Great discussion. I was a junior officer on Missouri for 3 years and earned my surface warfare qualification (including bridge, engineering, and CIC watchstanding) on her during her 1980s active period. I'm not aware of any ESM system for detecting inbound anti-ship missiles on Missouri other than the SLQ-32. There may have been an idea of adding other antennae around the ship, but never developed or installed.
Yeah, the ships were designed to run on Bunker C, which is basically crude oil. So running on diesel (which is much thinner) in the 80s, leaks that werent a problem for bunker oil would be magnified.
I think if the shell upgrade program allowing for extended range rounds with GPS/Laser-Guided 16in shells would definitely push the Iowa’s into relevance for the 90’s/2000’s. I’m imagining 2003 invasion of Iraq and Iowa’s lobbing 16in shells 80 miles inland with pin point accuracy
That WOULD have been sweet. Even if the army would have overrun an 80 mile target in about a day. Although, imagine a modernized Iowa with that kind of tech floating around the Baltic and Black seas - that’d send a message. Hello Kerch bridge!
Yeah, but that would've been an astronomical cost, astronomical up-keep cost as well AND, most importantly, it would've been scrapped at the end, because by that point, the ship would've been used beyond any of its original life-span plans. AS is, it did its job, served, retired and now is a beacon in the timeline of history.
my gut tells me the 80 year old turbo generators would have eventually been a huge bottlkneck since a modern ship requires immense power generation compared even to an Iowa
Yeah, that's what doomed the Great Lakes icebreaker USCGC Mackinaw: you can upgrade a lot of things, but the 1940s powerplant isn't practical to replace. And that's an icebreaker, not a massive battleship with an armored deck. Even if 1 or 2 Iowas are still in service for Iraq in 2003 they are getting retired soon after that.
Ryan has mentioned a few times that the Iowaa were pretty much maxed out in electrical generation. The only solution (that he just recently mentioned) would have been to swap out the original turbo generators for the ones used in the Midway class carriers. Now, how you actually make that swap is a good question, but more feasible than swaping out everything in engineering.
@@lonnyyoung4285Question then would be, where do they get them? Midway would stay in active service until 92, and the Coral Sea wouldn’t be scrapped until 2000. Even then, I doubt you would have enough to upgrade all four Iowa’s.
Drachinifel also said the power plane itself was at the end of their life. If you replace it you are rebuilding the ship anyway so add an rear flight deck and stuff. It would make an good littoral combat ship as in an large ship you can take close to land.
RE: Flag suite... I wonder if Wisconsin's fire damage had anything to do with the addition of her Flag Spaces in her re-activation. Wisconsin is brought back last, in no small part, because of the fire damage she sustained in her superstructure while in mothballs, so her superstructure would have needed the most work and the most renovation. Not to mention that, by the time she's in the yard, the Flag deficiencies in New Jersey and Iowa would have been noted.
The amount of updates the Iowa class battleship could have gotten would have to address the huge manpower requirement plus a complete replacement of the 8 Babcock & Wilcox boilers and 4 sets of double reduction cross-compound geared turbines as they were getting to the end of their service lives. As Hood of the Royal Navy showed, keeping a ship going without massive overhauls to the engines only causes more problems in the long run as by the time Hood met her catastrophic demise at Denmark Strait, her machinery was effectively on its last legs as her 24 Yarrow oil fired small tube boilers had exceeded their 20 year service lives and her Brown Curtis Geared Steam Turbines need a complete replacement of the turbine blades.
I’ve seen drawings online that show this modest Phase 2, and it’s not terribly radical. All remaining 5”/38 mounts are removed, replaced by 2 sea Sparrow launchers and 4 of the modern 5” mounts on the CGs and DDGs. The ABLs get replaced with 96 VLS cells, but the Harpoons are retained. This would’ve given an Iowa 112 offensive missiles (96 Tomahawks and 16 Harpoons), with 16 Sea Sparrows for better air defense. That coupled with extended range projectiles for the 16s would make a very potent force. Also with 300 less crew, so little cheaper to run. Cold War ending, plus Iowa’s Turret 2 explosion is what doomed these ideas.
@@Knight6831Actually, the battleships were converted to run on diesel in the 80s, as opposed to the Bunker C fuel oil they were designed for. That was a relatively minor modification. As for their boiler/turbine condition, it depended on which ship you’re talking about. New Jersey had been the most heavily used with almost 25 years of active service, and her engines were almost at the end of their service life. Another couple of years and they would have had problems like Hood’s engines. Missouri was the next most heavily used, then Iowa, and then Wisconsin with only 12-13 years of active service. The reason Iowa and Wisconsin were the ones chosen to remain in reserve status until 2006 were because their engines were in the best shape, and engines would have been the hardest part of getting the ships combat-ready.
Maybe I’m wrong but I saw Ryan crawling around inside one of the boilers and I thought he said something about the tube’s or inside’s having to be replaced every so many hours of use, I’m sure the boilers could have been rebuilt without replacing them as for the reduction gears I stated in another post that I saw a ton of pictures of all the spare parts that they removed when they decommissioned the ships and stowed them on an old aircraft carrier and right on top was a brand new set of reduction gears, but sadly I don’t know where all those parts went because that carrier was left to go to scrap and probably all those parts that were just setting there new since the 40s probably went to scrap too. Personal I think the Navy jumped the gun in decommissioning so many ships as soon as they thought the Cold War was over, like duhh were not going to need anything but aircraft carrier’s now, & sadly events like September 11 proved them wrong.
There was also talk of adding an US Army counter-battery radar to allow the battleships to better engage in artillery duels with shore batteries. My understanding is that any 1990s refit would have been done in within the larger context of a full service life extension program (SLEP), so more extensive refits wouldn't have been off the table. Richard Landgraff had determined a relatively easy means of adding VLS to the Iowas that involved building up the deck height in the area where the ABLs are. The Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), had been in development since the 1970s and first went to sea in the late 1980s on a Spruance-class destroyer as a test system. It was operationally deployed in 1992, so I think it's likely that's the system being discussed. I don't know if the Navy ever considered adding Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) to the Iowas as part of a 1990s refit, but the system was contemporary to that era. CEC would have allowed the Iowas to act as a remote missile magazine for other ships that had the guidance systems for Standard missiles. With 96+ VLS cells, that certainly would have been interesting. On the other hand, having so many Tomahawks on the Iowas would have permitted the ships in their battlegroups to carry more AAW and ASW missiles as they wouldn't need their own offensive missiles.
It would have been fairly simple to add VLS cells between the funnels. Or if there were an engine replacement, then the new and much more efficient engines could have had their exhaust trunked up through the forward funnel and created even more room. No need to even pierce the armored deck. Just remove some of the middle superstructure and stick the cells right on top of the main armor deck. You could even slap a few SPY-1 radars on the tower superstructure by building up a facade around it with faces large enough to mount the radars. This would keep them away from the gun blast.
I think they made intelligent choices for the 1980s modifications. It was a debatable whether it should have been done at all, but once it was decided to reactivate them, tptb made intelligent choices regarding how far to ho.
Now I'm reminded of an anime called Muv-Luv, which takes place in an alternate timeline. It featured modernized Yamato-class battleships with the 5-inch and AA guns replaced by VLS cells, four Phalanxes, and two four-round Harpoon launchers while retaining the 155mm and the 18.1 inch guns. There was also mention of a Yamato-kai class in the anime, which was a battlecarrier.
I was wondering how the original 1940's belt armour would have reacted to a sea skimming missile like a KH22 or a KH31. I assume the plan would be to shoot it down, but it does raise the question whether missiles optimised for modern thin hulls might not enjoy hitting proper armour. It also raises the question of whether a money no object refit could have literally removed key armour plates & sliced them up to insert composite layers before replacing them, or possible adding some applique armour to the outside...
All of those electronic systems upgrades he mentioned, along with a lot of the command and control areas are not heavily armored tho. Would those missiles likely cause the ship to sink? No. Be they could do enough damage to cause a mission kill, then you have your multi-billion dollar massive ship out of action for an extended period of time.
They were rated for a 2200 pound 16in AP round go8ng what mach 2ish??? SD took numerous 14in AP, rounds again going supersonic... Unless it was AP or a huge warhead or we t after the deck I'm not sure a side hit does alot... NV took a nuke hit... Torpedo would of been the number one threat as they ways were....
The armor probably would have held up just fine, because those missiles just weren’t made for heavy armor penetration. But it wouldn’t be difficult to design a missile that was optimized for this role, with something like a tandem shaped charge warhead.
I was always a fan of the Iowa's but I have bin watching Your content for quite some time now & have a much greater fondness for them & NJ in particular. It just says America loud & proud to Me in so many ways. 😁👌
For reference, for some years various parties have been threatening to make VLS harpoons a thing, but nobody's ever needed that enough to pay the extra for it when deck-mount launchers have seemed to be perfectly good enough for every navy that uses them...
I’ve probably said this before but the flight decks always read as a weird choice to me. Where does the resulting ship want to be operating? Far out like an aircraft carrier or in gun range like a battleship?
