"Hi! I'm Ryan Szimanksi, the former curator and current executive officer of Battleship New Jersey. In today's video, we are steaming at flank speed towards a Chinese battle group off the coast of Taiwan. Due to advancements in jamming and electronic countermeasures, we are planning to unleash a full broadside with our Mark 7 16" guns." 😅
" Former curator and current Executive Officer of the Battleship New Jersey ", Yes that is funny, and yet is so close to reality as the U.S.S. Navy has so few commanders that have the training to command a ship of her size, so having the current Curator head up the start of the refit makes so much sense, and yet for that very reason the navy would not do it, ( Makes TOO much saving of taxes that alone will make it a nogo.)
BATTLESHIP may have been a totally ridiculous BOMB of a movie, but when the camera swung over to “the old men” and the old leader asked “What do you need son?” and the answer was “I need to borrow you boat”, then the brief Rocky revival sequence that followed, I literally wept red, white and blue tears, and wondered to where the CURRENT VERSION OF MY NATION HAD FLED.
Lol I loved the fact that men in their 70s and 80s were harder than the new generation, especially when he said let's drop some lead on the motherfuckas
Before you could even think about having the Old USS New Jersey steam again, you would have to put her in dry dock to open up all the blanked over sea chests. Then you would need to have all the 16-inch shells and powder remanufactured. That would be the absolute bare boned work needed.
The Iowa’s are intriguing because their hulls and armor are something that we currently do not have the manufacturing capability to reproduce, and to get to that point would take years and cost billions-and that’s not even including building and training the gigantic workforce needed. Because they offer a platform that can’t be matched by anything, especially in terms of survivability, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility to imagine one or two of them being recalled, massively overhauled and refitted to perform a specific role, and reactivated if a major conflict either breaks out or becomes an impending and clear eventuality. Remember, anything is possible, it’s just a matter of money (and desperation).
Magazine ship. Pure VLS depth as a "carrier bodyguard." Explosive-reactive armor covering the new deck. And/Or, make it offensive with the same capabilities but AI operation, a massive heavily armed/armored surface drone.
@@reallyhappenings5597 ERA is not made to be regularly doused in cold salt water. The sides might be more needed than the deck, but I'd hate to be out there when it went off (if it did). For a Mag ship, take off T2 and T3 and fill the space with reloadable VLS (need to invent that). Use the quarterdeck for drones, torpedo tubes and helos for escort. Add some ABM equipment and some LR SAMs.
@@ryanstuckey8677 thats not true. We absolutely can. Ammunition is not as hard to make as precision guided missiles. We have to stand up a factory and that would take time but considering the massive number of ammunition storage bunkers located in the Nevada deserts I would not be surprised if theyve squirreled some away for a rainy day or at least to use as samples. We have so much stuff. People really just dont understand the magnitude of what this nation has produced and hidden away. Dont place too much stock in some of the narratives you hear about our supposed lack of capability. We've lost a lot, true, but we retain far more than even our adversaries worst fears. Edit* the media makes people think we've dented ournwar stocks for Ukraine...not hardly. We gave them the stuff we didnt want to pay to decommission from old NATO stocks. This allows us to then buy new stock.
Survivability doesn't hold up to missile tech these days. You pretty much can't armor a ship enough to withstand modern anti-ship missiles. Best you can do is slather the deck in countermeasures for them, and you don't need a battleship for that.
Harry Calhoun here. I am a retired boilermaker. I live in Bremerton, and am on a facebook group. As far as I know, there maybe 100 of us left who have actually worked on naval boilers. The boilershop at PSNS was disbanded sometime ago. I went through the apprentice program back in late 70, early 80's . I don't know if the navy kept any of the tooling that was used in the repair and overhaul of ships. From the videos you have shown of the boilers, it looks like they could possibly be used as is. From my knowledge of overhauls, there are a lot of specialists involved in all trades. Not to mention of all the tooling it takes to overhaul a ship. That being said, I am 69 years old. About all I could be able to do is shop work, like layout, and instruct new guys in what to do.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment! Yes, in today's (31 OCT 24) video we talk about the shortage of trained and experienced men like yourself, not only for the ships but also for shipbuilding. Good question about the boiler shop!
Large Nuclear Carriers have propulsion plant somewhat similar to those on an Iowa Class Battleship. The source of the steam might be different but the turbines and propulsion related systems are similar.
The biggest advantage to an Iowa class battleship, the 5 inch and 16 inch guns can’t be hacked and disabled. That would be about the only reason to reactivate older ships.
I could imagine the Navy calling on all available (and still alive) veterans with prior BB experience to help train and even help get her operational in that hypothetical scenario. 😊
The ships were retired more than 30 years ago, even the freshest boot on board has retired and the people who actually knew the systems have been in retirement for some time. Do you really expect people to retain that knowledge if they haven't needed to remember any of it in the interim? None of this makes any sense. You're trying to reactivate a ship that was built 80 years ago. It's not going to happen.
So, I was a machinist mate in the navy, whom also did maintenance on the Iowa. And it was my understanding that the Iowas be maintained in such a way that they can be reactivated within 6 months as required by congress.
I'd love to see a sketch of this new configuration of the battleship. Also, you would need 2 of the Iowas to return to active duty. As we all know, thanks to Ryan, one is out there with the fleet while the other is docked for maintenance or for training or something like that. So, the question is, which of the other Iowas could return with New Jersey? In my opinion, Iowa is in NO condition to return to active service and Missouri is all the way out in Pearl watching over the remains of Arizona while being a vanguard of the whole island. Plus, IF there's no room at Bremerton, there's no way to get to Norfolk from the Pacific other than going all the way to the southernmost tip of South America and coming up from that way since the Panama Canal was returned to Panama itself back in the 90's. So, there's only one other Iowa that could return along with New Jersey and that's Wisconsin. She's in the best material condition of the entire class, not to mention she's literally right there in Norfolk. IF a major war were to break out, both New Jersey and Wisconsin would be the two Iowa-class battleships to return to the Navy as active combatants.
