@@RolandHulmeIf video games and YT channels are any indication, interest in WWII is still going strong among us younger people (even if unfortunately some of them are deciding to also believe that either Hitler was right or Stalin should have taken Western Europe as well).
This channel is great, I have loved ships all of my life and value the insight given about the husbandry of a museum battleship. You folks have done an amazing job looking after New Jersey, well done!
I served on the New Jersey as BM3 when she was brought into the Long Beach Naval Shipyard and was there for recommissioning with President Reagan onboard. What a proud moment it was for the crew! I always suspected that the deployment of Tomahawk missiles was the main factor in bringing her back. Thank you for clarifying the fact!
Perhaps for you, but I can remember a computer technician who had worked for the U.S. Navy, that gave a presentation in my computer programming class (in junior high school). He discussed computer programming the ballistics tables for the main guns.
I would love to see a side video on the history, long term storage, and reactivation issues with the main guns and their ammo, power bags...that sort of thing. where was the ammo kept? i understand the barrels were kept in nevada, but were there issues when the ships were reactivated?
My memory has been recharged, I was stationed on the USS HORNET CVS12 in 1969. We were in Long Beach naval station at Peer E, tided up behind us was a battle ship, I don’t remember for certain but I think it was the Missouri. Even better about a block away was the Howard Hughes Spruce Goose! Three famous antiques all together in one place, what a time to be alive. Thank you Brian for your work getting this information out to the younger generation.
I will always maintain that keeping turret #3 and her sixteen inch guns was the proper coarse of action as the Navy had and has other platforms for the aviation and Aegis capabilities. The thing that made the Battleships unique is their 16 inch main battery guns. I do believe that when they were last in commission the Navy began exploring increasing the range of the main battery with rocket assisted shells and sabot shells to as much as 100 nautical mile range. Additional missile capability was also contemplated including VLS systems.
With VLS it would be easier to start over then refit but I do think it is overdue for a new Battleship design with a shift from the main guns to missile boxes and adding a smaller landing assault carrier setup aft for special and secondary ops. Go nuclear drive and add rail/energy mounts to fill the role of the old 16" without the large powder rooms. Also would get rid of the forward weak spot at turret one.
I agree. The Japanese, out of desperation, put carrier decks on their older battleships in WW2 (IJN Hyuga & Ise). This only made them into poor light carriers and poor battleships. Do one or the other, but don't try and make a hybrid. It only makes a weak version of both. 😂
@@tyree9055 Depends on the Hybrid. Historically various cruiser classes has always filled out the roles of battleships but as a cheaper more numerous substitute. Some even matched battleships in some part of the design triad of speed, armour and firepower. The equal in sail would be the second and third rates. Due to the changes in weapon systems the big guns are obsolete and creates a weakness. To design a new battleship today when the only first rates are decades obsolete you look to the classes that fill the role and scale back up. The new ship should equal 2-3 times the missile cruiser filling that role today. Also with the added size secondary mission capabilities should be added. Today the cruisers, frigates and destroyers all include at least a fan tail landing as did the old Iowas. Modeling the aft on the Landing assault carrier (scaled down) gives a great degree of operational flexibility both with or independent of the main force. 4-6 VSTOL or Helicopter craft aboard with a hanger, (no runway ramp) Plus below a well for smaller landing craft, while not the equal of the landing assault carriers would be able to take on smaller special ops activities that the LACs are wasted for when needed for the big landings. We also no longer have escort carriers that could be built two for one of the "gold platers" The US has been downsizing when they need to be growing and the coastal only ships they spent the last 2 decades on are useless for any navy needing to cross whole oceans to fight, plus full of other problems due to wanting total novel designs not building on past proven concepts. The aluminum hulls that dissolve in salt water and prone to metal fatigue needing drydocking in months instead of years was a further issue they had. Back to the missile BB with some traditional secondaries and nuclear drive could mount some energy/rail weapons for the slugging of the old big guns and aft could be atop the center of the hanger and forward either just fore or aft of the VLS boxes.
One of the biggest and costly issue with reactivation was not potential capabilities but the total lack of spare parts, specially for the main engines, boilers, and auxiliary Diesels. The same problem existed and was even worse with the reactivation of the two proposed heavy cruisers.
The USN surface fleet is in rough shape - with the littoral, zumwalt and tico disasters. The USN basically has no shore bombardment to support amphibious landings. If however unlikely the Iowas are reactivated it will only be two - The NJ and the WI with the MO and Iowa being spare parts ships.
The Navy was wanting to (with support from SF) to home port Missouri and her group is SF. Due to a lot of “Say No to Big Mo” demonstrations, this never was realized. But at least I got to see the Missouri under her own power and docked in SF before decommissioning.
Weapons technology has increased exponentially to the point that anything above the waterline is at extreme risk. Protecting the super carriers is priority #1. Assembling the naval fleet for potential conflicts is becoming quite complex.
I mean it isn't missile spawm and in case of emgency make a new supoer battleship class to sherve the exte same rile the Iowas did their whole carrers... Pretty much the MMORPG tank to thge suuper carrers mages... Like why the USN is busy wasting money on vaty proijects to kmaby save some penneys in the future when the alyberctt class is good enough and we massive neee battleships now if we need to take WW3 over to the axis of evil after we kick them out of our side of the planet!
Also to explain the perfect complamnt to modern naval avtion and surface to land missles is a battleship running point force the enempe to make a desition... Kill the battleship which I hgly doudt the axis of Evil can do with the airfleet and missile spawn the destroes have now and battleships with modern armor would likely be inpentrble to their weapons... Or kill the carrers get a moral victoy but they now have an angry battleship and desiries babombed their cost... Which yess with railguns or back words compatible ramjetshells.. a modern super battleship design would easly out range current day USN avation even with F-18s and DRone refulers... Much less the F-3t which is a point defense faighter at that point.... So yeah like I said we neeed a new super battleship inservce 10 years ago... But no the USN wewasted an insatne amnountyt of money on platfoms that would have nbever replaced the berk! That easly could have been spent on a new super battleship classe as unlike aircraft career Battleships by compation are much easier to design and make given how much more simpler they are... Also they don't need jet fuel or their own weapons and matance and personal battleship guns just need a few frew,matance and allot iof dirt cheap ammo!