For many deployed service members during the 20th century, watching a live Bob Hope USO Christmas Show was the highlight of the holiday season. The first Bob Hope USO Christmas Show for the troops was in December of 1948, during the Berlin Airlift. It was, however, during the Vietnam War that the Annual Bob Hope USO Christmas Show became a beloved holiday tradition for both deployed troops and their friends and families back home. 1968 USS New Jersey
The biggest weakness would have been the eighty year old machinery and the generating capacity for all the extra systems , not to mention crew requirements . I suppose with the removal of turret three they might have been able to add some diesel capacity for the new facilities but the best option would have been keep them running until you have a replacement .
It might have been RAM. I was a 2nd Class Midshipman in the summer of 1987 and rode the Spruance-class DD USS DAVID R. RAY as part of my CORTRAMID training. She had a RAM launcher on her fantail, the first one deployed at sea. BT The Advanced Combat Direction System (ACDS) was a follow-on to the original NTDS. I was Data Systems Officer on the USS KEARSARGE (LHD 3) in '93-'94, and my sailors maintained that system. It used UYK-43 computers and more modern display equipment that mad ACDS better than NTDS.
Quickest update, pull Turret 2 and all the 5"/38s, Turret 2 replaced with full length VLS cells, the 5" guns replaced with 4 modern auto 127mm and the balance with bolt on modern missile launchers. Add another pair of Turbo generators and send her to sea.
For those more 'modern' 5" (Mk45 I assume) you would need to replace the original 5" directors with Mk-86 Fire Control, 1 set for each pair of guns at least. The Mk-86 when paired with an appropriate air search radar (3D preferably) gives you a AAA system capable of engaging out to (IIRC) 10 miles and altitude of 30 to 35k feet as well as against surface targets out to (again IIRC) 12 miles. These changes would save at least a couple hundred tons of top weight and would move the 5" gun crews inside the skin of the ship (behind armor) as the Mk45 mount itself doesn't have a crew above deck, same with the Mk86 directors.
@robertf3479 the main problem is currently you couldn't mount the phased array RADAR, that would need a new mast on the rear funnel, it's why I suggested the new bolt on missile boxes, get rid of the old Tomahawk and Harpoon mounts a drop the modern launchers on the old 5 inch positions. Swap out the 4 20mm CIWS for 6 modern gun/missile combinations. The new guns, either the 76mm Oto Melara or a 127mm version, autoloader with on mount magazine for dealing with closer in small to medium craft. I'm strictly considering the fastest, cheapest effective way to get an Iowa into the fight if China makes a couple of CVBGs into artificial reefs in a Pearl Harbour style attack.
You don’t get all that many VLS tubes for that deck space, and it unbalanced the ship. I’m not saying don’t do it, but it has downsides which are sometimes over looked
The Mk45 wouldn't work as the below deck magazine for the mount is completely different from the Mk38. You'd need to do extensive work to cut through the armor of the ship to fit the new mounts. What was discussed at the time was using the 5"/54 Mk16 gun that was planned for Montana and deployed on the Midways. It was uncertain if the Iowas' shell hoists would be able to handle the longer shells, because of the path the hoists take through the ships' armor.
VLS Harpoon was something that was even tested I want to say in New Mexico out of a Mk 41 test package. I know that many of the 1990s proposals included it as a way of getting an AShM capability without loosing more deck space to the fixed launchers.
I think this was brought up in one of the more recent videos and that the trim would have been severely effected because you are essentially removing a Fletcher from the aft and only putting a relative few tons in with the VLS. You might have to remove turret 2 and could extend some superstructure forward for an Admiral to counteract the weight differential.
@@panachevitz they had similar design issues in the 50s with the NCs and SoDaks when they looked at trying to modernize them to keep up with the carriers.
I think to many programs about upgrading them still think in terms of them being battle ships. How much weight and space gets freed up if you remove the main cannons and secondary cannons. Put in some modern anti air. And what if these worked as smaller force projection ships with DRONEs. Lots and lots of them. Think in terms of WHAT can we do with the Hull. I think some of that old style armor might be good to protect against tactical speed boats full of IEDs. Or enemy drones and missile systems.
The problem with extensive modifications like that is you cross over into the territory of "it would be cheaper to build a new ship." And if you're removing the primary thing that differentiates battleships from modern warships, then there's no legitimate reason not to just build a new, purpose-designed ship instead.
it truly doesnt matter what technology or upgrades could be added to these ships. they were very near the end of their useable life's. engineering machinery, plumbing, wiring, etc, etc, etc. for the cost of any upgrades that might get 5-10yrs more from the ships at most, could buy 2 or more tico's for each iowa upgrade, and get the full 25-30yrs from the new ships.
Actually, the Sea Sparrow is short range. the SM-2 MR is medium range and the SM-2 ER is long range There was an anti-ship version of the Tomahawk, but it was canceled (for stupid reasons) With that, the Harpoon would be redundant. You don't need sonar to carry ASROC, you just need to receive the targets location, you can then fire the missile to that location, and it will split apart dropping a homing torpedo which will then make a spiral search for the target
The 1980s TASM variant was cancelled, but the new Tomahawk variants are finally receiving anti-ship capability once again, and they have a much greater range than TASM.
Ryan, the only Direction Finding system with the small "deck edge" antenna system you speak of that I am familiar with is a Radio Direction finding system that was mounted in Wasp class LHDs called "Combat DF," closely related to a system mounted in a number of cruisers and destroyers. That said, I don't believe Missouri or Wisconsin received it. It might be capable of detecting and tracking homing missile radars, but without the weapon or ECM systems to go along with it to either shoot down or actively jam those radars ... it would be all but useless.
Richard Landgraffs book has a quick section on this very thing including some drawing for the VLS system layout. Ill see if i can find a copy upstairs. I remember him mentioning on a forum about having issues with access to the engine rooms but now i cant remember if that was with the VLS system or the aft ABL platform that was built.
I don't think you'd ever get around the absolutely massive crewing requirements of a WW2-era design. Even the smaller 1980s complement required as many crew as 5-6 Ticonderoga-class cruisers
Sea Chaparral did go on some US FRAM (Gearing/Sumner) during Vietnam (some other interesting systems also trialed during Vietnam/70's was SOB (Shrike on Board - on racks above the ASROC box) and SMARTRoC (an LGB thrown from the ship by an ASROC rocket motor). Check out Sumner-Gearing-Class Destroyers: Their Design, Weapons, and Equipment by Sumerall for some data on Sea Chaparral and the others. The mentioned 'Combat Direction Finding System' most likely would have been the DF antenna system from CLASSIC OUTBOARD AN/SSQ-72/108. Note - none of the four were ever fit with OUTBOARD Mk23 TAS was also the primary anti-missile detection radar for the Spruance class - it would hand targets to the Sea Sparrow system - it was accurate enough for the purposes you mention. Good Mk23 TAS and OUTBOARD info in Electronic Greyhounds: The Spruance Class Destroyers by Potter.
Rolling Airframe Missile was in development in the 1980s, and test mountings were done in the late 1980s on some ships in Europe. Wouldn't surprise me if that's indeed what was intended. VLS Harpoon was planned, I think it was even fielded experimentally.
I'm a big fan of your content from Austria and have two questions about the 16inch. 1) how far can the towers rotate? (360 degrees with the pipes set up?) 2) how are the towers supplied with electricity and water since they are movable?
#1: The turrets (towers) are capable of rotation as follows: WW2/Korea/Vietnam, with the bow as reference point zero degrees: T1 and T2 can train left to 210 degrees and can train right to150 degrees; T3 can train left to 30 degrees and right to 330 degrees; maximum train speed is 4 degrees per second 1980s deployment: train limits were adjusted to keep 16" muzzle blast away from modern electronics/radars, thus the arcs are somewhat less ruclips.net/video/1meGoM0xb9E/видео.htmlsi=Y6GJfkFVywHUcFfn&t=251 #2: This video explains electrical power to the turrets: ruclips.net/video/WMhc5RsDU3U/видео.html The central pipe seen in the above video is to supply the turret with compressed air. The compressed air is used to clear the guns after firing and also to pressurize the ready water supply for firefighting as well as to charge the cylinders that return the gun back into battery after it recoils after shooting. The primary connection between the ship's fire fighting water main and the turret fire fighting main is a hose connection as can be seen on the deck in this training video: ruclips.net/video/0OmOQs0ziSU/видео.htmlsi=_ok_TqM4iSdFPvcX&t=201
I know this is the New Jersey comment page but since it seems to be the most popular one read I’d like to comment on the Iowa, I saw that they said they had no plans to ever dry dock her and I’m afraid she’ll be the first to go, I know there doing the floating dry dock but that can only do so much & she’s in salt water too, so what are they going to do when the sea chest start leaking or the bow starts leaking lower than they can get, remember when they dry docked Missouri and the water came pouring out of holes in the bow, I know Iowa’s in a bad place as far as finding a dry dock to fit, I think it would have to either be towed all the way to Hawaii and done there or towed through the Panama Canal and now that Panama has control over it I don’t think they will let it be towed through, that seemed to be the rush to get New Jersey back through right before Panama took complete control, but if a real dry dock doesn’t become available or on is built on the west coast in the next few years I’m very afraid Iowa will start to have problems that can’t be fixed.