Unless the US Navy found a way to turn Iowa's turret 3 into Turret 2, remove turret 2 and repair whatever can't be swapped, then find a use for the empty space (which they'd either put a hanger and flight deck for Helis, plus potential Command and Anti Air upgrades) If turret 3 can be modified to take over for turret 2, then Iowa could be reactivated with 33% reduced Main Battery systems Yes, they could also repair turret 2 fully, however that costs money, though is far more logical . Unless the US Navy spent that money, it'd be New Jersey and Wisconsin Missouri is FAR too valuable history wise to be recommissioned Her time active is 100% over
@@_.Glennicus._ That's debatable about Missouri. And there's even an argument to be made about the recommissioning of New Jersey. New Jersey may not be historically significant like Missouri, but she's the most decorated battleship in the United States Navy.
@@NFS_Challenger54 then that leaves Wisconsin, and Iowa and as the best options Though all 4 are special in their own way Considering Condition, History, and Significance? It's sadly Wisconsin as the only option for reactivation
@@_.Glennicus._ I'd say Wisconsin alone and leave Iowa out. I wouldn't trust the reliability of Iowa after being left in such a state in between her Korean War deployment and her 80's recommissioning. Plus, it would be too much money to repair and modernize the ship. It doesn't feel right to have one battleship in active service with the others still off to the side. It was done once before back in Vietnam, yes. But from what I heard; the navy was getting ready to recommission one of the other Iowas for Vietnam when the war came to a close. On a side note, though. I wonder sometimes what the navy would've been like had they built the Montana-class.
The whole 16” gun and ammunition logistical chain in storage has been disposed of so that would have to be reconstituted as well as the ship itself. It would be prohibitively expensive and time consuming unless the Navy has lost so many hulls in a war that they need to reconstitute a fleet in the aftermath a war. We fight now “Come as you are” wars. The money would be better spent on new construction of more smaller destroyers and frigates in the time , or even pulling Midway CV 41 back into the yard to reactivate. If you need to pull the Iowa class back into the active navy, America is already in a world of hurt.
Every argument raised against returning BBs can be applied, in spades, to CVNs A BB in a battlegroup is just as protected against missiles and subs as a Carrier, and is far more survivable. The engineering plans and drawings for everything still exist, just need to let the contracts, same for the guns.
I could see them towing the ship out and around for morale purposes. War bond drives. Or even a command and control post at sea considering shes heavily armored. If all your front line assets are needed in the battle zone but your strategic guys need a planning area nearby....... .........i mean it could work. Again this is just. . ..the absolute worst case scenario. But in those circumstances a heavily fortified ship would be quite a desirable place if you're a fleet admiral
13:37 - Can't imagine the learning curve? It's not definitely not easy but it won't be that difficult either. The navy trained a bunch of 18 year olds who have never even seen the sea during the outbreak of WW2 and did probably did the same when they were re-activated in the 1980s. Just like everything else old, people can re-learn it.
What he means is, the system that trained those men for those weapons was already there. That system for these weapons is no longer there; there are no textbooks, instructors, simulators, etc. in the numbers needed if at all.
@@sirboomsalot4902correct the essentiality is there was an institution and Naval School of Naval artillery and implementations with the technology of USS New Jersey and her siblings that training and knowledge doesn't exist anymore it's been phased out of the Navy for them to do that they have to go to a comparable School of Naval artillery and reconstitute those skills and it's not something easy and I would say we're right back where we were back where we were in the 1840s as far as Naval artillery goes I mean the Army has artillery but it's automated and so does the Navy but it's automated LOL
@@sirboomsalot4902 True, but we still have veterans, old manuals, videos, and museum ships to practice on. Plus a few remaining 16" guns in land emplacements. The bigger problem is how many shells do we still have around...
In my estimation, BB 62 and all of our museum ships are as important as the Lincoln, Jefferson memorials and Washington monument. Our forbearers and neighbors, served on these vessels. Please remember
One note for the final question. While I do agree that the movie Battlesship took liberties with what they did with the Missouri. As far as staffing goes besides the volunteers they did have the surviving crews of two sunk modern destroyers. I wonder if that would’ve been enough staffing to make up a skeleton crew
I never want to see these reactivated. If they are it means it really hit the fan. I can only see them used as a barracks, medical triage, or disaster relief headquarters. Even then, I don't want to see that emergency.
I think the ships themselves would work very well. Gearing up to support them and training crews would take time and effort. The fact that they Can reactivate makes them a fleet in being.
Another question is: if they did reactivate any of the Iowas, I doubt they’d reactivate all four and I’m not sure New Jersey would be one of them. Another, I guess more theoretical question is; if they did reactivate them, would they keep any of the museum staff around as advisors and such, as they would likely know the ship better than anyone in the navy?
@@kman-mi7su I’d actually expect Missouri to come first, as she is already in Pearl and therefore the closest to the frontline. Historical significance isn’t going to matter if we get to the point where the Iowas are coming out. Being the most-used, I’d expect New Jersey and Iowa to stay. Even if Missouri or Wisconsin are lost, I don’t think they will try to replace them.
@@sirboomsalot4902 Nah, I'd say historical significance matters. Plus, New Jersey and Wisconsin are very close to Norfolk Naval Shipyard, which is arguably the best place to do the work of reactivation. Hawaii is not the place they tow ships for reactivation historically, Long Beach California did the work and they are a long way away for a dead ship tow.
@@kman-mi7su Sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures. If the Chinese have somehow blasted enough of our carriers out to the water to warrant bringing the Iowa’s back, then I think they could manage a reactivation at Pearl
I was always thinking IF the navy took her back, they'd make her into a modern constitution that could sail to more ports for fundraising and recruiting. So an active navy vessel but noncombative.
The biggest issue with reactivating the Iowas is their 16 inch ammo had to be completely destroyed 5 years ago because it all met its expiration date. Next the 5 inch 38s would have to go because it’s all unique equipment now. The missile platforms would have to be replaced with VLS and the CIWS would need an update.
@@kman-mi7su True, not impossible, just a lot of time, money, and people effort that might be better spent elsewhere, like pumping out more missiles, planes, and carriers.