My grandfather was due to Retire from the Navy Aug of 81.. that was put on hold from the Navy and he was retaned to train the modern Navy how to use the 16ich guns and maintain them . He served on the New Jersey from May 82 to Oct 85. Then went to the Missouri and did the same .. finally retireing out in June of 87 GMCM (SW) 1952 to 1987. Passing away in 2017 at age 89
I remember reading about the return of the battleships when waiting for a train in Melbourne with my brother. I didn’t know the difference between a battleship and a destroyer. My brother replied (dismissively) “destroyers are small”.
The reason the sea control ship died was that we already had them. They were called LHAs. The Navy tested the SCS concept on these platforms with all AV-8B airwings. The Navy revisted the concept with the "Lightning Carrier."
Battleships like the Iowa's, with the flight deck for aircraft like AV-8s or F-35s are something the Marines would Love to Own, Rent, Beg, Buy, Barter or Steal. Three 5" or 6" autoloading Guns. Per side. All of the goodies. High tech stuff like lasers, missile cells and anything else useful. Any weight needed aft, to replace the weight of the turret and it's equipment, comes from the Armored Flight Deck. Automation could reduce crew size and provide a lot of excess berthing. This could be useful. Leave the Steam plant and the Main Guns and their Directors mostly alone. Maybe do the hull modifications to eliminate vibrations. Develop custom 16" designer projectiles of all flavors. Wait. The Marine in the background just said: "just bring Plenty Of High Capacity!" I hope that the flight deck is not done. If you have to build one? Iowa. Just Not New Jersey or Missouri! In the unlikely but possible event of reactivation? I say, keep the turrets. The Navy could even borrow them from the Marines for actual naval warfare from time to time. They'll Never be Reactivated? Perhaps not. But......
You should also look at the political impact of the nuclear "cruisers" built in the 60s and 70s. The quotes are because they were originally frigates till the 75 reclassification. This impacted what Congress was willing to spend money on when the Navy said "cruiser". And the reclassification would also be interesting to learn more about, the Navy promoted destroyers/frigates to cruiser to close the cruiser gap with the USSR.
I remember seeing an article in Proceedings, in the 1985-1990 timeframe, about creating cruisers with a single Mark 7 turret forward of the island and Tomahawks aft. This would provide a use for all of the turret 3s that would be bereft of a home should any of the options to massively modify these ships ever bear fruit.
I have always thought it was a waste to deactivate these ships without a proper replacement. The Navy still lacks a proper replacement. They seem to have gotten into a very bad habbit with this. They failed to produce a proper replacement for the gun ships when they first deactivated them in the '70s. They deactivated the Mk-13 from the OHPs with no proper replacement, and they deactivated the OHPs themselves with no proper replacement. Having watched this, I think instead of putting forth a phase 2 upgrade for the Iowas, they should have started a program to produce a proper replacement for them. Perhaps we would have them by now, instead of a couple of gun-less gun ships and a bunch of aluminum bathtub toys.
OK Several points - See the Wikipedia article on "United States Navy 1975 ship reclassification"- uncertain if he directly mentioned this but good and relevant. Next just my reaction to the video at 4:15 - US Navy Sailors - mid 1970s. reflects some of Admiral Zumwalts poorer decisions- he had a Lot of ideas- some great - a few "bombs". I believe part of the original idea for the Zumwalt class was to provide some improved guns for NGFS - but that ended up with too many problems.
In these kinds of situations, there are interrelated concerns. A reactivated ship (of any kind) requires a crew. A crew needs training. That again needs an available vessel of a relevant kind and in active state. You can hardly train a ship crew on some school facility hundreds or thousands of miles away from sea. A crew and a ship go together like a hand and a glove. You might start with museum ships, but at some point you have to start real sailing.
Ryan, I swear I read somewhere years ago that when two of the Iowa were reinstated back on the Naval Register in 1996 that one of the reasons that Iowa was chosen over New Jersey is that Iowa had significantly more life left in her barrels as compared to New Jersey. That largely as a byproduct of her tour off Vietnam in 1968-69 where she fired over 5600 16-inch rounds something like 80% of the remaining life of her barrels/liners was gone. Is there any validity to this?
in early 1986 i was at great lakes ntc when we got our orders.i was the only one in class that got order's for the new jersey,another student recieved orders for the missouri.i had no idea what a battleship was i thought all ships were battle ships.i got out in 1989 & still have dream's i'm still.onboard the dreams are a.they won't let me out or b.they won't let me re-enlist.
The 5 inch is the most common main gun for Navy ships built today so those might be traded out in part but I doubt in all. However it would be much better to build new using the Iowa template as a starting point for the drafters. I would go for missile/landing assault carrier hybrid for a modern Battleship design with nuclear powered drive and primary rail/energy weapons aside the box launchers but a 5" and CWIS secondary defense battery would be included.
My question is. Has the Navy ever done, a “review” of the Iowa’s feasibility, since they have gone into “museum mode”. Even if if was just an arbitrary exercise for new engineering officers as training?
Actually, equipment has no expiration date or sell by date. Spend the money and do the upkeep and maintenance. A little expensive but not impossibly so.
As long as the Cold War was on and the Kirovs were in service with the Soviet Navy the Iowas probably stay in service with the US Navy, at least until maintaining their 1940s power plants becomes too expensive or otherwise impractical. The USCGC Mackinac, a custom-built icebreaker for the Great Lakes, was built during WW2 and decommissioned in 2006 (now a great museum ship) primarily due to her outdated power plant.
I have a buddy that was on the USS Cole when it was bombed in Oman. I understand why we can't reactivate it now. Naval drones make it even hairier. But still I dream...
Time frame wise, back in the 80's nobody carried a computer around in their pocket, and dial phones were still a thing. So yeah, the Iowa reactivation is history.
The USS Stark being hit by a missile led the Navy to realize that the BB structure was capable of a similar hit and only need sweepers to bring it back to service. This and need for NGFS in the Med and Persian Gulf as well as a stop gap to counter the USSR Kirov, was a good solution.
