviet navy already knew, they can't be sunk.

The only way an Iowa class BB can be sunk is by breaking it's keel.

Basically the Iowa's were unsinkable. There is no weapon today in any of the worlds military arsenals that can sink an Iowa class BB. Not even a nuke.

 

Even nuclear weapons couldn't sink an Iowa class battleship? Do you really believe that?

 

I've watched the films of the Able and Baker nuclear tests at Bikini in 1946.

Excerpt from the "Strafford Morss and Iowa Class Survivability."

 

At first it was like: "I'm unsinkable!!11"



But then...




Battleships were perfectly well sinkable during WW2, but nowadays, at the age of cruise missiles and nuclear-tipped torpedos some people hold illusions about it. Bizzare.

 

OMFG the Yamato !!!

It only took 11 to 15 torpedos and 7 direct hits by 1,000 lb. armor piercing bombs to sink the Yamato. Might have helped if the IJN were have been more proficient in battle damage procedures since there were so many structural flaws in the Yamato besides having WW l vintage armor plating. Yamato does not have a bomb deck or a splinter deck below the armor. She focused all armor on one deck which for shells is great but for a shape charge that is bad. Only the USA was capable of producing the nickle-steel armor that was used on the Iowa's BB's.

But the Yamato's sisiter ship the Musashi fared a little better, it took between 11 to 19 torpedos and 17 direct hits by 1,000 lb. armor piercing bombs to sink the Musachi.

 

IN the end they both sunked... using WW2 era weapons. A battleship is a big, slow target that takes massive crews to operate. It doesn't have any role in the modern world. They were replaced by the aircraft carrier whos planes can deliver ordinance with pinpoint accuracy over a greater distance and are multi-role.

As for it surviving a nuclear blast, yeah they would, as they did during the test, but not their crews...

 

The Iowa's weren't slow, that's why the Iowa's were used as fast carrier task force escorts during WW ll.

During the first Gulf War an Iowa left Long Beach N.B. at the same time as a Carrier Battle Group left San Diego N.B. and arrived on station in the Persian gulf a week before the carrier arrived on station. How could that be ? There was a typhoon in the Pacific and the carrier had to reduce speed and go around the storm. The Iowa just plowed through the storm.

Are you aware that WW ll era destroyers were faster and the Flectcher class DD had more range than today's Arleigh Burke destroyers ? Over 2,000 miles more range without refueling. Bur then again, "tin can sailors" say that the Flectcher class destroyers were the best destroyers ever to go to sea. Yeha, they don't build destroyers today like the Flectchers today.

The whole idea of a warship is to be able to take hits and keep on fighting. When it has taken to many hits and is no longer mission capable then to be able to make it back to port under it's own power or being towed for repairs.

Any ship can be sunk even an Iowa class BB, but the only way to sink an Iowa class BB is by breaking it's keel. The Iowa's don't operate aloan, like a carrier they also have their escorts providing AA and ASW protection.

The main mission of the Iowa's is providing naval shore fire support for the Marine Corps. It's second mission is conducting naval shore bombardment. It's third mission is geopolitics, gun boat diplomacy that an aircraft carrier can't do being over the horizon where it can't be seen. And the Iowa's were the only ships that the U.S. Navy had that were capable of naval surface warfare. The U.S. Navy made a wrong turn during the 1970's and neglected naval surface warfare, the Soviet/Russian and the Chi-coms didn't. It was the Soviets who developed the first anti ship missiles. All of the U.S. Navy's anti ship missiles are slow sub sonic. The Russians and many of our enemies or future foes have supersonic Mach 2.5 to Mach 3 anti ship missiles.

In just one hour an Iowas class BB can put more tons of ordnance on target than an entire aircraft carrier air wing can in 24 hours.

And the scuttlebutt was just recently confirmed in Syria when the Russians use their cruise missiles, unlike America the Ruskies launch their cruise missiles in multi missile salvos. If a Russian Slava class cruiser with it's Sand Box anti ship missiles would launch a 8 round salvo, while it escorts would launch a 16 Shipwreck missiles all would hit their target with in one second of each other. 1/2 would be targeting the American super carrier while the other 12 missilels would be targeting the carriers escorts. All coming on target at the same time.