The Iowas were decommissioned before introduction of female sailors on surface combatants in 1994. A reactivation would likely include reworking of berthing and head spaces to accommodate separate quarters for women at sea. Without these modifications, the crewing problem gets even worse than Jack and Ryan discuss since the service could only draw from the 80% of personnel who are male.
You would have to asume any reactivation would involve updated ammunition as well. The army has rhe Excaliber system as well as rocket assisted and scramjet projectiles in deveopement for the 155 mm gun. Ranges in the 60 to 100 mile plus range are possible. If theses designed could be scalled up to the 16 inch size then the potential exist to greatly extend thier range. The possibility of a hypersonic scramjet 16 inch shell in particular would give the ship a modern punch with minimal mods to the ship.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Bureaucracy screwed those up, and lack of will. If it is going to take a year to get NJ & WI ready, we've got the existing tech for RAP, sabot, and GPS guidance. Making the factory is going to be tougher. A national emergency could cut a lot of red tape.
The steam plants on the Iowa class are standard and it wouldn’t take much to get the younger hole snipes up to speed to steam her. The guns (16”) would require older gunner’s mates to teach the younger ones. It would all be in the master plan. The museum staff aren’t going to be in the mix. They don’t even know why they have no spark dogging wrenches in the ammunition spaces.
Something I haven't seen in the comments (at least in this episode) is: "What about the existing ships now using the names of these decommissioned ships?" The Navy doesn't have same-named, in-commision, in-service (active, in-use) combatants. Those old 1800s wooden vessels don't count for purposes of this discussion. In order for the BB NJ to go back to sea with her WW2 name, the SSN NJ would have to by bad luck or mishap be sunk/prohibitively-expensively scuttled/trashed, or the Navy/Congress/other invested and powerful parties would have to be willing to strip the SSN of the name. Same for any other ships. Given how historic the BB is, it would create a mess. The SSN might end up being suffixed with NJ II, but it srill could be messy and way too political. As an ex USN sailor (only 4 years (84-88); only visited the Missouri 2x, once while in the Navy, and once after separation), and as historic as these ships are, it grates my nerves with all the BB-cloying over fantasies of reactivating the BBs. They're DONE, FINIT. If they were ordered to be reactivated for actual military use, by bizzaro set of orders, it means the world is toast. Also, the retaining costs are astronomically prohibitive. Crewing would take over 900 personnel EACH. It won't be Hollywierdo Senior Citizens ambling back in some Star Trek-esque way (for those who don't know, the original cast of ST was in Starlog or other mags of the 80s/90s called "The Geriatric Gang"), risking their bones, winding up on the Binnacle List, and getting sepsis and having to be medevac'd off to a hospital ship. Also, if the US doesn't start domestically or via close, trusted, non-cheating allies retooling and building ship parts and all the wiring and electronics needed without going through adversarial narions, all it would take is China's seeing a Gov open bid indicating the 6 month reclaim is in play, that suppliers of certsin parts needing to survive shock, G forces, and accelerations consistent with 16" gun use on a BB, and China would just need only mess with the supply chain. Those ships aren't coming back in any way envisioned to yet again go back into mothballs or museums. Despite the Jones Act and Congress, only Japan, South Korea, and maybe Germany and Italy can build us some ships (hulls and superstructures, maybe take some of the new FFGs and LSCs (LSCs, mot the LCSs)) fast enough to close the ship count gap - if that's even realistic or relevant, as China could still mess with supply chains. The more and the faster nee ships are needed to be domestically built, the more expensive they'll be. SK and JP build better Burkes and because they build them with room to grow AND to maintain without having to cut them up. They don't build like roadworkers dropping a tablespoon of diesel fuel every 3 miles in ransom places to guarantee fecades of "new" work. More space means less cutting open for future upgrades. (Even the Iowas can't be re-engined for gas turbine engines since the hulls were build around and for the engines as much as for the guns. So, no cutting them open for LM2500s or MT-30s.). If the USN seriously wants more ships, and if Congress WANTS to compel the Navy to build more DDG, and FFG platforms, PNSY and Bayview Hunters Point Shipyard need to be reactivated. Stop letting the East Coast hog all the contracts. One unexpected 6.5 quake near NY/Philadelphia/VA will cripple the USN's new ship deliveries in a heartbeat.
I've seen the pictures of what modern anti-ship missiles do to naval vessels. Corvettes, LCS, Frigates, and a lot of Cruisers are basically 1 hit wonders; either Davy Jones Locker or mission kill. In the 80's, someone told Reagan that it would take 19 Exocets to sink an Iowa class. I don't think we can afford the steel needed to make a replacement to current standards, anyway.
What would Ryan, Libby, and other staff be up to during this process? Might the Navy bring them in as contractors (or even commission them)? They know the ship thoroughly, their primary job is education anyway and the new crew is going to need lots of it.
Most likely not. They would have to go through extensive training in firefighting and damage control. Not to mention non of them were ever sailors and have no idea about seamanship. Could they learn , sure , but they aren't 21 yr old kids either.
The other thought is Iowa has old technology which is far less expensive than a new missile. We're targeting systems that would be connected to a 16-inch gun you can drop a round with an meters of a Target
Without massive overhauls to the design of the ammo (read gps guided shells) not really. They tried it in the 80s and they couldn't best the accuracy of the mechanical computers
Nope. We no longer have the capability to build that hull. No foundry in the country can make the armor. We COULD start factories for the 16" gun ammo, though.
Minimum one year and a billion dollars and any single BB could fight again. It'd probably take twice that much in money and time to make one FULLY combat ready, upgraded to modern standards, and ready to fight today's war.
From what I saw online in the late 90s and early 2000s from reactivation proponents was to bring back Iowa, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, with Missouri remaining as a museum ship (and probably then a spare parts source). Much of what proposed mirrors what Ryan said in this video, except for no helicopter hanger and no 57 mm gun mounts. Don’t think they were around then. There are some renderings out there on the Internet of what a hypothetical late 1990s Iowa might’ve looked like. Hmmm, sounds like a good idea for a model…..