Ryan, very interesting video, but you kind of rushed at the end, not covering why they were deactivated again. I’m especially interested in what the impact of the explosion on the Iowa had on keeping these ships in service
Those could be RJ-45 (alias 8P8C) connectors in repeaters or routers to use the 1970s and 80s terms for ethernet. That technology has change quite a bit since then in software and the bandwidth speeds attainable. More likely a switchboard system re-used for changing information or controls just using 1/4" round TRS (alias guitar cord jack).
I'm pretty sure they had Ethernet on board in the 80s. Early-ish Ethernet, but Ethernet nonetheless. Ethernet was 10 Mbps even back then, pretty respectable for that day. It's been around since the mid 70s, though 100 Mbps "Fast Ethernet" didn't come about until 1995, a few years after the Iowas were retired. Personally, I enjoyed the name for the room with networked PCs for the sailors on Missouri. They called it "Monet."
Ok you baited me 😂. Wish they would do that now or copy the hull and make a modern version with modern auto loading 16 inch Shells and modern tech. And a vertical take off platform for a vertical takeoff version of yf - 22.
The fuel oil piping wasn’t addressed when they brought her out then last yard period before decommissioning. I believe the other Iowas learned from the mistakes the navy did on the New Jersey. They were more worried about weapon systems than her engineering plant.
Another idea that would be better to start over with a new build, I'm all for a Nuclear Powered updated Battleship but the Iowa class would take too much rebuilding. I do think they are a good template for the drafters to start with but loose the dated 16" then go missiles and rail/energy mounts. Aft add a landing assault force well and proper hangers for 4-6 VSTOL/Helicopter craft. Double up on the CWIS. Would consider reducing her outer belt a bit for speed and reinforcing the inner citadel to compensate with the shift away from big guns but more missiles/torpedoes.
I do wonder if removing even more of the Iowas 5 inch guns would’ve been better to replace them with Tomahawk/Harpoon launchers than straight up removing Turret 3? Keeping the foremost and aftmost secondaries and replace the middle ones with CIWS or missiles.
These battleships were made to both fire powerful armament, and survive being attacked by same. Wonder how well they can survive and prevail against modern missile ships? Can a missile knock out the super strong conning tower of an Iowa class? Is the fire control good enough for the 16" guns to easily hit the missile ships. There must have been studies on these things.
So ideally Zumwalt wanted a bunch of something along the lines of the Invincible class as well as the big ones. If that was what he wanted he may have had an export seller on his hands too. Basically nobody bar the US could or can afford super carriers but I'm betting the several smaller Nato and non-aligned counties would have been interested in an 'off the shelf' smaller one.
If money was never a factor and if for whatever reasons, we decided to keep all 4 of the Iowa's active to this day, they would still be the most powerful non-carrier warships afloat even in their current configurations and being around 80 years old! IMO, the U.S. Navy needs to rethink the idea of not wanting Battleships and seriously consider building a modern class of ALL BIG GUN Battleship before it's too late. A few Battleships would be able fill a LARGE gap in our capabilities... We need at least a few Battleships for use in what the Iowa's excelled at...heavy shore bombardment. Currently, we have nothing with a BIG GUN. With tensions rising around the world, I know I would be already planning for the next Pacific engagements.
I think with nuclear power the big gun is overrated, when a simple rail gun can do the same job with a 15lbs slug. (Not the over complicated forms the military has in R&D with shaped sabots and internal guidance or explosive equipment that increase cost and wear a hundred fold.) The barrel improvements from that program are valuable but the earlier rounds just fired a metal brick for the same impact that was cheaper to produce a dozen of than a single 16" round. Plus only required one person to load and fire.
@@charlesmaurer6214 I have a few comments: 1. One issue with constructing new ships with big guns is that much of the infrastructure and knowledge required for their fabrication has been lost due to decades of disuse. When the Iowas were constructed, the situation was the opposite: big caliber guns have been the norm for warships for many decades by that point: the production chains were already in place, there was a lot of experience in fabricating, using and maintaining them. The cost in time and resources for recreating all that would be prohibitive. 2. It's not totally clear to me if big gun ships are even tenable anymore, especially against peer or near-peer adversaries. The 20-mile range, even if extended with newer technology is not enough to counter threats with much longer ranges like modern anti-ship missiles and perhaps even drones. They could perhaps be useful for cheaply bombarding an adversary without these capabilities (like the houthis, perhaps) but for anything else, the risk for these expensive and crew-intensive vessels is probably too great. 3. About railguns: The big issue facing the development of these weapons the rails survive for only a few dozen shots using full power due to the friction caused by the movement of the slug, but also because of electrical arcing between the rails (like in arc welding, literally melting the rails away). The material science to fabricate better rails is just not there yet. That seems to be the main reason the USN halted its railgun program in 2021. But other countries like Japan, Germany, France and China are still working on the concept, so maybe these issues will get resolved in the future. If that happens, then maybe naval artillery could make a comeback.
Interesting to think of the 80s as history, even more difficult to realise it's true. It does seem amazing the US. can afford to keep so many ships for so long. Having said that the hull life of a WW2 capital ship is going to be a lot longer than more modern ones. The lowa class were a good fit for the role they played as well as being instantly recognisable and iconic around the World. I'm glad the full aviation conversion never happened.
what if there was a highbred battleship that was already built the 1940s would they recommission it with the Iowa's or would they not or an other option is just recommission the highbred battleship by its self
Off topic but I would love to see Ryan watch the movie Battleship, specifically where they reactivate Missouri and is in action, seeing his first reaction while watching.
While I love the Iowas they would have needed too much work to remain effective after 2000. The end of the cold war just brought it forward a few years.
The Navy should study the lessons of the reactivation of the IOWA Class Battleships during Korea, Vietnam & by Reagan. We spend 13.3 billion dollars to build a Ford Class Super Carrier multiplied by At least 10. So, the question is why can’t we build a nuclear powered Battle Cruiser or bigger. The Ford is designed to re design the interior offices of the ship to say totally refurbished a berthing areas for crew morale. The Zumwalts are a good start as they are NOT Destroyers but CRUISERS anyway. If you are not going to maintain a 4-600 ship Navy then you need to have assets that can be brought to life in a short period of time with little work or cost.