Those accommodations for presumably AV-8B Harriers with a ski-jump and hangars are absolutely ridiculous. And I would’ve loved to see them on at least one hull in museum form. 😂
You know, the whole carrier mod might not have between a bad idea but the wrong route. Picture instead, using the aft flight deck and hangers for... marine helicopter landing. Making the ship into a fast marine assault battleship. Using its big guns to clear landing areas for transport helos. 16 inch air burst just flattening landing sites the overpressure effects clearing mines, leveling trees
I mean, the electronic targetting of a CAESAR self propelled howitzer make it HUGELY PRECISE with devastating effect, but at the core, it's a similar system, so, the electronic of a high end howitzer could be use in a batteship And, oh boy, a 16" shell with the precision of a CAESAR? it would be an incredible update, and a very dangerous one for the adversary. But well, it seems that in both side of the Atlantic, we're more looking into electronic catapult with 100+ km range (and the precision of Caesar with hundred time more effect) than 16" guns with modern electronic targeting
Here is what i remember in the early 80's. 82-85 USS INCHON LPH-12. Before going to Med, ship went to Norfolk Ship Yard, for 2 sponson CWIS add on. I remember Stinger Missile trained crews also.
Honestly, I don't know if any of this was available at the time they were considering the updates or not, but I would .... - still remove turret 3 - ditch the hanger and VTOL runway idea in favor of spotting drones - not use single launch vertical cells but instead use the type where it has a rotating turret with a launch rail and is mechanically reloaded from a silo kept below decks
I loved the Iowas as much as the next Battleship fan, but what could they have accomplished that couldn’t have been done better and cheaper than an Amphibious Assault Ship and Destroyers in the 90s and beyond?
Interesting , Thank You. Sadly , I think that upgrading the Battleships would have been time consuming and expensive . We Must not forget where does the Electric Power come From?
That would of been their biggest constraint, as it’s currently the biggest constraint with the Burke’s and the reason for moving towards a larger design. In comparisons, a Flight III Burke generates 12 MW compared to an Iowa’s 10 MW.
Was there ever a proposal to build a new “modern” battleship? I know the many reasons they became mostly obsolete but I wonder if someone did the math on a lifetime of modifications and considered a new hull with modern tech.
several, and mostly nothing but fancy and far too expensive for what you get. The problem with battlships is they can only really do one thing. Smaller and cheaper ships are more capable of doing more things for less money.
There was the concept of an "arsenal" ship with several hundred VLS back in the early 2000s but not a battleship per se. I don't think anyone is developing large caliber naval guns anymore with the possible exception of the 155mm gun on the Zunwalts, but the whole point of those guns was to fire ammo that was never fully developed. If you're going to put a lot of VLS and some 5 inch guns on a ship, you might as well update the Ticonderogas for current technology.
@panachevitz I wonder if it would be possible to convert either a container ship or a super tanker in a a VLS ship. Sure, it would require a fleet of Burkes and Virginias to keep it from getting sunk (and possibly a super advanced laser point defense system), but can you imagine how many missiles you could launch from one of those ships? And people thought the SSGNs were scary. Everyone and their brother would know it was coming, but even if you evacuate a city, how much does it matter if one ship (supported by a bunch of others) simply deletes that city?
@@lonnyyoung4285 that's an interesting idea, but I think the hull design would work against it. One thing that military ships have is compartmentalisation and the ability to seal off sections to prevent flooding. I remember watching a new container ship getting launched sideways in a river (wasn't overly big) but I was struck at just how empty it is. There really isn't much keeping the sea out, they really are just giant U-shaped vessels with nothing inside. Makes great for holding things, but not so great if you get a hole in one. You do have an interesting idea, though, and it could be worth exploring. Or maybe the next thing will be a much smaller drone carrier with a 1000 drones of all types on it, both air and sea based. Who knows? The future is before us! :)
im interested in the advanced very long range pgm shells that were slated to be introduced and just how such weapons could have been useful in the last 30 years of conflicts.
I think the best way to keep the ships would have been to eliminate turret 3 and install VLS banks in the aft. Now you can also add systems in the aft area that were prohibited from the turret over-blast since they are just up at the front now. Then also upgrade the power system and CEC/CIS areas as well.
Thinking a bit more, it really provides a nice Hi-LO mix of weapons with cheap 16" shells and expensive missiles in one ship. One heavily armored ship.
This would severely effect the trim of the ship tho, removing a massive amount of turret weight and replacing it with a comparatively light missile system. I think he discussed this with Drach in a previous vid
They'd be more akin to battlecruisers size wise. Gas turbine or nuclear power. Stealth propellers. Composite armor. Built in helicopter hanger. Airborne drone station. Underwater aquatic drone station. VLS, SeaRAM, and possibly RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile box launchers. Odin disabling lasers. DragonFire naval lasers. Microwave anti-drone guns. 5"/54 Caliber Mark 45 or twin frontal 16" guns with guided shells. Bushmaster 2 automatic 30mm anti-drone and boat guns. Nulka and Naval Decoy IDS300 missile countermeasures. Ultra Electronica Ocean Systems ADC MK2 Torpedo countermeasure. An/Spy-6 3D Radar. AN/SLQ-32 Electronics Suite. Perhaps the addition of Rheinmetall Millennium 35mm last defense gun and Bofors 40mm MK4. European ships would likely forgo the separate missile and torpedo countermeasures in favor of SEA Ancilia countermeasure. Not to mention having their own electronic suites and 3D radars. They may also have potential interest in secondary Leonardo 76/62mm guns.
They exist. They look like guided missile cruisers. Battleships as almost universally understood - 'ships using both substantial armour for defence and big projectile weapons for offence' have been obsolete for naval warfare for somewhere between 74 and 80 years. Handy for a bit of near-coast bombardment if you already had them and could afford the luxury of maintaining and crewing them - $B5 for 1980s refit + $M380 per year in todays money for 4 Iowas, according to USN figures. So not what anyone would have built new for that job.
I've always looked at the Battleship as an alternative to an large, expensive aircraft carrier in a location, such as the Persian Gulf. I imagine Iran, sending out their gunboats to attack navy patrol craft and a Battleship going in, sinking the gunboats and then firing on their launch facilities with the 16 in. guns. Cheaper to do this with firepower than air power, and a Battleship is much easier to protect. The cruise missiles could also accomplish much the same as a limited air strike. As far as I know, we never launched an air strike against Iran after they attacked our patrol craft and took hostages. A Battleship, on the other hand, could have gone in there and eliminated the support facilities for them with their 16 in guns, relatively cheaply. I could be wrong, there may be more to this than I think. Comments?
One short range Anti-Air missile that has been used by the US Navy are the shoulder fired missiles Redeye and Stinger, of which at least the Redeye was in service before the reactivation of the ships.
One thing never mentioned is metallurgy and materials technology. Them ships were made with the best steels available at the time. Materials have come a long way since then. For example you’d now walk away from a modern car crash that would have left you dead in that era. If you truly wanted a battleship, better to build a new one from scratch with new materials and new technology. You cold have the same capability with 1/3 manpower and a better ship.
I'd imagine Harrier 2 Jump Jets would've been possible for that battleship configuration back in the day. If they had gone with that more toned down version of the battle carrier and they still saw service today, they'd either reserve the landing pad for drones these days or the ship would essentially be relabeled as an amphibious gun assault carrier; with the back area redesignated for helicopters. As for modern US non-helicopter aircraft that could potentially still be able to land on the back deck; V-22 Osprey.
Replacing turret3 and it's magasines as well as the boilers with a fission reactor or two in order to extend operational range and use it as a test bed for electromagnetic range extension of conventional guns, railgun experiments and directed energy countermeasures.
Regarding removing the harpoons, They might have been thinking that with anti ship tomahawks (I assume they were expected? I wanna say these don’t exist even now in service) they could hit them with the tomahawks if they were out of gun range and then just use the guns if they were in gun range. They are what you keep an Iowa around for after all.
The B variant of the tomahawk was an anti ship version that was withdrawn from service in 1994. Raytheon has been working on a dual land attack and anti ship version, which is part of the Block IV upgrades. This version entered service in 2021.
Lasers, VLS, Nuclear reactors, low observable superstructure, maybe rail guns if they had gotten them working or at least dump the 16inchers and put some of the 5 inch guns, or upgrade to 8 inch, back on for shore gunnery support. I expect that to modernize them at this point would require such an extensive rebuild that it would be cheaper to just build brand new from scratch.
If the Navy could ever solve the railgun problem or just develop a guass cannon, that would be fun. The power requirements for that would be crazy. Where's the fusion reactor when you need it?
If a VLS system was going to be used why couldn't a Mark 57 VLS be used in place of 5 inch guns? The Mark 57 VLS is used on the Zumwalt and is installed on ship's periphery.
I think the only thing that they could have done that no other ship could do better and cheaper is to develop an extended range precision shell for the 16 inch gun. Maybe something rocket assisted that has the same range as the Harpoon.