Something to think about with removing Turret 3 is that it would give access to the engineering spaces which would be probably top on anylist for a full replacement or overhaul. You could replace the turret with a VLS array
The main engineering spaces are in the middle of the ship, forward of turret 3 - they'd have to hack the hull open for any replacement of main components
@@garywayne6083 not necessarily. Removing the turret provides a ready made hole into the bowels of the ship. They can cut through the barbett and go backwards to the machine spaces. If replacing the turret with a vls array they would carve up the barbett anyway. Having all that space available to move equipment in and out of the ship with minimal damage to the hull is a boon.
@@HaddaClu The VLS replacement ideas I have seen involve leaving the barbette as armor protection for the VLS launchers, just doing something below them (powder magazine level) so they might be reloaded. Yes, the bulkheads between the magazines and the engine rooms are thinner than the side or deck armor, but you are still talking about gutting a lot of spaces in order to get things in and out. If you are keeping the turbines, they are in the way of any boiler replacement you might be planning. Plus all the plumbing is pretty tightly routed around them. Then again, if you were to rip out everything and replace with gas turbines, that might be interesting. You'd need new reduction gears, which would be a problem. Or punt 33+ kts and settle for something with less HP, like 25kts.
Interesting discussion. But I think you missed a good opportunity. You jumped around, from idea to concept, and never did present an actual "list" of what would have to be done to the BB to reactivate it. You talked about why it might need to be reactivated, how to crew it (reactivate the draft), what the BBs job might be in future fleets, etc. But the discussion seemed to proceed in a confusing and random order, and you never did create any kind of a specific list. I think the presentation would have been more impactful if you had started by creating the list, then addressed the items on the list as to what it would take to upgrade or repair each item. That would be the place to discuss the BBs future role, and staffing and training issues, and the details of upgrades. Then, once you have established the enormity of the task, and the role that the BB might play in future warfare; THEN you talk about why it would, or would not, make sense to reactivate the BB. Still, an interesting discussion. But I think the flow of information, the order in which you built the presentation, was disappointing. Keep trying! :-)
I grew up working on all kinds of equipment and power plants. I've reactivated generator and marine propulsion equipment that has sat abandoned for decades. The Iowa's were deactivated and mothballed with an eye towards reactivation. Money. Time. Big investment. Worth it? But not for Fun. Unfortunately. But. How Many very uncomfortable Marines could you transport on an Iowa? The Marines want a Battleship more than the Navy. They Like Having that much firepower offshore. Reactivating New Jersey, with modern upgrades, would be a really expensive, gold plated but quick (relatively ) way to generate the kind of capabilities in speed, firepower, armored protection and other capabilities a ship like her brings. Just for Fun? Someone with Billions gets USS Texas Fully Operational. Sail around the World. Sail her through the Taiwan Straights, RIMPAC sink exercise starring Texas and her fourteen inch....... Then, Mothballed again and back to museum status. I would Love to see the Engineering Plant on USS Texas Operate!
Great video, always ready to entertain re-activation of this lady bruiser... The 16's could be dual purpose conventional and a "secret" (shhhhhhh) weapon that could be fired as a 2500 pounder that actually becomes a new fangled thingy after "launch" ... Truly the best benefit of the Battleship would be a fuel-oil and steam boiler trainer, teaching the art of hard work, blood sweat and tears just like the original maintainers learned to do... There is benefit in being able to maintain and work on the machinery in these old-timers, and at only $2 Billion that's a drop in the bucket compared to the overspending that happens every year by the Man.
I love battleships, but they would need so much overhaul internally and externally. If the hulls of the ships would be cost effective I could see it happening on small scale, but I think they will remain museums until they scrap.
I think people who talk about the possible reactivation of these ships forget where the Navy was in the early 1980s when New Jersey was recommissioned. First and most importantly the Sacramento class AOEs were still in service. These used what was literally 1/2 of an Iowa class engine plant. That means the knowledge of how to run that plant, the schools to teach it, the parts to support it, everything you need was still resident in the Navy when these ships were brought back into service. That’s no longer true today with there being no WWII vintage 600lb superheated steam plants left in operation. Next since the ships had been mothballed the Navy had retained inventories of parts and 16” ammunition. Thats no longer true it’s all gone. The last of the Gearing’s were being decommissioned at the same time New Jersey came back which meant everything you needed for the twin 5” 38 mount was still there in the Navy. The only major system that the Navy was having to teach people from scratch was the 16” gun system. And some elements of that like the Ford Rangekeeper were on the Gearings so not every element was completely new. That means the lift to return one to service in the 1980s was massively smaller than what it would be today. Sure it’s a theoretical possibility. Just throw cubic money at the problem. But practically you would likely get a new build ship into service sooner.
Very true. We'd need a new factory to build 16" shells, for starters. Then again, perhaps we'd build them with RAP or sabots or something else. Wonder if anyone is doing design work on these things at postgrad school?
@@gregorywright4918 there was work being done on subcaliber sabot rounds that would have given the guns a much longer raise before the decision was taken to mothball the class again. If someone was ever going to build a new “battleship” it would make enormous sense to restart that development.
if something like the New Jersey needs to be reactivated, you're talking about an emergency situation and there will be no time to refit the ship for two years. I can't imagine a scenario where this would happen.
Mostly romantic notions and lack of knowledge. Texas wasn't maintained well enough in recent years (ALOT of serious and severe rust in her machine spaces, keel, ect ) and like Ryan says here she was even an OLD OLD ship in WW2.
I don’t really see them getting activated “just for shore bombardment purposes”. If they’re getting re-activated it’s because the first 6 months of the war went incredibly badly and we’re in desperate need of more VLS tubes. In that case it’s still probably cheaper and faster to gut out turret 3 and the superstructure and try and plop in 200-300 VLS cells than build your equivalent tonnage to house that many cells in a Burke. But even then will we have enough SM-2’s/6’s to fill out the cells?