BBs will be so much more survivable than carriers with proper amount of modernisations, it's going to take more than a few missiles to put her out of action.
While the Iowas were kept active beyond what I think would have been best, the real failure was the lack of designs and ships to replace the voids as ships aged out, plus several bad designs pushed by contractors. The 2 Littoral Classes for example is totally useless for the US navy by design. The US Navy has no need for a coastal only vessel without the range to cross oceans on their own. The only ships in that class that makes any sense is something like the old PT Boat that can be based in theater and small enough to be carried or towed there. The Littorals were too big for transport and too small to make the trip. Also they were not designed with in theater basing and supply in mind requiring a return to the states to reload. Further we need at least three new navy owned shipyards able to handle the biggest of ships both in construction and repair. One on each coast and one in the gulf. Each should build a new Ford style Carrier, a new Landing Assault Carrier and 2 New Battleships that is part missile ship and part mini Landing Assault Carrier with some energy or rail gun weapons replacing the role of the old 16" guns. This first run of 12 ships should all be nuclear powered and a second run to be planned per decade with updates and upgrades. This would require 4 large slips and 4 large drydocks per yard that could have cost offsets with leasing half the space to a new merchant marine between major Navy runs. We need desperately to rebuild the supply ships the Navy needs and the ability to rapidly supplement them. A 4 new large classes should help fill this need, a oiler class, a ordinance cargo class, a troop transport and a vehicle transport class. The Navy should build one each per yard for themselves and then others for the merchant marine that are privately owned but under contract for service during war. An equal number of smaller slips and drydocks should be used to handle some updated Destroyer Escorts and scouting Frigates/Corvettes. A new Cruiser class and as well as 2 new types of subs should be added as well. I would recombine the 2 sub classes of Ohios to carry mixed loadouts in the new class, with a quarter to half remaining nuclear tubes on each sub. We also are close to needing an updated attack sub with drone and DSRV sub for multiple craft mounts/bays, perhaps even borrow an Russian idea from the old Typhoon Class with a pair of secondary side hulls with 2-3 bays each side. With such a wider attack sub a secondary drive system might be worth including for added maneuvering along with a larger twin torpedo bay/loadout. I really think we need a full pair of task groups off each coast and another pair posted to the Med and Indian ocean at all times. That requires 6 of each main capital ships at sea and an equal number ready in port plus a third equal number in reserve/refit. That is 18 active Carriers. 18 LA Carriers, 18 New Battleships, 18 Ohio or update, and twice that on the hunters for 36 for 72 primary ships divided in 6-8 active regional commands. While I focused on the larger ships I would aim for a thousand ship Navy with no more than half that as active support ships and equally sized merchant marine. Note each merchant class could act as either ferries or haul fuel/cargo during peace with reduced tariff/docking fees over any foreign craft by at least half.
Always follow the money guys: They had to be retired so that costlier new ships can be designed (but not built) for astronomical sum of taxpayer money, and continued to do so for decades. Reactivation? Modernisation of BBs? Where's the money in that? Let's say 2 billion x 4 ship, that is so little dough to go around...
Your videos are driving the Chinese crazy, they have no idea what we are doing. I think and believe that if war demanded it, at least one Iowa class would be reactivated.
Bring the battle ships back: Replace the engines with nuclear power plants ,16" shells with gps guidings and new powder with longer range ,new missiles, moore 30mm auto cannons, automatic loadings of the 16" guns ,etc
I really appreciate your efforts! Could you help me with something unrelated: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How should I go about transferring them to Binance?
The battlecruiser concept of operations is scouting force battlefleet and a cruiser killer. That was not the Kirovs' mission. The Kirovs' conops was very similar to the 1980s Iowa class -- the centerpiece of a surface action group.
Their day might be past but nothing is more impressive than 9 barrels throwing 10 tons of ordinance. And at the time anti ship missiles were not that good so the beast were intimidating. Now, even Vulcans are limited and missiles are everything
Hey Ryan, i have a bunch of old news papers from the late 80's and early 90's about the war and shows the battleships. Would you like those news papers for your collection? I want to donate them. I dont like throwing away history
Ryan, very interesting video, but you kind of rushed at the end, not covering why they were deactivated again. I’m especially interested in what the impact of the explosion on the Iowa had on keeping these ships in service
I’m beyond impressed someone my age (also born 1990) is the curator of such a fantastic ship and museum. Way to go Ryan.
Having had the opportunity to spend several hours with Ryan a few years ago. Ryan definitely is well suited for the job and earned it.
Ryan was born in 1990? If youngsters are still into learning about WWII, there's hope for us all.
@@RolandHulmeIf video games and YT channels are any indication, interest in WWII is still going strong among us younger people (even if unfortunately some of them are deciding to also believe that either Hitler was right or Stalin should have taken Western Europe as well).
Ryan is good, they found a gem, keep it up Ryan
This channel is great, I have loved ships all of my life and value the insight given about the husbandry of a museum battleship. You folks have done an amazing job looking after New Jersey, well done!
Agreed
I served on the New Jersey as BM3 when she was brought into the Long Beach Naval Shipyard and was there for recommissioning with President Reagan onboard. What a proud moment it was for the crew! I always suspected that the deployment of Tomahawk missiles was the main factor in bringing her back. Thank you for clarifying the fact!
Who is BM3?
The reactivation of the Iowas is as far in the past for us as the building of the ships for those who reactivated them. Fun thought 🤯
Perhaps for you, but I can remember a computer technician who had worked for the U.S. Navy, that gave a presentation in my computer programming class (in junior high school). He discussed computer programming the ballistics tables for the main guns.
I would love to see a side video on the history, long term storage, and reactivation issues with the main guns and their ammo, power bags...that sort of thing. where was the ammo kept? i understand the barrels were kept in nevada, but were there issues when the ships were reactivated?
1990 you make me feel old
"THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!" ;)
My memory has been recharged, I was stationed on the USS HORNET CVS12 in 1969. We were in Long Beach naval station at Peer E, tided up behind us was a battle ship, I don’t remember for certain but I think it was the Missouri. Even better about a block away was the Howard Hughes Spruce Goose! Three famous antiques all together in one place, what a time to be alive. Thank you Brian for your work getting this information out to the younger generation.