I’m waiting for capacitor, railgun, and laser tech matures enough to bring back the battleship with lasers for CWIS/SHOAD , nuke power plant and rail guns for anti ship, land attack and fire support as well as limited medium anti aircraft . Some cruise missiles for 1000+ nm range attack. Until the tech matures the battleships will have to lay in weight
Replacing the propulsion with nuclear, dropping a turret, adding Aegis radar and VLS then giving it THAAD anti-satelite missiles to blind enemy recon when war starts. Then replace half 5 inch guns with modern guns like the rapidfire 76mm or 50mm guns developed by NATO allies the other half should become RAM/Sidewinder equivalent in VLS or Rail-pedestal equivalent. Replace the fire control stations with laser and optical scan for close in threats and convert the turrets over to mass driver/ railguns as they become available with modern systems.
I'm half surprised Reagan never pushed thru funding from Congress to just build a brand new Battleship class fresh from the keel up. Either the (a bit too silly) "Battle Carrier" concept or more conservative missile armed big gun battlewagon that maybe carries a few extra planes... Now that would have been cool, as awesome as the Iowas were and are, an 80s new sheet Montana (or whatever) class that properly integrated all the upgrades instead of bolting stuff on the outside... now that would have been pretty damn awesome. (and would really be the only effective way to bring back Battleships for 2024/25 and beyond, heck maybe make them nuclear powered capital ships, BBGNs, or even conventional powered, vs just trying to keep stretching nearly century old vessels more and more)
If I was going to build a new Battleship, I would go for a slightly updated version of the Mississippi (BB-23) Class, but eliminate the 7 inch casemated guns and replace the turreted 8 inch guns with 6 inches (or actually, 155mm) guns. Eliminate the coal fired engines with turbogenerators like the Arleigh Burkes, and do what you can to both increase the speed and increase the station keeping capability. That would be a ship capable of providing the fire support the Marines need, and can really use.
VLS requires a return to a secure stockpoint to reload the empty cells. A waste of time to speculate about sensors, weapons systems, engineering upgrades, communications capabilities, flag spaces, shipyard availability, budgeting and force utilization. Enjoy the museum ships for the educational and entertainment opportunities they provide. We can't currently field a fleet of 300 active duty ships and keep them operating beyond 30 years at current budget levels.
Ever notice people really like the idea of operating these ships? We could do it. Not a bit cost effective but really useful and effective. I'm sure the Navy would find a way to fit these ships into their operations. If the Marines had their way, they would Own Them. Fast, well armored, capable of accepting the most modern naval systems and in excellent material condition. These ships were mothballed with an eye towards reavtivation. I don't care if they ever reactivate again but it is really cool that they realistically Could Be. If i could reactivate One? Texas. To her D-Day, World War Two configuration. Everything Working, Everything Fixed. Operate her for a year, or so Then, remothball her with the Rudder Straight! A Big Hit at RIMPAC that Year.
These ships may have continued on to maybe the mid 90s but would have been pretty obsolete buy then, 50yrs is pushing the life span on any ship, navy would have been throwing there money away
I cant see justifying pushing these ships ny further than they did. There shore bombardment role was tenuous at best in an age of precision guided munitions and minimal colateral damage and the idea that you can just cut a ship open and drop a new generator and turbine set in it is optimistic at best. At that point you might as well just build a new ship itd be the same price anyway.
If worried about warn out propulsion and not enough electrical generation, what about a powerplant swap, they did it to the qe2 liner in the eighties, pulled all the old engines and boilers out through the funnels, might be a bit more complicated on a battleship because of armour. Program on re-engineering qe2 from eighties: ruclips.net/video/r1KSFQfHMMQ/видео.html Four electric motors, one per shaft and four sets of diesels, would make it cheaper to run a battleship and less manpower intensive aswell.
Minovsky particles could've saved the battleships, lol. No more radar guidance for missiles, everything reverts back to optical sights so guns become useful again, haha.
nuclear powered 700 foot ship with 8 inch belt and bulkheads, nuclear reactor hundreds of missile launchers and drone launchers would make a great battleship. More for showing off but would be a great warship.
Battleships are too much of a threat to the carrier admirals 🫡 Only room for one capital ship in this navy!! regardless the value of a capital surface warfare combatant!! 😔 Marines sure loved the battleships like the army the A-10’s
Really ? Despite it being ~80 years since the 2 most well armed & armoured BBs ever built were stopped dead in their tracks without getting even close to in-range of their enemies capital ships by ..... carrier aircraft. Iowa's had a role as shore bombardment only because they already existed and there was no threat from enemy carriers or missiles (or they could have been protected by such a threat by their own carrier or missile cruiser forces) They'd never have been built new just for that role.
Makes sense SM-2 and VLS would've been attempted as early 90s upgrades. AN/SLQ-49 Chaff Buoy Decoy System was deployed on some US and UK warships at the time.
Yank out the old boilers and propulsion system and convert it to nuclear power just like the carriers, remove the 2nd turret, replace with tomahawk missles, remove 5 inch guns and replace with sea sparrow or other missle defense systems and let it rip. Its a shame these ships weren't modified and kept in service because theyre basically impossible to recreate.
@dan0711123 That's because they dont have the armor like iowa class battleships. The Russians even admitted they feared Iowa class battleships because they had no way to sink them.
Converting it to nuclear power would risk the structural integrity of the ship. None of her existing compartments are large enough for a reactor or generator. This means you would have to move, or remove, the bulkheads to enlarge the compartments to fit the reactor and generator. These bulkheads are load bearing bulkheads which support the weight of the hull upon itself. Moving these would be altering the calculated weight on the hull and no good naval engineer would guarantee that this would not have adverse affects.
After getting some of these upgrades, I like to see the look on their faces, if a n Iowa was t o Sail into the Black Sea, right up behind some Russian ships?😮😂😂😊
I really think if Ryan told u that alls four Iowa class battleships was returning to service to mess with some u, and with new naval high tec rail guns alone, some u would believe it, like kids nots wanting to see them retire ands as great museum WW2 history now only. Get over its, they are obsolete in modern warfare. To says least. Good Days From USMC Veteran
One interesting proposed upgrade would be to upgrade her existing engines and to replace her 16 in guns with ICBM missiles and other types of defensive and offensive missiles.
I love battleships. I really, really love battleships. All of them, of every era. I also love the warships of the Napoleonic era. Wooden frigates, ships of the line, clouds of sail! And you know what else the two have in common? By 1990, they were equally obsolete. No amount of money spent on the BB's in the '90's could have made them half as effective as a dozen new ships costing about the same amount of money.
Great discussion. I was a junior officer on Missouri for 3 years and earned my surface warfare qualification (including bridge, engineering, and CIC watchstanding) on her during her 1980s active period. I'm not aware of any ESM system for detecting inbound anti-ship missiles on Missouri other than the SLQ-32. There may have been an idea of adding other antennae around the ship, but never developed or installed.
So level with me. How viable is this design model.
The one area they didn’t update was the fuel oil piping because we always had major fuel leaks on our last two West Pacs.
We don’t talk about that
Yeah, the ships were designed to run on Bunker C, which is basically crude oil. So running on diesel (which is much thinner) in the 80s, leaks that werent a problem for bunker oil would be magnified.
I think if the shell upgrade program allowing for extended range rounds with GPS/Laser-Guided 16in shells would definitely push the Iowa’s into relevance for the 90’s/2000’s.
I’m imagining 2003 invasion of Iraq and Iowa’s lobbing 16in shells 80 miles inland with pin point accuracy
That WOULD have been sweet. Even if the army would have overrun an 80 mile target in about a day.
Although, imagine a modernized Iowa with that kind of tech floating around the Baltic and Black seas - that’d send a message.
Hello Kerch bridge!
Or an Iowa being involved in Operation Praying Mantis.
16inch GPS shells got me goin jDAMN
I think a 16 inch gps shell would have been a million dollar shell, and the USN would have bought about 8 of them.
Yeah, but that would've been an astronomical cost, astronomical up-keep cost as well AND, most importantly, it would've been scrapped at the end, because by that point, the ship would've been used beyond any of its original life-span plans. AS is, it did its job, served, retired and now is a beacon in the timeline of history.
my gut tells me the 80 year old turbo generators would have eventually been a huge bottlkneck since a modern ship requires immense power generation compared even to an Iowa
Yeah, that's what doomed the Great Lakes icebreaker USCGC Mackinaw: you can upgrade a lot of things, but the 1940s powerplant isn't practical to replace. And that's an icebreaker, not a massive battleship with an armored deck. Even if 1 or 2 Iowas are still in service for Iraq in 2003 they are getting retired soon after that.
Ryan has mentioned a few times that the Iowaa were pretty much maxed out in electrical generation. The only solution (that he just recently mentioned) would have been to swap out the original turbo generators for the ones used in the Midway class carriers. Now, how you actually make that swap is a good question, but more feasible than swaping out everything in engineering.
@@lonnyyoung4285Question then would be, where do they get them? Midway would stay in active service until 92, and the Coral Sea wouldn’t be scrapped until 2000. Even then, I doubt you would have enough to upgrade all four Iowa’s.
Drachinifel also said the power plane itself was at the end of their life.
If you replace it you are rebuilding the ship anyway so add an rear flight deck and stuff.