America no longer fights wars smart. We use a $1.5 million dollar Tomahawk cruise missile when a Iowa class $500 dollar 16" round can accomplish the same mission.


Well it really no longer matters, the Clinton administration broke the law and turned all of the Iowa's into museums. The facilities, infrastructure and the know how no longer exist today to build a warship like the Iowa's. Than's Slick Willie and all of the liberals who over downsized our military during the 1990's.

If the Iowa's were still in the fleet today and you had a competent CnC in the White House who understood geopolitics, Putin wouldn't be in the Ukraine or Syria and the chi-coms wouldn't be in the South China Sea today.

On the geopolitical chessboard, the Iowa's were the Queens while the Carrier Battle Groups (that are no more) are the Rooks, the Carrier Strike Groups are the Bishops and the Amphibious Battle Groups are the Knights and the Arleigh Burke's are the Pawns

 

Slow as in maneuvrability... They are big (*)(*)(*)(*)ing whale that can't evade anything.
Armor don't mean (*)(*)(*)(*) with today,s weapons. If BB were still viable they would still be made, but they haven't been relevant in tactics since the battle of Leyte Gulf.
They have no role to play today. They wouldn't even get to shoot at their opponent with their guns as they'd be sunked by subs or by missile being launch beyond the horizon way before that.
At most, they can be use as off shore artillery, but even then why send a ship with 2,700 sailor to do the job of a couple of F-18 with guided ammunitions...

 

WHALE (*)(*)(*)(*)

 

Still just silly cut and paste. No one has BB in service anymore because they're obsolete. Deal with it.

 

Declaring the Iowa would survive a hit by even a lone tactical nuke torpedo really is absurd.

 

Like when Obama said that bayonets were obsolete and that ships go under water and it was just an incovenient lie that Special Forces road horses in Afghanistan. ?

Nobody said that an Iowa BB would survive a direct hit from a nuclear torpedo. But all of the battleships that were used at the Bikini Atoll did survived both underwater and air burst nuclear explosions.

The facts are that an Iowa BB is more survivable than any other ship ever built including Nimitz class super carriers.

You seem not to understand how warships are built and battle damage control procedures that the U.S. Navy profected during WW ll.

Torpedoes used against warships are not used to make a direct hit against the hull of the ship but are designed to detonate below the ship creating a bubble to break the keel of the ship. Modern war ships (WW ll to present time) are divided into water tight compartments. In the old days of a torpedo hitting the hull creating a hole that flooded a ship with sea water doesn't work on warships today. Blast a hole on the hull of a ship where it takes on water, it only floods one water tight compartment and you flood another compartment on the opposite side to counter the ballance the ship. Believe it or not, that's how the U.S. Navy won WW ll in the Pacific, we perfected battle damage control procedures.

For an enemy submarine to get close enough to fire a nuclear tipped torpedo, it has to get past the ASW escorts.

And if it has become a nuclear war, who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) if a battleship has been sunk ?

 

In 1969 the same people said that the ONTOS was obsolete. Do you know how many thousands of Marines have said they wished they had the ONTOS during the battle of Fallujah in Iraq and in Afghanistan ?

The same people back in 1998 said that the A-10 Warthog was a "Cold War" relic and obsolete.

I seem to remember back in the late 1950's that guns on fighters were obsolete and out came the F-4 Phantom with no gun just missiles.

I remember when they said thjat the .45 ACP M-1911 A-1 was obsolete. so they adopted the 9 MM Beretta M9 ;pistol.
Guess what ? The Marine Corps is going back to the .45 M-1911 A1.

I can swear I read some where that after WW l the next war would be fought with rocks and stones.

It will always be the grunt with a rifle who takes ground and holds it and wins battles. Fire support weapons like the Iowa's only prevents less bleeding and less Marines and soldiers paying the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefield. The question is, how much are the tax payers willing to pay so there are less American blood being spilled on the battlefield ? Some would rather see the money going towards free stuff for votes.

 

You're out of touch with reality and are just ranting now.

 

No, I know what quality is and it's obvious you are to young to have ever known what quality is.

You probably even shop at Walmart and own a rifle that uses plastic and stamped steel.