@@iowa61 she really isn't. After she left Puget the musuem ripped out the preservation bits that were in used while in mothballs. Remember during the drydock series of videos Ryan spoke about the issues they had with trying to fill the ballast tanks. He said that if the ship were to be called back pretty much every single piece of piping (fuel and water) would need to be replaced due to leaks. There's also the fact that the ship has been completely open to the public - bits and pieces have gone missing due to tourists, there's been holes cut in the armor for easier access in a turret. The areas without AC are left to degrade from temperature swings and humidity - they were protected from this while the ship was in mothballs. Its a shame but the museum can only maintain a small portion of the ship. The majority of the interior will be left to slowly degrade.
When New Jersey was just in drydock, how many other navy ships were around pending final disposition? With some degree of seriousness wouldn't it make more sense to throw those ships against an enemy?
Unfortunately her only real military use might be as barracks or scrap steel at this point. Her current use is her best use. Better plan is to educate the public and congress on the need for new ship yards and steel mills to build new ships.
She's in better condition than just scrap steel, the problem is time, by the time she's ready for war the game will be over. Also, there are no replacement parts and systems in place to support her. Navy scrapped what little was left.
Those ships would perform well. I have reactivated generator plants that were haphazardly deactivated, abandoned for decades and not Mothballed, like the Navy does. The fact is that these ships were very carefully preserved for reactivation. Getting these ships working well is not a problem. From the former Engineering Officer to the next Engineering Officer of the USS New Jersey: "Congratulations, this ship is Awesome!"
The ship would perform well, until overwhelmed by missiles fired out of range of the big guns and sunk, or taken out of action, before ever firing a round. Assuming a torpedo doesn't break her keel @@daleeasternbrat816 She's a great museum.
Keep in mind that when someone says NORFOLK that NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD is actually in PORTSMOUTH VIRGINIA across the ELIZABETH RIVER from the CITY OF NORFOLK VIRGINIA. Also understand that nearby NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING in NEWPORT NEWS VIRGINIA is the ONLY PLACE that builds CVN's ✈️⚓️ Of course NAVAL STATION NORFOLK itself is in NORFOLK VIRGINIA CITY PROPER, and JEB LITTLE CREEK/FT. STORY straddles NORFOLK, and VIRGINIA BEACH on the CHESAPEAKE BAY. PLUS the BERKELEY section of NORFOLK has DRYDOCKS as well as other cities in the HAMPTON ROADS area that are able to do/conduct support activities in NORFOLK, VIRGINIA BEACH, PORTSMOUTH, CHESAPEAKE, SUFFOLK, NEWPORT NEWS, HAMPTON, YORKTOWN, AND WILLIAMSBURG/JAMES CITY COUNTY. I know all this as a HONORABLE DISCHARGED NAVY VETERAN, as well as being a former, NAVSEA employee, growing up in NORFOLK in a FAMILY that has served HONORABLY in EVERY MILITARY 🪖 SERVICE except the SPACE FORCE, and I live in VIRGINIA BEACH close to MASTER JET BASE NAS OCEANNA, and have DEEP MILITARY 🪖 ROOTS including 2 cousins who are NAVAL ACADEMY GRADUATES. 💣💥☠️⚓️💪🇺🇸
The North Carolina is encased in mud. It would be an impossible job to get her out of her berth. Also the Navy had stripped her of any usable spare parts.
No. If you wanna sail an 80 year old rustbucket go ahead you wont catch me dead trying to fight that ship. For the cost of reactivating or you can jusr build a new one that has all the bells whistles and even a fighting chance.
I could see her in a rapid fleet growth program perhaps activated for training programs with a single trainee crew able to feed four or five new build frigates or destroyers each round. While the tech is dated one would learn the basics of ship handling and Navy lingo. This would be with an arms race build up that would only seem likely with China, Russia, or post NATO EU. I also could see the IOWA design as a starting point for a new Battleship that is forward like the proposed arsenal ship (missile loads) and aft a scaled down landing assault carrier. Trading the big guns for missile and hanger spaces but adding back with a nuclear power plant some rail gun or energy weapons mounts with similar destructive power as the big guns with the mass of only a single barrel forward and aft. Also because they would be energy driven weapons the danger of large magazines to feed the old big guns would be gone. Only need explosive magazines in the new design for secondary (CWIS) and small arms. Of course the missile boxes forward could be copied from our current missile ships and duplicated. The new design would serve special ops as well as a modernized version of the traditional roles of the Battleship either with the fleet or on side missions.
If there was a reactivation I'd imagine it would only be used once total capture of enemy waterfront secured and they needed to bombardment of inland was needed
Fight again, or just sail again? Add more CIWS, restore missiles as was, fix fuel tanks, guns are not rearmed. Navy's newest fast oiler/resupply vessel for the desperation cruise.
Let's pray the Navy doesn't come back to re-activate her for war. An interesting discussion would be if they took two, which ones? I'm thinking New Jersey and Wisconsin. If they needed another they'd take Missouri. Iowa from what I've read, has never had its damage from the turret explosion fixed so it would be the last choice.
@@kman-mi7su I think your right about New Jersey and Wisconsin being the two that would get taken back if any. Iowa would be a can of worms due to the turret damage, and Missouri is in Pearl as a memorial - the cost to tow her to the west coast alone wouldn't be worth the trouble.
If the blanks over the water intakes were not removed, no water=no steam. I would love to her deleting land masses but not the case I'm assuming. Thanks to the museum for taking care of her
I don't think it would be worth the cost to bring one of the Iowa Class battleships back into service. It would be better, I believe, to build a new ship for that role. Having said that, i don't really know what many modern naval weapons could do to her. I watched a video of the navy sinking a modern ship with missiles to make a reef out of her and that ship, which was unarmored was a 1/3 the size of a battleship but it took 6 or 7 missiles and still hadn't sunk. They finally had to bring in a sub and hit it with torpedoes to sink it. To be honest, the damage from those missiles were relatively unimpressive and that was to ship without armor plating. I believe if a WW2 battleship was 10 miles away from a modern ship and they started firing on one another, the old battleship with those 16 inch guns would blow it out of the water. I just don't think it could get close enough.