It would make an good littoral combat ship as in an large ship you can take close to land.
all the mechanicals of the ships were at the end of their useable life spans.
RE: Flag suite...
I wonder if Wisconsin's fire damage had anything to do with the addition of her Flag Spaces in her re-activation. Wisconsin is brought back last, in no small part, because of the fire damage she sustained in her superstructure while in mothballs, so her superstructure would have needed the most work and the most renovation. Not to mention that, by the time she's in the yard, the Flag deficiencies in New Jersey and Iowa would have been noted.
The digital fire control computer paired with that radar that tracks the ballistic arc of the shells sounds like winning combo to me !:-)
The amount of updates the Iowa class battleship could have gotten would have to address the huge manpower requirement plus a complete replacement of the 8 Babcock & Wilcox boilers and 4 sets of double reduction cross-compound geared turbines as they were getting to the end of their service lives.
As Hood of the Royal Navy showed, keeping a ship going without massive overhauls to the engines only causes more problems in the long run as by the time Hood met her catastrophic demise at Denmark Strait, her machinery was effectively on its last legs as her 24 Yarrow oil fired small tube boilers had exceeded their 20 year service lives and her Brown Curtis Geared Steam Turbines need a complete replacement of the turbine blades.
Although as we know now, the boilers and turbines were in pretty good shape but the fuel they use would have to be completely changed
Sacramento and Camden got 40 years of continuous use out of Kentucky’s engines.
I’ve seen drawings online that show this modest Phase 2, and it’s not terribly radical. All remaining 5”/38 mounts are removed, replaced by 2 sea Sparrow launchers and 4 of the modern 5” mounts on the CGs and DDGs. The ABLs get replaced with 96 VLS cells, but the Harpoons are retained.
This would’ve given an Iowa 112 offensive missiles (96 Tomahawks and 16 Harpoons), with 16 Sea Sparrows for better air defense. That coupled with extended range projectiles for the 16s would make a very potent force. Also with 300 less crew, so little cheaper to run. Cold War ending, plus Iowa’s Turret 2 explosion is what doomed these ideas.
@@Knight6831Actually, the battleships were converted to run on diesel in the 80s, as opposed to the Bunker C fuel oil they were designed for. That was a relatively minor modification. As for their boiler/turbine condition, it depended on which ship you’re talking about. New Jersey had been the most heavily used with almost 25 years of active service, and her engines were almost at the end of their service life. Another couple of years and they would have had problems like Hood’s engines. Missouri was the next most heavily used, then Iowa, and then Wisconsin with only 12-13 years of active service. The reason Iowa and Wisconsin were the ones chosen to remain in reserve status until 2006 were because their engines were in the best shape, and engines would have been the hardest part of getting the ships combat-ready.
Maybe I’m wrong but I saw Ryan crawling around inside one of the boilers and I thought he said something about the tube’s or inside’s having to be replaced every so many hours of use, I’m sure the boilers could have been rebuilt without replacing them as for the reduction gears I stated in another post that I saw a ton of pictures of all the spare parts that they removed when they decommissioned the ships and stowed them on an old aircraft carrier and right on top was a brand new set of reduction gears, but sadly I don’t know where all those parts went because that carrier was left to go to scrap and probably all those parts that were just setting there new since the 40s probably went to scrap too. Personal I think the Navy jumped the gun in decommissioning so many ships as soon as they thought the Cold War was over, like duhh were not going to need anything but aircraft carrier’s now, & sadly events like September 11 proved them wrong.
There was also talk of adding an US Army counter-battery radar to allow the battleships to better engage in artillery duels with shore batteries. My understanding is that any 1990s refit would have been done in within the larger context of a full service life extension program (SLEP), so more extensive refits wouldn't have been off the table. Richard Landgraff had determined a relatively easy means of adding VLS to the Iowas that involved building up the deck height in the area where the ABLs are.
The Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), had been in development since the 1970s and first went to sea in the late 1980s on a Spruance-class destroyer as a test system. It was operationally deployed in 1992, so I think it's likely that's the system being discussed.
I don't know if the Navy ever considered adding Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) to the Iowas as part of a 1990s refit, but the system was contemporary to that era. CEC would have allowed the Iowas to act as a remote missile magazine for other ships that had the guidance systems for Standard missiles. With 96+ VLS cells, that certainly would have been interesting. On the other hand, having so many Tomahawks on the Iowas would have permitted the ships in their battlegroups to carry more AAW and ASW missiles as they wouldn't need their own offensive missiles.
Its a shame Mr Landgraff died as it would have been awesome to have him and Ryan get together and talk about this.
It would have been fairly simple to add VLS cells between the funnels. Or if there were an engine replacement, then the new and much more efficient engines could have had their exhaust trunked up through the forward funnel and created even more room. No need to even pierce the armored deck. Just remove some of the middle superstructure and stick the cells right on top of the main armor deck. You could even slap a few SPY-1 radars on the tower superstructure by building up a facade around it with faces large enough to mount the radars. This would keep them away from the gun blast.
I think they made intelligent choices for the 1980s modifications. It was a debatable whether it should have been done at all, but once it was decided to reactivate them, tptb made intelligent choices regarding how far to ho.
Now I'm reminded of an anime called Muv-Luv, which takes place in an alternate timeline. It featured modernized Yamato-class battleships with the 5-inch and AA guns replaced by VLS cells, four Phalanxes, and two four-round Harpoon launchers while retaining the 155mm and the 18.1 inch guns.
There was also mention of a Yamato-kai class in the anime, which was a battlecarrier.
And there’s the one where the Yamato is upgraded to a space ship.
@charlesweinert4116 Technically, that was a newly-built ship that used the wreckage as camouflage during construction.
I was wondering how the original 1940's belt armour would have reacted to a sea skimming missile like a KH22 or a KH31. I assume the plan would be to shoot it down, but it does raise the question whether missiles optimised for modern thin hulls might not enjoy hitting proper armour. It also raises the question of whether a money no object refit could have literally removed key armour plates & sliced them up to insert composite layers before replacing them, or possible adding some applique armour to the outside...
All of those electronic systems upgrades he mentioned, along with a lot of the command and control areas are not heavily armored tho. Would those missiles likely cause the ship to sink? No. Be they could do enough damage to cause a mission kill, then you have your multi-billion dollar massive ship out of action for an extended period of time.
They were rated for a 2200 pound 16in AP round go8ng what mach 2ish??? SD took numerous 14in AP, rounds again going supersonic... Unless it was AP or a huge warhead or we t after the deck I'm not sure a side hit does alot... NV took a nuke hit... Torpedo would of been the number one threat as they ways were....
The armor probably would have held up just fine, because those missiles just weren’t made for heavy armor penetration. But it wouldn’t be difficult to design a missile that was optimized for this role, with something like a tandem shaped charge warhead.
SWEEPERS MAN YOUR BROOMS
I was always a fan of the Iowa's but I have bin watching Your content for quite some time now & have a much greater fondness for them & NJ in particular. It just says America loud & proud to Me in so many ways. 😁👌
I always like these “what if” videos about the Iowa class battleships.
For reference, for some years various parties have been threatening to make VLS harpoons a thing, but nobody's ever needed that enough to pay the extra for it when deck-mount launchers have seemed to be perfectly good enough for every navy that uses them...
I’ve probably said this before but the flight decks always read as a weird choice to me. Where does the resulting ship want to be operating? Far out like an aircraft carrier or in gun range like a battleship?
The Japanese tried this approach at the end of WWII. These frankenships were not a success.
For many deployed service members during the 20th century, watching a live Bob Hope USO Christmas Show was the highlight of the holiday season. The first Bob Hope USO Christmas Show for the troops was in December of 1948, during the Berlin Airlift. It was, however, during the Vietnam War that the Annual Bob Hope USO Christmas Show became a beloved holiday tradition for both deployed troops and their friends and families back home. 1968 USS New Jersey
The biggest weakness would have been the eighty year old machinery and the generating capacity for all the extra systems , not to mention crew requirements . I suppose with the removal of turret three they might have been able to add some diesel capacity for the new facilities but the best option would have been keep them running until you have a replacement .
He was re-reading that book. 📖 😮 that’s dedication
It's worth mentioning that the Standard Missile can technically be used against ships
And does little damage 😂
Great information 👍
Would you think that it would have been likely/plausible/advantageous to replace the optical rangefinders with radar directors?
It might have been RAM. I was a 2nd Class Midshipman in the summer of 1987 and rode the Spruance-class DD USS DAVID R. RAY as part of my CORTRAMID training. She had a RAM launcher on her fantail, the first one deployed at sea. BT The Advanced Combat Direction System (ACDS) was a follow-on to the original NTDS. I was Data Systems Officer on the USS KEARSARGE (LHD 3) in '93-'94, and my sailors maintained that system. It used UYK-43 computers and more modern display equipment that mad ACDS better than NTDS.
Quickest update, pull Turret 2 and all the 5"/38s, Turret 2 replaced with full length VLS cells, the 5" guns replaced with 4 modern auto 127mm and the balance with bolt on modern missile launchers. Add another pair of Turbo generators and send her to sea.