Thanks!
I will always maintain that keeping turret #3 and her sixteen inch guns was the proper coarse of action as the Navy had and has other platforms for the aviation and Aegis capabilities. The thing that made the Battleships unique is their 16 inch main battery guns. I do believe that when they were last in commission the Navy began exploring increasing the range of the main battery with rocket assisted shells and sabot shells to as much as 100 nautical mile range. Additional missile capability was also contemplated including VLS systems.
With VLS it would be easier to start over then refit but I do think it is overdue for a new Battleship design with a shift from the main guns to missile boxes and adding a smaller landing assault carrier setup aft for special and secondary ops. Go nuclear drive and add rail/energy mounts to fill the role of the old 16" without the large powder rooms. Also would get rid of the forward weak spot at turret one.
I agree. The Japanese, out of desperation, put carrier decks on their older battleships in WW2 (IJN Hyuga & Ise). This only made them into poor light carriers and poor battleships. Do one or the other, but don't try and make a hybrid. It only makes a weak version of both.
😂
@@tyree9055 Depends on the Hybrid. Historically various cruiser classes has always filled out the roles of battleships but as a cheaper more numerous substitute. Some even matched battleships in some part of the design triad of speed, armour and firepower. The equal in sail would be the second and third rates. Due to the changes in weapon systems the big guns are obsolete and creates a weakness. To design a new battleship today when the only first rates are decades obsolete you look to the classes that fill the role and scale back up. The new ship should equal 2-3 times the missile cruiser filling that role today. Also with the added size secondary mission capabilities should be added. Today the cruisers, frigates and destroyers all include at least a fan tail landing as did the old Iowas. Modeling the aft on the Landing assault carrier (scaled down) gives a great degree of operational flexibility both with or independent of the main force. 4-6 VSTOL or Helicopter craft aboard with a hanger, (no runway ramp) Plus below a well for smaller landing craft, while not the equal of the landing assault carriers would be able to take on smaller special ops activities that the LACs are wasted for when needed for the big landings. We also no longer have escort carriers that could be built two for one of the "gold platers" The US has been downsizing when they need to be growing and the coastal only ships they spent the last 2 decades on are useless for any navy needing to cross whole oceans to fight, plus full of other problems due to wanting total novel designs not building on past proven concepts. The aluminum hulls that dissolve in salt water and prone to metal fatigue needing drydocking in months instead of years was a further issue they had. Back to the missile BB with some traditional secondaries and nuclear drive could mount some energy/rail weapons for the slugging of the old big guns and aft could be atop the center of the hanger and forward either just fore or aft of the VLS boxes.
this is amazing, thank you for sharing !!
One of the biggest and costly issue with reactivation was not potential capabilities but the total lack of spare parts, specially for the main engines, boilers, and auxiliary Diesels. The same problem existed and was even worse with the reactivation of the two proposed heavy cruisers.
The USN surface fleet is in rough shape - with the littoral, zumwalt and tico disasters.
The USN basically has no shore bombardment to support amphibious landings.
If however unlikely the Iowas are reactivated it will only be two - The NJ and the WI with the MO and Iowa being spare parts ships.
This was an excellent video. Great info. Would be interesting to see the back and forth in these subcommittee meetings during the debate.
Excellent Ryan You’re really informative look forward to the next video
Awesome and very informative segment! Well done! Thank you!
The Navy was wanting to (with support from SF) to home port Missouri and her group is SF. Due to a lot of “Say No to Big Mo” demonstrations, this never was realized. But at least I got to see the Missouri under her own power and docked in SF before decommissioning.
Very true.. they even built the ship prier for her on TI
Very curious but pleased to see the USS Indianapolis hat behind Ryan in the video.
Weapons technology has increased exponentially to the point that anything above the waterline is at extreme risk. Protecting the super carriers is priority #1. Assembling the naval fleet for potential conflicts is becoming quite complex.
I mean it isn't missile spawm and in case of emgency make a new supoer battleship class to sherve the exte same rile the Iowas did their whole carrers... Pretty much the MMORPG tank to thge suuper carrers mages... Like why the USN is busy wasting money on vaty proijects to kmaby save some penneys in the future when the alyberctt class is good enough and we massive neee battleships now if we need to take WW3 over to the axis of evil after we kick them out of our side of the planet!
Also to explain the perfect complamnt to modern naval avtion and surface to land missles is a battleship running point force the enempe to make a desition... Kill the battleship which I hgly doudt the axis of Evil can do with the airfleet and missile spawn the destroes have now and battleships with modern armor would likely be inpentrble to their weapons... Or kill the carrers get a moral victoy but they now have an angry battleship and desiries babombed their cost... Which yess with railguns or back words compatible ramjetshells.. a modern super battleship design would easly out range current day USN avation even with F-18s and DRone refulers... Much less the F-3t which is a point defense faighter at that point.... So yeah like I said we neeed a new super battleship inservce 10 years ago... But no the USN wewasted an insatne amnountyt of money on platfoms that would have nbever replaced the berk! That easly could have been spent on a new super battleship classe as unlike aircraft career Battleships by compation are much easier to design and make given how much more simpler they are... Also they don't need jet fuel or their own weapons and matance and personal battleship guns just need a few frew,matance and allot iof dirt cheap ammo!
My grandfather was due to Retire from the Navy Aug of 81.. that was put on hold from the Navy and he was retaned to train the modern Navy how to use the 16ich guns and maintain them . He served on the New Jersey from May 82 to Oct 85. Then went to the Missouri and did the same .. finally retireing out in June of 87 GMCM (SW) 1952 to 1987. Passing away in 2017 at age 89
I remember reading about the return of the battleships when waiting for a train in Melbourne with my brother. I didn’t know the difference between a battleship and a destroyer. My brother replied (dismissively) “destroyers are small”.
The reason the sea control ship died was that we already had them. They were called LHAs. The Navy tested the SCS concept on these platforms with all AV-8B airwings. The Navy revisted the concept with the "Lightning Carrier."