Ships being sunk as reefs are stripped of all of the flammable things, and Harpoon missiles are designed to set fire to things: in practice, they have been quite effective, see Praying Mantis. To mission kill a BB, you don't need to penetrate the armored citadel, it was one of the big pieces of learning that Lee took away from the pounding with small weapons that South Dakota took. As much of a damage sponge as it could be without sinking, you could still wreck its day at least as easily as a modern Arleigh Burke. Its only survivable feature are the 16" rifles, which do have some use in anti-ship warfare, as with a 40,000 yard range in a 200,000 yard wide Taiwan Strait, with Aegis and SSN escorts it could absolutely dominate and prevent supplies from reaching it from the mainland.
I'd automate as much of the ammunition and propellant handling as possible in the time given to reduce the manpower requirements. Develop a new shell that fills the vacuum behind the round, to effectively double the range, like they do with the M777. I don't know if it would be worth the effort to strip out the conning tower. Clearly, more electrical power would be a good thing, as you pointed out.
When they did the work to automate the 8" guns on the Des Moines they found they needed more room for the automation machinery, so space in the turret was very tight. Doubt you could do that in the existing 16" turrets. Perhaps in the magazines, but it would have to keep the flash-tight integrity. A lot of the additional crew was in the 5" systems anyway, which could be replaced with modern 5" single-tubes that are automated. But developing a new shell will take a lot longer than reactivating the ship.
If you read this. I like one question if they had to reactivated BB62. They just deployed a new uss new Jersey sub. Would you still carry BB 62 name. In navy. You cannot have 2 same name ships
Right. I'm guessing the sub would have to change its name. But the fact that they named a sub New Jersey means, unfortunately, she's not returning. Just saw her this weekend. She looks in better shape than a lot of our ships.
I would keep turrets 3, remove turrets 1 & 2 and replace them with up armored missile tubes, this should give you close to 256 missile tubes. Scrape the super structure of. Make it a missile barges with 3 16” guns
problems would be a very long refurbishment/upgrade time, outdated Engine in a need of overhaul, no 16 inch shells nor powder bags, a lot of loss of institutional operations knowledge and NOT enough replenishment tanker for the current fleet.
it is a hardened weapons platform that could be reconfigured, in ww2 the BB provided concentrated AA umbrella fire and took absorbed a lot of damage, with over 100 AA guns shooting down planes, anyone who thinks it will be less planes while missiles and drones have been added to the mix is fooling themselves, the BB still has a roll in full blown war, maybe not these ships but others will be built, maybe in South Korea.
If the oscillating device is enrobed in fecal mater enough to reclaim its history the congress would institute the draft, as far as training there are former sailors around who can teach folks how to work the ship’s systems.
No way would they reactivate them. Why would you? For the 16 inch guns? For what? 25-30km range? Please... Antiship missiles have ranges in the hundreds of miles. Aircraft carriers are much more valuable over an antique big gun battleship. I mean Isn't WW2 enough proof that battleships were obsolete back then. Why keep them in service now? Because the hull is armored? It was designed to be armored against weapons of the day. Not for modern anti ship missiles.
I visited this ship 7 years ago. The best thing you can do for her is to preserve it as a monument to our parents period. Leave it as is. She is a witness to the last world war. Leave it for future generations.🤔
I'm sure that the first thing the navy would want to do is rip out the 16" gun turrets and stuff the empty holes full of VLS cells. They seem to be pretty big on those lately.
Would be the most practical use of it. Those old 16" mark 7 guns are just obsolete. Don't have the shells for them anymore, and they would never be able to produce new barrels for the guns when they wore out. Just strip off all the old 1940's era weapons and put modern weapons on.
Can the modern radars and electronics handle the over pressure from the main guns? Clearly the older CWIS could, but can the new model CWIS? Also, I can not even imagine all the parts that would have to be replaced that no longer exist. Though with the spare parts problem, I suppose you could, in theory, get the specs for hte parts and then use an industrial CNC and 3D printing system to machine and build the needed parts relatively quickly. Though I think if the ship took damage, that would be it. We don't have armor plate anymore, nor can we made Class A or B face hardened armor plate. The shells and powder could probably be remade with newer variants, but that takes time to design, develop, make, and test. Plus what happens if the ship gets hit and a boiler room or engine room gets damaged and knocked out? You can't just "take the engine room" from one of the other ships and bolt it into the active-duty one.
Whole super structure would have to go except the big guns. The design of defences should be for mass missile incoming...or mass torpedo defence. Both should not interfere with each other. Put 6 X 30mm CIWIS (to act as pairs, 1 fires, 1 reloading). 57mm or 76mm auto guns for antiaircraft/missile defence (defence in layers). 4 to 8 in number positioned near side of ship with negative elevation to hit small boats near ship. Add 150-200 missiles in verticle launch pods. to the sides of the front guns. in front of big guns fwd end. In superstructure along hull side. behind aft big gun and outwards. C-RAM for antidrone defence. Rim 116 missile. Small Torpedoes that counter act sea drones /ASROC type for those fast rocket torpedo. Ship to subsurface torpedo rocket launched. Design a Yamato anti missile shotgun shell for long range missile defence. Hangar for drones. Maybe 2nd hanger on top superstructure for launch. Top hanger could launch a balloon for long range detection on spool. Add 4-6 155mm long range guns shore stuff. Maybe a 50mm gatling gun. (1 fwd 1 aft). Anti missile (like WW2 anti-aircraft rounds) 4 lasers. With battery/capacitor backup. The best thing is material upgrades. Carbon fibre, new tougher metals (Cr, Ni,Co), Kevlar, (Tank armor ceramic like Chobham), titanium, H-150 steel, etc. The best thing to do is to design a new hull that has new Panama Canal sizes of (1200 x 160 ft), with torpedo bulkhead (25-30 feet in depth), nuclear powered, Yamato armor equivalent to modern materials. Turtle deck (bismark) design. Azipod propellers (6-10 pods) some fwd, some aft. Can even look at some jet pods. Both can help with steering. Equivalent electrical power of new aircraft carriers. Build a battleship, missile carrier, antisub/anti-air boat, large escort carrier, Assault ship with ocean bay, large drone carrier. Zepplin carriers (carries anti sub stuff, torpedoes) that are perimeter defence for sea groups. You want people to join, show them that the ships survive with modern weapon impacts.