For those more 'modern' 5" (Mk45 I assume) you would need to replace the original 5" directors with Mk-86 Fire Control, 1 set for each pair of guns at least. The Mk-86 when paired with an appropriate air search radar (3D preferably) gives you a AAA system capable of engaging out to (IIRC) 10 miles and altitude of 30 to 35k feet as well as against surface targets out to (again IIRC) 12 miles. These changes would save at least a couple hundred tons of top weight and would move the 5" gun crews inside the skin of the ship (behind armor) as the Mk45 mount itself doesn't have a crew above deck, same with the Mk86 directors.
@robertf3479 the main problem is currently you couldn't mount the phased array RADAR, that would need a new mast on the rear funnel, it's why I suggested the new bolt on missile boxes, get rid of the old Tomahawk and Harpoon mounts a drop the modern launchers on the old 5 inch positions. Swap out the 4 20mm CIWS for 6 modern gun/missile combinations. The new guns, either the 76mm Oto Melara or a 127mm version, autoloader with on mount magazine for dealing with closer in small to medium craft. I'm strictly considering the fastest, cheapest effective way to get an Iowa into the fight if China makes a couple of CVBGs into artificial reefs in a Pearl Harbour style attack.
You don’t get all that many VLS tubes for that deck space, and it unbalanced the ship.
I’m not saying don’t do it, but it has downsides which are sometimes over looked
The Mk45 wouldn't work as the below deck magazine for the mount is completely different from the Mk38. You'd need to do extensive work to cut through the armor of the ship to fit the new mounts. What was discussed at the time was using the 5"/54 Mk16 gun that was planned for Montana and deployed on the Midways. It was uncertain if the Iowas' shell hoists would be able to handle the longer shells, because of the path the hoists take through the ships' armor.
@@zoopercoolguy so use the new Oto Melara self contained mount 76mm.
VLS Harpoon was something that was even tested I want to say in New Mexico out of a Mk 41 test package. I know that many of the 1990s proposals included it as a way of getting an AShM capability without loosing more deck space to the fixed launchers.
How many VLS cells could have fit in the turret 3 barbette and what would that have done to her trim?
I think this was brought up in one of the more recent videos and that the trim would have been severely effected because you are essentially removing a Fletcher from the aft and only putting a relative few tons in with the VLS. You might have to remove turret 2 and could extend some superstructure forward for an Admiral to counteract the weight differential.
@@panachevitz exactly
@@panachevitz they had similar design issues in the 50s with the NCs and SoDaks when they looked at trying to modernize them to keep up with the carriers.
I think to many programs about upgrading them still think in terms of them being battle ships. How much weight and space gets freed up if you remove the main cannons and secondary cannons. Put in some modern anti air. And what if these worked as smaller force projection ships with DRONEs. Lots and lots of them. Think in terms of WHAT can we do with the Hull. I think some of that old style armor might be good to protect against tactical speed boats full of IEDs. Or enemy drones and missile systems.
The problem with extensive modifications like that is you cross over into the territory of "it would be cheaper to build a new ship." And if you're removing the primary thing that differentiates battleships from modern warships, then there's no legitimate reason not to just build a new, purpose-designed ship instead.
always interesting channel
Advanced Combat Direction System (ACDS) was the successor to NTDS. It was installed on carriers and big-deck amphibs.
I doubt that CIC on a battleship was big enough for ACDS.
it truly doesnt matter what technology or upgrades could be added to these ships. they were very near the end of their useable life's. engineering machinery, plumbing, wiring, etc, etc, etc. for the cost of any upgrades that might get 5-10yrs more from the ships at most, could buy 2 or more tico's for each iowa upgrade, and get the full 25-30yrs from the new ships.
Actually, the Sea Sparrow is short range. the SM-2 MR is medium range and the SM-2 ER is long range
There was an anti-ship version of the Tomahawk, but it was canceled (for stupid reasons) With that, the Harpoon would be redundant.
You don't need sonar to carry ASROC, you just need to receive the targets location, you can then fire the missile to that location, and it will split apart dropping a homing torpedo which will then make a spiral search for the target
The 1980s TASM variant was cancelled, but the new Tomahawk variants are finally receiving anti-ship capability once again, and they have a much greater range than TASM.
@@bluemarlin8138 I know, that's what I said - it was stupid to cancel, but yes glad the navy finally has one coming out.
Ryan, the only Direction Finding system with the small "deck edge" antenna system you speak of that I am familiar with is a Radio Direction finding system that was mounted in Wasp class LHDs called "Combat DF," closely related to a system mounted in a number of cruisers and destroyers. That said, I don't believe Missouri or Wisconsin received it. It might be capable of detecting and tracking homing missile radars, but without the weapon or ECM systems to go along with it to either shoot down or actively jam those radars ... it would be all but useless.
Prior to Combat DF, the OUTBOARD system used a series of deck edge antennas as part of its Direction Finding system. CLASSIC OUTBOARD was AN/SSQ-108
Richard Landgraffs book has a quick section on this very thing including some drawing for the VLS system layout. Ill see if i can find a copy upstairs.
I remember him mentioning on a forum about having issues with access to the engine rooms but now i cant remember if that was with the VLS system or the aft ABL platform that was built.
There were plans for a VLS compatible Harpoon, but they were canned.
I don't think you'd ever get around the absolutely massive crewing requirements of a WW2-era design. Even the smaller 1980s complement required as many crew as 5-6 Ticonderoga-class cruisers
Sea Chaparral did go on some US FRAM (Gearing/Sumner) during Vietnam (some other interesting systems also trialed during Vietnam/70's was SOB (Shrike on Board - on racks above the ASROC box) and SMARTRoC (an LGB thrown from the ship by an ASROC rocket motor). Check out Sumner-Gearing-Class Destroyers: Their Design, Weapons, and Equipment by Sumerall for some data on Sea Chaparral and the others.
The mentioned 'Combat Direction Finding System' most likely would have been the DF antenna system from CLASSIC OUTBOARD AN/SSQ-72/108. Note - none of the four were ever fit with OUTBOARD
Mk23 TAS was also the primary anti-missile detection radar for the Spruance class - it would hand targets to the Sea Sparrow system - it was accurate enough for the purposes you mention. Good Mk23 TAS and OUTBOARD info in Electronic Greyhounds: The Spruance Class Destroyers by Potter.
Rolling Airframe Missile was in development in the 1980s, and test mountings were done in the late 1980s on some ships in Europe.
Wouldn't surprise me if that's indeed what was intended.
VLS Harpoon was planned, I think it was even fielded experimentally.
I’m curious what is the minimum skeleton crew to maneuver the ship.
I'm a big fan of your content from Austria and have two questions about the 16inch.
1) how far can the towers rotate? (360 degrees with the pipes set up?)
2) how are the towers supplied with electricity and water since they are movable?
#1: The turrets (towers) are capable of rotation as follows:
WW2/Korea/Vietnam, with the bow as reference point zero degrees: T1 and T2 can train left to 210 degrees and can train right to150 degrees; T3 can train left to 30 degrees and right to 330 degrees; maximum train speed is 4 degrees per second
1980s deployment: train limits were adjusted to keep 16" muzzle blast away from modern electronics/radars, thus the arcs are somewhat less
ruclips.net/video/1meGoM0xb9E/видео.htmlsi=Y6GJfkFVywHUcFfn&t=251
#2: This video explains electrical power to the turrets: ruclips.net/video/WMhc5RsDU3U/видео.html
The central pipe seen in the above video is to supply the turret with compressed air. The compressed air is used to clear the guns after firing and also to pressurize the ready water supply for firefighting as well as to charge the cylinders that return the gun back into battery after it recoils after shooting.
The primary connection between the ship's fire fighting water main and the turret fire fighting main is a hose connection as can be seen on the deck in this training video: ruclips.net/video/0OmOQs0ziSU/видео.htmlsi=_ok_TqM4iSdFPvcX&t=201
A number of the predictions from the 80s never actually materialized. Like the sea-based AMRAM that was going to upgrade/replace SeaSparrow.
I know this is the New Jersey comment page but since it seems to be the most popular one read I’d like to comment on the Iowa, I saw that they said they had no plans to ever dry dock her and I’m afraid she’ll be the first to go, I know there doing the floating dry dock but that can only do so much & she’s in salt water too, so what are they going to do when the sea chest start leaking or the bow starts leaking lower than they can get, remember when they dry docked Missouri and the water came pouring out of holes in the bow, I know Iowa’s in a bad place as far as finding a dry dock to fit, I think it would have to either be towed all the way to Hawaii and done there or towed through the Panama Canal and now that Panama has control over it I don’t think they will let it be towed through, that seemed to be the rush to get New Jersey back through right before Panama took complete control, but if a real dry dock doesn’t become available or on is built on the west coast in the next few years I’m very afraid Iowa will start to have problems that can’t be fixed.
6:20 Every military ship is a battleship, ever military aircraft is a fighter, and every tracked military vehicle is a tank.
Those accommodations for presumably AV-8B Harriers with a ski-jump and hangars are absolutely ridiculous. And I would’ve loved to see them on at least one hull in museum form. 😂
Would’ve been interesting to see how the development in shell technology like ramjet shells may have made the guns viable for longer.