Battleships like the Iowa's, with the flight deck for aircraft like AV-8s or F-35s are something the Marines would Love to Own, Rent, Beg, Buy, Barter or Steal. Three 5" or 6" autoloading Guns. Per side. All of the goodies. High tech stuff like lasers, missile cells and anything else useful. Any weight needed aft, to replace the weight of the turret and it's equipment, comes from the Armored Flight Deck. Automation could reduce crew size and provide a lot of excess berthing. This could be useful. Leave the Steam plant and the Main Guns and their Directors mostly alone. Maybe do the hull modifications to eliminate vibrations. Develop custom 16" designer projectiles of all flavors. Wait. The Marine in the background just said: "just bring Plenty Of High Capacity!"
I hope that the flight deck is not done. If you have to build one? Iowa. Just Not New Jersey or Missouri!
In the unlikely but possible event of reactivation? I say, keep the turrets.
The Navy could even borrow them from the Marines for actual naval warfare from time to time.
They'll Never be Reactivated? Perhaps not. But......
You should also look at the political impact of the nuclear "cruisers" built in the 60s and 70s. The quotes are because they were originally frigates till the 75 reclassification. This impacted what Congress was willing to spend money on when the Navy said "cruiser". And the reclassification would also be interesting to learn more about, the Navy promoted destroyers/frigates to cruiser to close the cruiser gap with the USSR.
I remember seeing an article in Proceedings, in the 1985-1990 timeframe, about creating cruisers with a single Mark 7 turret forward of the island and Tomahawks aft. This would provide a use for all of the turret 3s that would be bereft of a home should any of the options to massively modify these ships ever bear fruit.
You were born in 90? Oh man, I'm old.
Don't remind me! Ryan wasn't even born when i graduated high school and enlisted in the USAF!
I have always thought it was a waste to deactivate these ships without a proper replacement. The Navy still lacks a proper replacement. They seem to have gotten into a very bad habbit with this. They failed to produce a proper replacement for the gun ships when they first deactivated them in the '70s. They deactivated the Mk-13 from the OHPs with no proper replacement, and they deactivated the OHPs themselves with no proper replacement. Having watched this, I think instead of putting forth a phase 2 upgrade for the Iowas, they should have started a program to produce a proper replacement for them. Perhaps we would have them by now, instead of a couple of gun-less gun ships and a bunch of aluminum bathtub toys.
OK Several points - See the Wikipedia article on "United States Navy 1975 ship reclassification"- uncertain if he directly mentioned this but good and relevant. Next just my reaction to the video at 4:15 - US Navy Sailors - mid 1970s. reflects some of Admiral Zumwalts poorer decisions- he had a Lot of ideas- some great - a few "bombs". I believe part of the original idea for the Zumwalt class was to provide some improved guns for NGFS - but that ended up with too many problems.
The Idaho Class battleships are truly amazing and never should have been decommissioned. Even to this day they are unmatched.
Iowa class* Also these things would just be sitting ducks nowadays I'm afraid.
@@SpencerLemay any big ships is a target these days
In these kinds of situations, there are interrelated concerns. A reactivated ship (of any kind) requires a crew. A crew needs training. That again needs an available vessel of a relevant kind and in active state. You can hardly train a ship crew on some school facility hundreds or thousands of miles away from sea. A crew and a ship go together like a hand and a glove. You might start with museum ships, but at some point you have to start real sailing.
Ryan, I swear I read somewhere years ago that when two of the Iowa were reinstated back on the Naval Register in 1996 that one of the reasons that Iowa was chosen over New Jersey is that Iowa had significantly more life left in her barrels as compared to New Jersey. That largely as a byproduct of her tour off Vietnam in 1968-69 where she fired over 5600 16-inch rounds something like 80% of the remaining life of her barrels/liners was gone.
Is there any validity to this?
I remember that article too,
@ Do you have any recollection where that article came from?
in early 1986 i was at great lakes ntc when we got our orders.i was the only one in class that got order's for the new jersey,another student recieved orders for the missouri.i had no idea what a battleship was i thought all ships were battle ships.i got out in 1989 & still have dream's i'm still.onboard the dreams are a.they won't let me out or b.they won't let me re-enlist.
If the Iowas were brought back today, would they 5-inch turrets still remain, or would they be removed/replaced?
I’d say replaced with a modern short-range gun system, but what do I know?
The 5 inch is the most common main gun for Navy ships built today so those might be traded out in part but I doubt in all. However it would be much better to build new using the Iowa template as a starting point for the drafters. I would go for missile/landing assault carrier hybrid for a modern Battleship design with nuclear powered drive and primary rail/energy weapons aside the box launchers but a 5" and CWIS secondary defense battery would be included.
I was intrigued that someone thought it would be helpful to visit BB55 to understand more about what would be involved in activating a battleship.
My question is. Has the Navy ever done, a “review” of the Iowa’s feasibility, since they have gone into “museum mode”. Even if if was just an arbitrary exercise for new engineering officers as training?
If it hadn't been for the end of the Cold War, how long was it intended to keep the battleships in commission?
Actually, equipment has no expiration date or sell by date. Spend the money and do the upkeep and maintenance. A little expensive but not impossibly so.
Had the Cold War not ended, the Iowas probably serve another decade.
As long as the Cold War was on and the Kirovs were in service with the Soviet Navy the Iowas probably stay in service with the US Navy, at least until maintaining their 1940s power plants becomes too expensive or otherwise impractical.
The USCGC Mackinac, a custom-built icebreaker for the Great Lakes, was built during WW2 and decommissioned in 2006 (now a great museum ship) primarily due to her outdated power plant.
@jliller imagine if the Iowas had more or less stayed in active service until the mid-2000s 🇺🇸😎.
I have a buddy that was on the USS Cole when it was bombed in Oman. I understand why we can't reactivate it now. Naval drones make it even hairier. But still I dream...
Time frame wise, back in the 80's nobody carried a computer around in their pocket, and dial phones were still a thing. So yeah, the Iowa reactivation is history.
DAMN IT SYMANSKI! WACK-A-MOLE?!? I spit my coffee out!😅
The USS Stark being hit by a missile led the Navy to realize that the BB structure was capable of a similar hit and only need sweepers to bring it back to service. This and need for NGFS in the Med and Persian Gulf as well as a stop gap to counter the USSR Kirov, was a good solution.