Seriously, it would be used as a semi-mobile battery not as a navy ship. towed to a position, Anchored then you use the munitions from mothballs( if any are still available) with jury rigged artillery equipment.
Question. How many gun barrels larger than 8 inch currently exist? I'm thinking here 12 inch, 14 inch and 16 inch. I've always felt that if the capability of an Iowa Class Battleship was required, then the best way to do that would be to build some new ships along the lines of the Mississippi (BB.23) Class of ships. They are smaller vessels, with 4 12 inch guns, along with 8 8 inch and 8 7 inch guns. Eliminate the 7 inch guns (which were in casements), and replace the 8 inch guns with 5 inch guns, and replace the 12 inch guns with those from the Alaska Class Large Cruisers (or maybe updated 16"/50 from the Iowas), and perhaps lengthen the hulls to increase the speed, and you'd have a very good shore bombardment vessel, without all of the expense and difficulty of reactivating an Iowa.
There was that thought briefly, typically every time one of the carriers between CV-59 and CV-67 (except CVN-65) were decommissioned. I believe the Japanese were serious about it somewhere along the line, but the problem is that, like any old car we want to keep on the road, the longer you go, the more its maintenance costs until you reach the point of the costs being so high it makes more sense to replace it. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment.
@ my thought is that the next 5 years is critical with the Taiwan threat and the excessive delays of the Ford class. So until that’s straightened out a couple of well used platforms may sufffice
They will need to have manufacturing facilities for 16inch shells and the powder bags .Without 16 inch ammunition the gun turrets are useless and just dead weight.
Thanks for watching! Let us know below if there’s a topic you’d like us to cover in a future episode.
The woke Navy isn't going to attract normal young men. Good luck with that.
"Hi! I'm Ryan Szimanksi, the former curator and current executive officer of Battleship New Jersey. In today's video, we are steaming at flank speed towards a Chinese battle group off the coast of Taiwan. Due to advancements in jamming and electronic countermeasures, we are planning to unleash a full broadside with our Mark 7 16" guns." 😅
That is pretty good lol!!
Technically, yes that would work.
Excellent presentation of a interesting thought
Sabot rounds, or rocket-assisted-projectiles?
" Former curator and current Executive Officer of the Battleship New Jersey ", Yes that is funny, and yet is so close to reality as the U.S.S. Navy has so few commanders that have the training to command a ship of her size, so having the current Curator head up the start of the refit makes so much sense, and yet for that very reason the navy would not do it, ( Makes TOO much saving of taxes that alone will make it a nogo.)
I absolutely love it that you snuck in a Battleship movie question since Ryan HATES that movie. Way to go and thanks for sharing!
BATTLESHIP may have been a totally ridiculous BOMB of a movie, but when the camera swung over to “the old men” and the old leader asked “What do you need son?” and the answer was “I need to borrow you boat”, then the brief Rocky revival sequence that followed, I literally wept red, white and blue tears, and wondered to where the CURRENT VERSION OF MY NATION HAD FLED.
Lol I loved the fact that men in their 70s and 80s were harder than the new generation, especially when he said let's drop some lead on the motherfuckas
Before you could even think about having the Old USS New Jersey steam again, you would have to put her in dry dock to open up all the blanked over sea chests.
Then you would need to have all the 16-inch shells and powder remanufactured.
That would be the absolute bare boned work needed.
The Iowa’s are intriguing because their hulls and armor are something that we currently do not have the manufacturing capability to reproduce, and to get to that point would take years and cost billions-and that’s not even including building and training the gigantic workforce needed. Because they offer a platform that can’t be matched by anything, especially in terms of survivability, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility to imagine one or two of them being recalled, massively overhauled and refitted to perform a specific role, and reactivated if a major conflict either breaks out or becomes an impending and clear eventuality. Remember, anything is possible, it’s just a matter of money (and desperation).
Magazine ship. Pure VLS depth as a "carrier bodyguard." Explosive-reactive armor covering the new deck. And/Or, make it offensive with the same capabilities but AI operation, a massive heavily armed/armored surface drone.
@@reallyhappenings5597 ERA is not made to be regularly doused in cold salt water. The sides might be more needed than the deck, but I'd hate to be out there when it went off (if it did). For a Mag ship, take off T2 and T3 and fill the space with reloadable VLS (need to invent that). Use the quarterdeck for drones, torpedo tubes and helos for escort. Add some ABM equipment and some LR SAMs.
we couldn't even make ammunition for the main guns now!
@@ryanstuckey8677 thats not true. We absolutely can. Ammunition is not as hard to make as precision guided missiles. We have to stand up a factory and that would take time but considering the massive number of ammunition storage bunkers located in the Nevada deserts I would not be surprised if theyve squirreled some away for a rainy day or at least to use as samples. We have so much stuff. People really just dont understand the magnitude of what this nation has produced and hidden away. Dont place too much stock in some of the narratives you hear about our supposed lack of capability. We've lost a lot, true, but we retain far more than even our adversaries worst fears. Edit* the media makes people think we've dented ournwar stocks for Ukraine...not hardly. We gave them the stuff we didnt want to pay to decommission from old NATO stocks. This allows us to then buy new stock.
Survivability doesn't hold up to missile tech these days. You pretty much can't armor a ship enough to withstand modern anti-ship missiles. Best you can do is slather the deck in countermeasures for them, and you don't need a battleship for that.
Harry Calhoun here. I am a retired boilermaker. I live in Bremerton, and am on a facebook group. As far as I know, there maybe 100 of us left who have actually worked on naval boilers. The boilershop at PSNS was disbanded sometime ago. I went through the apprentice program back in late 70, early 80's . I don't know if the navy kept any of the tooling that was used in the repair and overhaul of ships. From the videos you have shown of the boilers, it looks like they could possibly be used as is. From my knowledge of overhauls, there are a lot of specialists involved in all trades. Not to mention of all the tooling it takes to overhaul a ship.