You know, the whole carrier mod might not have between a bad idea but the wrong route. Picture instead, using the aft flight deck and hangers for... marine helicopter landing. Making the ship into a fast marine assault battleship. Using its big guns to clear landing areas for transport helos. 16 inch air burst just flattening landing sites the overpressure effects clearing mines, leveling trees
Something like that, but also replacing the aft turret, was studied in the 1950's.
Interesting.
I say they could've potentially received AN/SLQ-49 Chaff Buoy Decoy System, turbo-electric drive, VLS, and SM-2 Standard Missile.
I mean, the electronic targetting of a CAESAR self propelled howitzer make it HUGELY PRECISE with devastating effect, but at the core, it's a similar system, so, the electronic of a high end howitzer could be use in a batteship
And, oh boy, a 16" shell with the precision of a CAESAR? it would be an incredible update, and a very dangerous one for the adversary.
But well, it seems that in both side of the Atlantic, we're more looking into electronic catapult with 100+ km range (and the precision of Caesar with hundred time more effect) than 16" guns with modern electronic targeting
Here is what i remember in the early 80's. 82-85 USS INCHON LPH-12. Before going to Med, ship went to Norfolk Ship Yard, for 2 sponson CWIS add on. I remember Stinger Missile trained crews also.
Honestly, I don't know if any of this was available at the time they were considering the updates or not, but I would ....
- still remove turret 3
- ditch the hanger and VTOL runway idea in favor of spotting drones
- not use single launch vertical cells but instead use the type where it has a rotating turret with a launch rail and is mechanically reloaded from a silo kept below decks
I loved the Iowas as much as the next Battleship fan, but what could they have accomplished that couldn’t have been done better and cheaper than an Amphibious Assault Ship and Destroyers in the 90s and beyond?
Interesting , Thank You. Sadly , I think that upgrading the Battleships would have been time consuming and expensive . We Must not forget where does the Electric Power come From?
That might have been the biggest issue. It doesn't matter how many fun new toys you put on the ship if you can't actually turn them on.
@@lonnyyoung4285 And make her Move
That would of been their biggest constraint, as it’s currently the biggest constraint with the Burke’s and the reason for moving towards a larger design. In comparisons, a Flight III Burke generates 12 MW compared to an Iowa’s 10 MW.
@@redman2989 If I remember right that is about what the Aircraft Carriers from the 60's as in USS Ranger CV 61 were developing
Was there ever a proposal to build a new “modern” battleship? I know the many reasons they became mostly obsolete but I wonder if someone did the math on a lifetime of modifications and considered a new hull with modern tech.
I'd love to see one!
several, and mostly nothing but fancy and far too expensive for what you get. The problem with battlships is they can only really do one thing. Smaller and cheaper ships are more capable of doing more things for less money.
There was the concept of an "arsenal" ship with several hundred VLS back in the early 2000s but not a battleship per se. I don't think anyone is developing large caliber naval guns anymore with the possible exception of the 155mm gun on the Zunwalts, but the whole point of those guns was to fire ammo that was never fully developed.
If you're going to put a lot of VLS and some 5 inch guns on a ship, you might as well update the Ticonderogas for current technology.
@panachevitz I wonder if it would be possible to convert either a container ship or a super tanker in a a VLS ship. Sure, it would require a fleet of Burkes and Virginias to keep it from getting sunk (and possibly a super advanced laser point defense system), but can you imagine how many missiles you could launch from one of those ships? And people thought the SSGNs were scary. Everyone and their brother would know it was coming, but even if you evacuate a city, how much does it matter if one ship (supported by a bunch of others) simply deletes that city?
@@lonnyyoung4285 that's an interesting idea, but I think the hull design would work against it. One thing that military ships have is compartmentalisation and the ability to seal off sections to prevent flooding. I remember watching a new container ship getting launched sideways in a river (wasn't overly big) but I was struck at just how empty it is. There really isn't much keeping the sea out, they really are just giant U-shaped vessels with nothing inside. Makes great for holding things, but not so great if you get a hole in one. You do have an interesting idea, though, and it could be worth exploring. Or maybe the next thing will be a much smaller drone carrier with a 1000 drones of all types on it, both air and sea based. Who knows? The future is before us! :)
im interested in the advanced very long range pgm shells that were slated to be introduced and just how such weapons could have been useful in the last 30 years of conflicts.
I think the best way to keep the ships would have been to eliminate turret 3 and install VLS banks in the aft. Now you can also add systems in the aft area that were prohibited from the turret over-blast since they are just up at the front now. Then also upgrade the power system and CEC/CIS areas as well.
Thinking a bit more, it really provides a nice Hi-LO mix of weapons with cheap 16" shells and expensive missiles in one ship. One heavily armored ship.
This would severely effect the trim of the ship tho, removing a massive amount of turret weight and replacing it with a comparatively light missile system. I think he discussed this with Drach in a previous vid
I would be interested to hear how a new battleship built from the ground up would look.
They'd be more akin to battlecruisers size wise. Gas turbine or nuclear power. Stealth propellers. Composite armor. Built in helicopter hanger. Airborne drone station. Underwater aquatic drone station. VLS, SeaRAM, and possibly RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile box launchers. Odin disabling lasers. DragonFire naval lasers. Microwave anti-drone guns. 5"/54 Caliber Mark 45 or twin frontal 16" guns with guided shells. Bushmaster 2 automatic 30mm anti-drone and boat guns. Nulka and Naval Decoy IDS300 missile countermeasures. Ultra Electronica Ocean Systems ADC MK2 Torpedo countermeasure. An/Spy-6 3D Radar. AN/SLQ-32 Electronics Suite.
Perhaps the addition of Rheinmetall Millennium 35mm last defense gun and Bofors 40mm MK4.
European ships would likely forgo the separate missile and torpedo countermeasures in favor of SEA Ancilia countermeasure. Not to mention having their own electronic suites and 3D radars. They may also have potential interest in secondary Leonardo 76/62mm guns.
They exist. They look like guided missile cruisers. Battleships as almost universally understood - 'ships using both substantial armour for defence and big projectile weapons for offence' have been obsolete for naval warfare for somewhere between 74 and 80 years. Handy for a bit of near-coast bombardment if you already had them and could afford the luxury of maintaining and crewing them - $B5 for 1980s refit + $M380 per year in todays money for 4 Iowas, according to USN figures. So not what anyone would have built new for that job.
I've always looked at the Battleship as an alternative to an large, expensive aircraft carrier in a location, such as the Persian Gulf. I imagine Iran, sending out their gunboats to attack navy patrol craft and a Battleship going in, sinking the gunboats and then firing on their launch facilities with the 16 in. guns. Cheaper to do this with firepower than air power, and a Battleship is much easier to protect. The cruise missiles could also accomplish much the same as a limited air strike. As far as I know, we never launched an air strike against Iran after they attacked our patrol craft and took hostages. A Battleship, on the other hand, could have gone in there and eliminated the support facilities for them with their 16 in guns, relatively cheaply. I could be wrong, there may be more to this than I think. Comments?
One short range Anti-Air missile that has been used by the US Navy are the shoulder fired missiles Redeye and Stinger, of which at least the Redeye was in service before the reactivation of the ships.
You've got to imagine that the Aero-Battleship would make for the ultimate LHA.
One thing never mentioned is metallurgy and materials technology. Them ships were made with the best steels available at the time. Materials have come a long way since then. For example you’d now walk away from a modern car crash that would have left you dead in that era.
If you truly wanted a battleship, better to build a new one from scratch with new materials and new technology. You cold have the same capability with 1/3 manpower and a better ship.
The Harpoon can absolutely be launched from VLS. Not sure where you got that bit of info, but I believe it is incorrect.
What aircraft for that runway set up, and can planes land?
I'd imagine Harrier 2 Jump Jets would've been possible for that battleship configuration back in the day.
If they had gone with that more toned down version of the battle carrier and they still saw service today, they'd either reserve the landing pad for drones these days or the ship would essentially be relabeled as an amphibious gun assault carrier; with the back area redesignated for helicopters.
As for modern US non-helicopter aircraft that could potentially still be able to land on the back deck; V-22 Osprey.
Replacing turret3 and it's magasines as well as the boilers with a fission reactor or two in order to extend operational range and use it as a test bed for electromagnetic range extension of conventional guns, railgun experiments and directed energy countermeasures.
Recently in World of Warships Legends they have added these hybrid battleships
A hybrid Iowa class battleship-carrier would have been interesting to see.
You get that in the video game "world of warship" with the louisianna
Regarding removing the harpoons, They might have been thinking that with anti ship tomahawks (I assume they were expected? I wanna say these don’t exist even now in service) they could hit them with the tomahawks if they were out of gun range and then just use the guns if they were in gun range. They are what you keep an Iowa around for after all.
The B variant of the tomahawk was an anti ship version that was withdrawn from service in 1994. Raytheon has been working on a dual land attack and anti ship version, which is part of the Block IV upgrades. This version entered service in 2021.
Dreams. Shes a museum now. Let NJ and her sisters enjoy their well earned retirement.
To those with these ideas....draw it up and post it.
Nothing could have saved the battleships from their expensive labor intensive steam power.