Ryan, very interesting video, but you kind of rushed at the end, not covering why they were deactivated again. I’m especially interested in what the impact of the explosion on the Iowa had on keeping these ships in service
are there ethernet switches in the rack to Ryan's right? modernised ship communications room?
Those could be RJ-45 (alias 8P8C) connectors in repeaters or routers to use the 1970s and 80s terms for ethernet. That technology has change quite a bit since then in software and the bandwidth speeds attainable.
More likely a switchboard system re-used for changing information or controls just using 1/4" round TRS (alias guitar cord jack).
I'm pretty sure they had Ethernet on board in the 80s. Early-ish Ethernet, but Ethernet nonetheless. Ethernet was 10 Mbps even back then, pretty respectable for that day. It's been around since the mid 70s, though 100 Mbps "Fast Ethernet" didn't come about until 1995, a few years after the Iowas were retired.
Personally, I enjoyed the name for the room with networked PCs for the sailors on Missouri. They called it "Monet."
Ok you baited me 😂. Wish they would do that now or copy the hull and make a modern version with modern auto loading 16 inch Shells and modern tech. And a vertical take off platform for a vertical takeoff version of yf - 22.
Big gun ships are by far the best imo, at least that’s what I’m interested in, any battleship or cruiser from ww1/ww2
The fuel oil piping wasn’t addressed when they brought her out then last yard period before decommissioning. I believe the other Iowas learned from the mistakes the navy did on the New Jersey. They were more worried about weapon systems than her engineering plant.
If one of the Iowa class battleships were converted to nuclear propulsion it would have been a game changer.
Another idea that would be better to start over with a new build, I'm all for a Nuclear Powered updated Battleship but the Iowa class would take too much rebuilding. I do think they are a good template for the drafters to start with but loose the dated 16" then go missiles and rail/energy mounts. Aft add a landing assault force well and proper hangers for 4-6 VSTOL/Helicopter craft. Double up on the CWIS. Would consider reducing her outer belt a bit for speed and reinforcing the inner citadel to compensate with the shift away from big guns but more missiles/torpedoes.
Wasn't it McNamara that was against the battleship?
he hated anything that was new and shinny
There are some familiar panels in that room. Old friends of a sort
I do wonder if removing even more of the Iowas 5 inch guns would’ve been better to replace them with Tomahawk/Harpoon launchers than straight up removing Turret 3? Keeping the foremost and aftmost secondaries and replace the middle ones with CIWS or missiles.
These battleships were made to both fire powerful armament, and survive being attacked by same. Wonder how well they can survive and prevail against modern missile ships? Can a missile knock out the super strong conning tower of an Iowa class? Is the fire control good enough for the 16" guns to easily hit the missile ships. There must have been studies on these things.
So ideally Zumwalt wanted a bunch of something along the lines of the Invincible class as well as the big ones. If that was what he wanted he may have had an export seller on his hands too. Basically nobody bar the US could or can afford super carriers but I'm betting the several smaller Nato and non-aligned counties would have been interested in an 'off the shelf' smaller one.
Was their ever any plans to put a nuclear reactor in placeof turet 3?
⚓️
A big issue to reactivation was qualified personel that new the older systems. from 1969 @20 to 1981 makes a sailor in his 40's
Zumwald did massive harm to the navy. He drove my dad out of the service with all his Z-grams…
If money was never a factor and if for whatever reasons, we decided to keep all 4 of the Iowa's active to this day, they would still be the most powerful non-carrier warships afloat even in their current configurations and being around 80 years old!
IMO, the U.S. Navy needs to rethink the idea of not wanting Battleships and seriously consider building a modern class of ALL BIG GUN Battleship before it's too late. A few Battleships would be able fill a LARGE gap in our capabilities... We need at least a few Battleships for use in what the Iowa's excelled at...heavy shore bombardment. Currently, we have nothing with a BIG GUN. With tensions rising around the world, I know I would be already planning for the next Pacific engagements.
I think with nuclear power the big gun is overrated, when a simple rail gun can do the same job with a 15lbs slug. (Not the over complicated forms the military has in R&D with shaped sabots and internal guidance or explosive equipment that increase cost and wear a hundred fold.) The barrel improvements from that program are valuable but the earlier rounds just fired a metal brick for the same impact that was cheaper to produce a dozen of than a single 16" round. Plus only required one person to load and fire.
@@charlesmaurer6214
I have a few comments:
1. One issue with constructing new ships with big guns is that much of the infrastructure and knowledge required for their fabrication has been lost due to decades of disuse. When the Iowas were constructed, the situation was the opposite: big caliber guns have been the norm for warships for many decades by that point: the production chains were already in place, there was a lot of experience in fabricating, using and maintaining them. The cost in time and resources for recreating all that would be prohibitive.
2. It's not totally clear to me if big gun ships are even tenable anymore, especially against peer or near-peer adversaries. The 20-mile range, even if extended with newer technology is not enough to counter threats with much longer ranges like modern anti-ship missiles and perhaps even drones. They could perhaps be useful for cheaply bombarding an adversary without these capabilities (like the houthis, perhaps) but for anything else, the risk for these expensive and crew-intensive vessels is probably too great.
3. About railguns: The big issue facing the development of these weapons the rails survive for only a few dozen shots using full power due to the friction caused by the movement of the slug, but also because of electrical arcing between the rails (like in arc welding, literally melting the rails away). The material science to fabricate better rails is just not there yet. That seems to be the main reason the USN halted its railgun program in 2021. But other countries like Japan, Germany, France and China are still working on the concept, so maybe these issues will get resolved in the future. If that happens, then maybe naval artillery could make a comeback.
Assuming it was feasible and possible to extend the range of the guns to 100 miles or so, is there a need or desire to do so in today's Navy?
Interesting to think of the 80s as history, even more difficult to realise it's true. It does seem amazing the US. can afford to keep so many ships for so long. Having said that the hull life of a WW2 capital ship is going to be a lot longer than more modern ones. The lowa class were a good fit for the role they played as well as being instantly recognisable and iconic around the World. I'm glad the full aviation conversion never happened.