 

I'm 50 years old and have worked in ship repair for about half of it. Almost all of it on military ship.
Having a crew of 2700 on a ship to do the same thing as a couple of F18 is ludicrous. Live in the now!

 

Korozif, et al,

Our friend "Korozif" makes a good point. The development of any new crew-served weapon system must be cost-effective, readily maintainable, and serves a purpose in a significantly more effective manner than any present weapons system. AND, is must be survivable. Is there a significant and qualitative Naval advantage to be gained by resurrecting a 21st Century version of this system?

(COMMENT)

The probability of a re-emergence based on the 20th Century application of a WWII (thru Gulf War) weapons use and platform is pretty small; "Korozif" is correct. That doesn't mean that the concept of a heavily armored, highly maneuverable and very fast, with deep, precision strike capability from the sea is not needed in cases where we want to avoid putting the F-18/F-22/F-35 (etc) crew in harms way. The Battleship, and other platforms like the Boeing’s B-52 Stratofortress --- made in 1952 (now 60 years old) and with an intended longevity of only a decade --- are still around. If we look at the air counterpart to the Battleship, we see the B-52 still in play while the more advanced bombers, such as the canceled B-70 Valkyrie, B-1 Lancer and the B-2 Spirit are now past on the wayside.

Just as the Arleigh Burke Class or Type 45 Destroyers look nothing like the Zumwalt-class Destroyer; the thought and design processes that go into a Battleship of the mid-21st Century will produce something just as alien looking; maybe so different as to be called something else. But it has to be fast, survivable, and have a national military responsiveness that meets the needs of the modern surface action groups (SAG), able to defend carriers against all comers, support military operations other than war (MOOTW) that require long distance gun support, and becomes a flexible alternative to committing other resources more at risk. No one want to re-learn the lesson of the HMS SHEFFIELD that was hit by a 2-for-a-nickle Exocet missile, heeled over and sank after a 29 hour battle to save her; or that of the USS STARK, hit by two Exocet anti-ship missiles fired from an Iraqi Mirage; killing 37 sailors and put out of action.

If a ship cannot meet those requirements, then it is probably not worth resurrecting that idea again. But there is a need to relieve the duty of the carrier from being the single most important ship in the task force; and the biggest principle target. (Remember, most carriers are not armored to the same degree as other war ships. The hangars, flight deck, magazines and reactors are protected by significant armor. But if a carrier is hit with ordnance designed to neutralize hardened aircraft shelters (HAS) or protective aircraft shelter (PAS), it is out of action.)

Just my thoughts,

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Two FA-18's can do the same thing as a Iowa class BB ???

The standard CAS aircraft for the Marine Corps is the FA-18 C with a 7 ton weapons payload. Two FA-18 C's can put 14 tons of ordnance on target then has to return to base.

In just one minute an Iowa class battleship can put 27.25 tons of ordnance on target.

In two minutes 54.5 tons. In five minutes 136.25 tons.

In landlubber terms, in just one hour an Iowa class BB can put more tons of ordnance on target that an entire Nimitz class carrier air wing can in 24 hours.

The FA-18 C and FA-18 E Super Hornets, aren't all weather aircraft. The FA-18 D and FA-18 F's are all weather.

FA-18's have a very short loiter time over the battlefield. The Iowa's are able to stay on the gun line 24/7 if need be.

 

Well thought out response RoccoR.

The #1. mission of the Iowa class BB's has been providing naval shore fire support for the Marine Corps. Even today the U.S. Navy isn't capable of fulfilling that mission even if the Zumwalt class destroyers were to be built in numbers. It's 155 MM rail guns aren't able to accomplish the mission or fill the vacuum of what the Iowa's were able to accomplish.

The rail gun projectile is a non explosive warhead. It's unable to hit targets on a reverse slope. Unable to provide an air burst. Unable to provide four, six or nine round salvos needed for area targets.

The cost of one 155 MM rail gun round is $25,000. Cost of one Iowas class 16" round is $500.

This is almost as bad as spending $70,000 on a Hellfire missile to kill one bad guy when a .25 cent bullet could have accomplished the same thing. There's a smart way to fight a war and the stupid way to fight a war like spending a trillion dollars to fight a mob armed with AK-47's.