Lasers, VLS, Nuclear reactors, low observable superstructure, maybe rail guns if they had gotten them working or at least dump the 16inchers and put some of the 5 inch guns, or upgrade to 8 inch, back on for shore gunnery support. I expect that to modernize them at this point would require such an extensive rebuild that it would be cheaper to just build brand new from scratch.
That's essentially a new ship, lol!
@@panachevitz which is what I said.
If the Navy could ever solve the railgun problem or just develop a guass cannon, that would be fun. The power requirements for that would be crazy. Where's the fusion reactor when you need it?
Missouri props did not get it as it was mostly deployed when in fleet with Wisconsin
If a VLS system was going to be used why couldn't a Mark 57 VLS be used in place of 5 inch guns? The Mark 57 VLS is used on the Zumwalt and is installed on ship's periphery.
I think the only thing that they could have done that no other ship could do better and cheaper is to develop an extended range precision shell for the 16 inch gun. Maybe something rocket assisted that has the same range as the Harpoon.
I’m waiting for capacitor, railgun, and laser tech matures enough to bring back the battleship with lasers for CWIS/SHOAD , nuke power plant and rail guns for anti ship, land attack and fire support as well as limited medium anti aircraft .
Some cruise missiles for 1000+ nm range attack.
Until the tech matures the battleships will have to lay in weight
MAYBE HAVING THE 5''|38S WITH ENOUGH MK-75 OTO|MELARA 3'' GUNS THEY WERE FASTER FIRING AND THEY'RE ONLY MANNED BELOW THE OTO-MELARAS
*...Give them to USMC.
Replacing the propulsion with nuclear, dropping a turret, adding Aegis radar and VLS then giving it THAAD anti-satelite missiles to blind enemy recon when war starts. Then replace half 5 inch guns with modern guns like the rapidfire 76mm or 50mm guns developed by NATO allies the other half should become RAM/Sidewinder equivalent in VLS or Rail-pedestal equivalent. Replace the fire control stations with laser and optical scan for close in threats and convert the turrets over to mass driver/ railguns as they become available with modern systems.
Ryan nothing new could have stopped decomming their engines were wore out and a refit couldn't be justified budget wise
I'm half surprised Reagan never pushed thru funding from Congress to just build a brand new Battleship class fresh from the keel up. Either the (a bit too silly) "Battle Carrier" concept or more conservative missile armed big gun battlewagon that maybe carries a few extra planes... Now that would have been cool, as awesome as the Iowas were and are, an 80s new sheet Montana (or whatever) class that properly integrated all the upgrades instead of bolting stuff on the outside... now that would have been pretty damn awesome. (and would really be the only effective way to bring back Battleships for 2024/25 and beyond, heck maybe make them nuclear powered capital ships, BBGNs, or even conventional powered, vs just trying to keep stretching nearly century old vessels more and more)
If I was going to build a new Battleship, I would go for a slightly updated version of the Mississippi (BB-23) Class, but eliminate the 7 inch casemated guns and replace the turreted 8 inch guns with 6 inches (or actually, 155mm) guns. Eliminate the coal fired engines with turbogenerators like the Arleigh Burkes, and do what you can to both increase the speed and increase the station keeping capability. That would be a ship capable of providing the fire support the Marines need, and can really use.
82 election republicans lost too many representatives and the democrats fought regan on everything
VLS requires a return to a secure stockpoint to reload the empty cells. A waste of time to speculate about sensors, weapons systems, engineering upgrades, communications capabilities, flag spaces, shipyard availability, budgeting and force utilization. Enjoy the museum ships for the educational and entertainment opportunities they provide. We can't currently field a fleet of 300 active duty ships and keep them operating beyond 30 years at current budget levels.
I read that they are FINALLY working on replenishing VLS cells while underway. In my opinion this is long overdue!
Ever notice people really like the idea of operating these ships? We could do it. Not a bit cost effective but really useful and effective. I'm sure the Navy would find a way to fit these ships into their operations. If the Marines had their way, they would Own Them. Fast, well armored, capable of accepting the most modern naval systems and in excellent material condition. These ships were mothballed with an eye towards reavtivation. I don't care if they ever reactivate again but it is really cool that they realistically Could Be.
If i could reactivate One? Texas. To her D-Day, World War Two configuration. Everything Working, Everything Fixed. Operate her for a year, or so Then, remothball her with the Rudder Straight! A Big Hit at RIMPAC that Year.
Someone is gonna do it in Sea Power. It's just a matter of time.
along with the advanced shells......a nuclear power upgrade.
Re: your final question,I don't think any of them provided value and that is why they did not do them.
Iowa not having t2 explode
sabotted 13" shells on a 16" gun, that would have been wiiiiiillld
These ships may have continued on to maybe the mid 90s but would have been pretty obsolete buy then, 50yrs is pushing the life span on any ship, navy would have been throwing there money away
Became dinosaurs
Wave-motion gun. ;)
I cant see justifying pushing these ships ny further than they did. There shore bombardment role was tenuous at best in an age of precision guided munitions and minimal colateral damage and the idea that you can just cut a ship open and drop a new generator and turbine set in it is optimistic at best. At that point you might as well just build a new ship itd be the same price anyway.
They could've built a brand new Wasp-class LHD AND a Ticonderoga cruiser for the same $2 billion that would've cost. 🤣
If worried about warn out propulsion and not enough electrical generation, what about a powerplant swap, they did it to the qe2 liner in the eighties, pulled all the old engines and boilers out through the funnels, might be a bit more complicated on a battleship because of armour. Program on re-engineering qe2 from eighties:
ruclips.net/video/r1KSFQfHMMQ/видео.html
Four electric motors, one per shaft and four sets of diesels, would make it cheaper to run a battleship and less manpower intensive aswell.
Minovsky particles could've saved the battleships, lol. No more radar guidance for missiles, everything reverts back to optical sights so guns become useful again, haha.
nuclear powered 700 foot ship with 8 inch belt and bulkheads, nuclear reactor hundreds of missile launchers and drone launchers would make a great battleship. More for showing off but would be a great warship.
Battleships are too much of a threat to the carrier admirals 🫡 Only room for one capital ship in this navy!! regardless the value of a capital surface warfare combatant!! 😔 Marines sure loved the battleships like the army the A-10’s
Really ? Despite it being ~80 years since the 2 most well armed & armoured BBs ever built were stopped dead in their tracks without getting even close to in-range of their enemies capital ships by ..... carrier aircraft. Iowa's had a role as shore bombardment only because they already existed and there was no threat from enemy carriers or missiles (or they could have been protected by such a threat by their own carrier or missile cruiser forces) They'd never have been built new just for that role.
Just look at any war ship of the 90s how were they equipped, battleships were probably be set up the same way
Makes sense SM-2 and VLS would've been attempted as early 90s upgrades.
AN/SLQ-49 Chaff Buoy Decoy System was deployed on some US and UK warships at the time.
I've often wondered if they'd experiment with things like depleted uranium tips for bunker busting shells.
Can neither confirm or deny.
Not many bunkers can withstand a shell weighing a ton
Yank out the old boilers and propulsion system and convert it to nuclear power just like the carriers, remove the 2nd turret, replace with tomahawk missles, remove 5 inch guns and replace with sea sparrow or other missle defense systems and let it rip. Its a shame these ships weren't modified and kept in service because theyre basically impossible to recreate.
Surface ships are obsolete , navy brass have told us that the carriers would last a few days at sea and a few weeks moored at US ports
@dan0711123 That's because they dont have the armor like iowa class battleships. The Russians even admitted they feared Iowa class battleships because they had no way to sink them.
@@turdferguson2839 They will sink and are obsolete like all surface warships. Remember the "unsinkable battleship" Yamato ?
@@dan0711123 we have surface to air missiles and other defensive capabilities that didn't exist 90 years ago.
Converting it to nuclear power would risk the structural integrity of the ship. None of her existing compartments are large enough for a reactor or generator. This means you would have to move, or remove, the bulkheads to enlarge the compartments to fit the reactor and generator. These bulkheads are load bearing bulkheads which support the weight of the hull upon itself. Moving these would be altering the calculated weight on the hull and no good naval engineer would guarantee that this would not have adverse affects.
rail guns and nuclear power
After getting some of these upgrades, I like to see the look on their faces, if a n Iowa was t o Sail into the Black Sea, right up behind some Russian ships?😮😂😂😊
I really think if Ryan told u that alls four Iowa class battleships was returning to service to mess with some u, and with new naval high tec rail guns alone, some u would believe it, like kids nots wanting to see them retire ands as great museum WW2 history now only. Get over its, they are obsolete in modern warfare. To says least.
Good Days
From USMC Veteran
One interesting proposed upgrade would be to upgrade her existing engines and to replace her 16 in guns with ICBM missiles and other types of defensive and offensive missiles.
I love battleships. I really, really love battleships. All of them, of every era.
I also love the warships of the Napoleonic era. Wooden frigates, ships of the line, clouds of sail!
And you know what else the two have in common? By 1990, they were equally obsolete. No amount of money spent on the BB's in the '90's could have made them half as effective as a dozen new ships costing about the same amount of money.