I was just talking about this concept with a friend today: Every day there is more history to learn.
what if there was a highbred battleship that was already built the 1940s would they recommission it with the Iowa's or would they not or an other option is just recommission the highbred battleship by its self
Off topic but I would love to see Ryan watch the movie Battleship, specifically where they reactivate Missouri and is in action, seeing his first reaction while watching.
While I love the Iowas they would have needed too much work to remain effective after 2000. The end of the cold war just brought it forward a few years.
❤
The Falklands War also showed what the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan did
Selfishly i wish atleast one would've gotten the flight deck. Wonder how long it would've stayed in service if any long than the others at all?
The Navy should study the lessons of the reactivation of the IOWA Class Battleships during Korea, Vietnam & by Reagan. We spend 13.3 billion dollars to build a Ford Class Super Carrier multiplied by At least 10. So, the question is why can’t we build a nuclear powered Battle Cruiser or bigger. The Ford is designed to re design the interior offices of the ship to say totally refurbished a berthing areas for crew morale. The Zumwalts are a good start as they are NOT Destroyers but CRUISERS anyway. If you are not going to maintain a 4-600 ship Navy then you need to have assets that can be brought to life in a short period of time with little work or cost.
All 4 should be kept and be in a state for reactivation. Convert to Nuclear power.
BBs will be so much more survivable than carriers with proper amount of modernisations, it's going to take more than a few missiles to put her out of action.
Lockheed said, "No."
You keep saying the U.S. had no counter to the Kirov class, as if a supercarrier wasn't already.
While the Iowas were kept active beyond what I think would have been best, the real failure was the lack of designs and ships to replace the voids as ships aged out, plus several bad designs pushed by contractors. The 2 Littoral Classes for example is totally useless for the US navy by design. The US Navy has no need for a coastal only vessel without the range to cross oceans on their own. The only ships in that class that makes any sense is something like the old PT Boat that can be based in theater and small enough to be carried or towed there. The Littorals were too big for transport and too small to make the trip. Also they were not designed with in theater basing and supply in mind requiring a return to the states to reload. Further we need at least three new navy owned shipyards able to handle the biggest of ships both in construction and repair. One on each coast and one in the gulf. Each should build a new Ford style Carrier, a new Landing Assault Carrier and 2 New Battleships that is part missile ship and part mini Landing Assault Carrier with some energy or rail gun weapons replacing the role of the old 16" guns. This first run of 12 ships should all be nuclear powered and a second run to be planned per decade with updates and upgrades. This would require 4 large slips and 4 large drydocks per yard that could have cost offsets with leasing half the space to a new merchant marine between major Navy runs. We need desperately to rebuild the supply ships the Navy needs and the ability to rapidly supplement them. A 4 new large classes should help fill this need, a oiler class, a ordinance cargo class, a troop transport and a vehicle transport class. The Navy should build one each per yard for themselves and then others for the merchant marine that are privately owned but under contract for service during war. An equal number of smaller slips and drydocks should be used to handle some updated Destroyer Escorts and scouting Frigates/Corvettes. A new Cruiser class and as well as 2 new types of subs should be added as well. I would recombine the 2 sub classes of Ohios to carry mixed loadouts in the new class, with a quarter to half remaining nuclear tubes on each sub. We also are close to needing an updated attack sub with drone and DSRV sub for multiple craft mounts/bays, perhaps even borrow an Russian idea from the old Typhoon Class with a pair of secondary side hulls with 2-3 bays each side. With such a wider attack sub a secondary drive system might be worth including for added maneuvering along with a larger twin torpedo bay/loadout. I really think we need a full pair of task groups off each coast and another pair posted to the Med and Indian ocean at all times. That requires 6 of each main capital ships at sea and an equal number ready in port plus a third equal number in reserve/refit. That is 18 active Carriers. 18 LA Carriers, 18 New Battleships, 18 Ohio or update, and twice that on the hunters for 36 for 72 primary ships divided in 6-8 active regional commands. While I focused on the larger ships I would aim for a thousand ship Navy with no more than half that as active support ships and equally sized merchant marine. Note each merchant class could act as either ferries or haul fuel/cargo during peace with reduced tariff/docking fees over any foreign craft by at least half.
Removing Turret 3 would have been a hughe mistake and tremy waste of money.
Always follow the money guys: They had to be retired so that costlier new ships can be designed (but not built) for astronomical sum of taxpayer money, and continued to do so for decades.
Reactivation? Modernisation of BBs? Where's the money in that? Let's say 2 billion x 4 ship, that is so little dough to go around...
Your videos are driving the Chinese crazy, they have no idea what we are doing. I think and believe that if war demanded it, at least one Iowa class would be reactivated.
The war would be over before reactivating was completed.
Bring the battle ships back:
Replace the engines with nuclear power plants ,16" shells with gps guidings and new powder with longer range ,new missiles, moore 30mm auto cannons, automatic loadings of the 16" guns ,etc
I really appreciate your efforts! Could you help me with something unrelated: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How should I go about transferring them to Binance?
The Kirov class are not battlecruisers that is a product of propaganda
The Kirov class are heavy guided missile cruisers.
A distinction without a real difference.
The battlecruiser concept of operations is scouting force battlefleet and a cruiser killer. That was not the Kirovs' mission. The Kirovs' conops was very similar to the 1980s Iowa class -- the centerpiece of a surface action group.
they make good reefs!
@@johnshepherd9676 and an overseas presence ship and gunboat diplomatic operations if you are the British Empire
lol battle carriers di dnot work for Japan. It is disappointing it took the Americans so long to figure this out
1st, 3 January 2025
Their day might be past but nothing is more impressive than 9 barrels throwing 10 tons of ordinance. And at the time anti ship missiles were not that good so the beast were intimidating. Now, even Vulcans are limited and missiles are everything
Hey Ryan, i have a bunch of old news papers from the late 80's and early 90's about the war and shows the battleships. Would you like those news papers for your collection? I want to donate them. I dont like throwing away history
Thanks!
Ryan, very interesting video, but you kind of rushed at the end, not covering why they were deactivated again. I’m especially interested in what the impact of the explosion on the Iowa had on keeping these ships in service