When the Iowa's were decommissioned in the early 1990's Congress passed a law that the Iowa's were suppose to be kept in the naval reserve fleet in a high state of readiness so they can be brought back to active duty quickly in a national emergency. Once the Navy was able to build a replacement for the Iowas that were comparable to the Iowa's to provide NSFS for the Marine Corps then the Iowas could be stricken from the fleet. During the Clinton administration over downsizing of our military the Democrats in Congress changed it to two Iowas to be kept in the NRF. so two could be made into museums.

Then the Clinton administration ignored the law and secretly without notifying Congress towed the remaining Iowa class BB on the east coast from the Philadelphia NSY so the liberals could close down the ship yard and had it towed to the Navy's bone yard on the west coast, Suisun Bay in the "gay bay" and allowed to start rusting away.

But the Clinton administration knew if Bill were to order that all of the Iowa's 16" spare gun barrels to be cut up and sold for scrap. no Iowa could ever be recommissioned again to go to sea to be able to save American Marines on the battlefield.

When Congress found out that Clinton broke the law it was to late. An impeachable offence ? Damn right it is ! But what was Congress going to do ? They had already impeached Clinton once before and what good did that do ?

 

I served in the U.S.S Missouri BB-63. I sure do miss it. She was a hell of a ship.

 

Care to share your experience when the Missouri fired a nine gun broadside ?

Back in 1969 I got to watch the USS New Jersey fire a nine gun broadside from about a 1/4 away while on a destroyer off of San Clemente Island.

If the word "awesome" was in use back then, it would be the word to describe what I saw and what I heard. Before the word got corrupted it was something you feared but respected. That's the way our enemies always looked upon the Iowa class BB's.

The next day I was on San Clemente Island and saw what those 16" projectiles could do on the receiving end. Nothing comparable without going to nukes.

During the 1980's you could hear the Iowa's firing their guns from 100 miles away from the South Bay in Los Angeles County.

 

And the BB isn't accurate as an F-18 and in todays ROE you have to minimalize colateral damage which you can't do with a 16" shell...
Live in the now. Rules have change and BB are obsolete. Your BB wouldn't even survive getting in range against a 1st world power. It would be sunk way before it got close enough to even fire its firs salvo.

 

That's why they had Marines like me spotting naval gunfire so there weren't any fratricide.

FYI:
If a 16" HC round hits with in 100 yards of the target, you are on target because that target is no more.

Over 80% of the worlds population lives with in range of the Iowa's 16" guns. It has the range.

Under the law (National Security Act of 1947) the mission of the Marine Corps besides protecting naval property and swabbies is to establish advance naval bases for the Navy and to conduct amphibious assaults to establish a beachhead so the Army can come in and do their job. Marines aren't suppose to be fighting a hundred miles inland, they are naval infantry not the army.

When you conduct an amphibious assault from an hour to a couple of hours you will not have any ground artillery support. That along with the armor doesn't start coming ashore until usually in the third or fourth wave on Mike boats (LCM) and LCU's. Navy LCAC's ( Landing Craft Air Cushion ) can not be used on a defended beach for obvious reasons.

Close Air Support during the amphibious assault and when the Marines are establishing the beach head, it would be to crowded in the sky, to many CAS missions and not enough aircraft and aircraft can't be in the vicinity any time any naval gunfire or artillery fire is being conducted, again for obvious reasons.

By the late 1980's and early 90's laser guided 16" rounds have been developed so even a caveman could put a 16" round on target. Not the smart way to fight a war considering the cost but still cheaper than a hellfire missile. Rocket assisted rounds giving the 16" gun 75 to 100 mile range.

When the Iowa's were being decommissioned test were being conducted of using the 16" guns for ASW. A helicopter dips it's sonar into the sea or a destroyer detects an enemy sub and the battleship fires a pattern of nine 1,900 lb projectiles with time fuses to detonate below the sub creating nine huge bubbles that would crush the sub. Nine huge mega depth charges you could say.

That's not all that was in the pipe line. Using the 16" guns for anti torpedo countermeasures and since anti ship cruise missiles fly just 20 feet above the sea surface, guess what ? Nine HC 1.900 lb. projectiles with a FT or VT fuses and you have a massive wall of shrapnel and the over pressure, just ask Charley but I doubt he ever got his hearing back.