Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Battleship New Jersey recalled to service


Recommended Posts

I am both lol and so glad it's a joke.  So many people with their 'bring back the big boys with guns and armor' and fail to understand how that thing is more of a liability in the modern environment.  It is a museum, the best use of those ships in this age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, UnleashtheKraken said:

I am both lol and so glad it's a joke.  So many people with their 'bring back the big boys with guns and armor' and fail to understand how that thing is more of a liability in the modern environment.  It is a museum, the best use of those ships in this age.

I Dunno modern anti-ship missiles couldn't cause any serious structural damage outside of a nuke, no one intends to need to penetrate 14in Armor belts anymore, they'd be great for shore bombardment duties and cheaper than missiles, a 16in shell costs $2000, vs a Missile at a Million a pop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Candle_86 said:

I Dunno modern anti-ship missiles couldn't cause any serious structural damage outside of a nuke, no one intends to need to penetrate 14in Armor belts anymore, they'd be great for shore bombardment duties and cheaper than missiles, a 16in shell costs $2000, vs a Missile at a Million a pop

Bunker buster bombs are a thing, and would easily deal with the deck armor.  Laser point, drop, b'bai.  The modern ones could be set to detonate against the bottom of the hull.  There are other ways to do shore bombardment, with more effective ships that are also less expensive to run.  I know people romanticize the big gun battleship but we have progressed past them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a bomber to get near it would mean all sorts of things have gone wrong, because a BB would never travel on its own, during their 80's commission they had escorts to engage air targets ect, a bunker buster would also sink a carrier and that's why the big ships have escorts. Congress still want the Navy to get shore bombardment figured out the Zumwalt was supposed to fill this role but the Navy in typical Navy Fashion had to design a ship way over budget with experimental tech and create a non functional weapons system that is the biggest waste of money ever seen in the US Navy. There is a reason the BB's are discussed being brought back, because we need the shore bombardment duties they provide, a Shell can't be intercepted, they are cheap, and you can carry alot more. 5in guns on modern navy ships however are all but useless for shore bombardment, if I had a reinforced bunker on the shore I'd laugh at the modern 5in 62, because it could never hope to do damage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Candle 86 on this one. The 80s refit allowed for some pretty modern advancements to the Iowas. If a second, even more modern refit happened the Iowas could I guess get the Aegis system and they would once more become part of a carrier's AA screen as well as a significant ship to shore powerhouse.

(BTW the russians have the Kirov class battlecruisers which played a part in the 80s reactivation of the Iowas.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Captain Basilone said:

I'm with Candle 86 on this one. The 80s refit allowed for some pretty modern advancements to the Iowas. If a second, even more modern refit happened the Iowas could I guess get the Aegis system and they would once more become part of a carrier's AA screen as well as a significant ship to shore powerhouse.

(BTW the russians have the Kirov class battlecruisers which played a part in the 80s reactivation of the Iowas.)

They can't get Aegis they looked at that in the 80's, the over pressure from the guns was to much, same reason she didn't get other systems, some of it was to fragile, but that's why she had escorts to begin with. 

USS Iowa (BB-61) and Battle Group in formation, 1987. Ships left to right: USS Dewey (DDG-45); USS Ticonderoga (CG-47); USS Iowa (BB-61) and USS Deyo (DD-989), and USS Paul (FF-1080)

 

330-CFD-DN-ST-88-00265: USS Iowa (BB-61) and Battle Group in formation, 1987. (navy.mil)

 

Thats the Battle group for USS Iowa in 1987, similar in type and amount in the 80's for a carrier battlegroup.

 

In a 2020's refit we could except at least one Ticonderoga Crusier, 2-4 Destroyers, and likely 1-2 Submarines to be part of the Surface Battlegroup for an Iowa, and yes it can shoot down alot of stuff, including fighter bombers that carry bunker busters. 

 

File:Battle Group Alpha (Midway, Iowa) underway, 1987.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

 

Here is Iowa operating with Midway. 

Edited by Candle_86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would be real problems with bringing them back.  The vast majority of the surface navy other than carriers use gas turbines for power.  The BBs use boilers.  There aren't many Boiler Techs remaining, if any. Can't really cut thru armored decks to replace the engineering plant.  Its not just the boilers that would have to come out, its the steam turbines as well.  Then there are the other systems that are use steam to work.

They also need Gunner's Mates for the guns.  I would imagine that there are none remaining who are qualified on 16 in guns.  The manuals are still there, but experience is needed to teach.  

I am sure there are plenty other systems and personnel issue that would need to be resolved as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mike L said:

There would be real problems with bringing them back.  The vast majority of the surface navy other than carriers use gas turbines for power.  The BBs use boilers.  There aren't many Boiler Techs remaining, if any. Can't really cut thru armored decks to replace the engineering plant.  Its not just the boilers that would have to come out, its the steam turbines as well.  Then there are the other systems that are use steam to work.

They also need Gunner's Mates for the guns.  I would imagine that there are none remaining who are qualified on 16 in guns.  The manuals are still there, but experience is needed to teach.  

I am sure there are plenty other systems and personnel issue that would need to be resolved as well.

Blue Ridge Class Command Ships, and Wasp Class, now they both use Geared Steam Turbines like the Iowa, 600PSI boilers though with automatic features that could be retrofitted onto the Iowa's and was looked at doing at the time, so yes it can be done, so boiler techs are good, as for gunner's mates, they didn't really have anyone in the 80's either that where qualified on 16in guns, the last all big gun ship in the Navy prior to the 1980's inactivation was the USS Newport News with 8in Auto Loading guns, the last time anyone was rated on the 16in guns was in Vietnam in the 67 deployment. They'd have to learn to shoot them again yes, but they did it in the 80's they can do it again, same goes for the 5/38, no one is rated for it anymore, but you can relearn the guns, the manuals exist to do it. Honestly do I think the Navy would bring an Iowa back? No not really, do I think if Congress order them to reacquire them under the terms of the sale agreement and order them to get them back into the fleet and operational that they could? Yes I do, and do I think they'd be a liability, no not if used for shore bombardment. The truth is the world is getting angry again, and right now we don't have the ability to shore bombard, something like Normandy would be way worse today because we have no way to offer fire support outside of the 5in guns on destroyers, which don't have the ability to destroy fortifications, and unlike in the 1940's, AA has gotten way better, meaning bombers and fighter bombers would be decimated by good SAM coverage, so would missiles, because they can also be intercepted, on the other hand a 2ton shell isn't going to really care if you hit it with a CWIS like 30mm gun like the Russians use, it will just smile back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...