That being said, I am 69 years old. About all I could be able to do is shop work, like layout, and instruct new guys in what to do.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment! Yes, in today's (31 OCT 24) video we talk about the shortage of trained and experienced men like yourself, not only for the ships but also for shipbuilding. Good question about the boiler shop!
Large Nuclear Carriers have propulsion plant somewhat similar to those on an Iowa Class Battleship. The source of the steam might be different but the turbines and propulsion related systems are similar.
The biggest advantage to an Iowa class battleship, the 5 inch and 16 inch guns can’t be hacked and disabled.
That would be about the only reason to reactivate older ships.
I really appreciate this "What if" video.
My boat sailed with New Jersy in 1983. Was a sight for sure.
I could imagine the Navy calling on all available (and still alive) veterans with prior BB experience to help train and even help get her operational in that hypothetical scenario. 😊
The refit would be so radical that most of those old heads would be fine to stay home. Steering/ propulsion, that's it.
You can imagine, because it is only a fairy tale.
@JoshuaTootell gee thanks for clarification 🤣
The ships were retired more than 30 years ago, even the freshest boot on board has retired and the people who actually knew the systems have been in retirement for some time. Do you really expect people to retain that knowledge if they haven't needed to remember any of it in the interim? None of this makes any sense. You're trying to reactivate a ship that was built 80 years ago. It's not going to happen.
@@panachevitz
so correct.
So, I was a machinist mate in the navy, whom also did maintenance on the Iowa.
And it was my understanding that the Iowas be maintained in such a way that they can be reactivated within 6 months as required by congress.
"as required by Congress..." - like those Ticonderogas they are supposed to keep using?
Reactivated to sail under it's own power possibly but not much else I'd assume, unfortunately...
@@paulgibson6660 If they are reactivating these ships then there is something horribly wrong.
@@memadmax69Only thing worse and more desperate is reactivating the Texas.
I'd love to see a sketch of this new configuration of the battleship. Also, you would need 2 of the Iowas to return to active duty. As we all know, thanks to Ryan, one is out there with the fleet while the other is docked for maintenance or for training or something like that. So, the question is, which of the other Iowas could return with New Jersey? In my opinion, Iowa is in NO condition to return to active service and Missouri is all the way out in Pearl watching over the remains of Arizona while being a vanguard of the whole island. Plus, IF there's no room at Bremerton, there's no way to get to Norfolk from the Pacific other than going all the way to the southernmost tip of South America and coming up from that way since the Panama Canal was returned to Panama itself back in the 90's. So, there's only one other Iowa that could return along with New Jersey and that's Wisconsin. She's in the best material condition of the entire class, not to mention she's literally right there in Norfolk. IF a major war were to break out, both New Jersey and Wisconsin would be the two Iowa-class battleships to return to the Navy as active combatants.
Just because Panama owns it, doesn't mean Iowas cannot use the canal. There might even be a priority usage clause in the 1999 agreement.
Unless the US Navy found a way to turn Iowa's turret 3 into Turret 2, remove turret 2 and repair whatever can't be swapped, then find a use for the empty space (which they'd either put a hanger and flight deck for Helis, plus potential Command and Anti Air upgrades)
If turret 3 can be modified to take over for turret 2, then Iowa could be reactivated with 33% reduced Main Battery systems
Yes, they could also repair turret 2 fully, however that costs money, though is far more logical
.
Unless the US Navy spent that money, it'd be New Jersey and Wisconsin
Missouri is FAR too valuable history wise to be recommissioned
Her time active is 100% over
@@_.Glennicus._ That's debatable about Missouri. And there's even an argument to be made about the recommissioning of New Jersey. New Jersey may not be historically significant like Missouri, but she's the most decorated battleship in the United States Navy.
@@NFS_Challenger54 then that leaves Wisconsin, and Iowa and as the best options
Though all 4 are special in their own way
Considering Condition, History, and Significance? It's sadly Wisconsin as the only option for reactivation
@@_.Glennicus._ I'd say Wisconsin alone and leave Iowa out. I wouldn't trust the reliability of Iowa after being left in such a state in between her Korean War deployment and her 80's recommissioning. Plus, it would be too much money to repair and modernize the ship. It doesn't feel right to have one battleship in active service with the others still off to the side. It was done once before back in Vietnam, yes. But from what I heard; the navy was getting ready to recommission one of the other Iowas for Vietnam when the war came to a close. On a side note, though. I wonder sometimes what the navy would've been like had they built the Montana-class.
The whole 16” gun and ammunition logistical chain in storage has been disposed of so that would have to be reconstituted as well as the ship itself. It would be prohibitively expensive and time consuming unless the Navy has lost so many hulls in a war that they need to reconstitute a fleet in the aftermath a war. We fight now “Come as you are” wars. The money would be better spent on new construction of more smaller destroyers and frigates in the time , or even pulling Midway CV 41 back into the yard to reactivate. If you need to pull the Iowa class back into the active navy, America is already in a world of hurt.
Every argument raised against returning BBs can be applied, in spades, to CVNs A BB in a battlegroup is just as protected against missiles and subs as a Carrier, and is far more survivable. The engineering plans and drawings for everything still exist, just need to let the contracts, same for the guns.
I could see them towing the ship out and around for morale purposes. War bond drives. Or even a command and control post at sea considering shes heavily armored. If all your front line assets are needed in the battle zone but your strategic guys need a planning area nearby....... .........i mean it could work. Again this is just. . ..the absolute worst case scenario. But in those circumstances a heavily fortified ship would be quite a desirable place if you're a fleet admiral
13:37 - Can't imagine the learning curve? It's not definitely not easy but it won't be that difficult either. The navy trained a bunch of 18 year olds who have never even seen the sea during the outbreak of WW2 and did probably did the same when they were re-activated in the 1980s. Just like everything else old, people can re-learn it.
What he means is, the system that trained those men for those weapons was already there. That system for these weapons is no longer there; there are no textbooks, instructors, simulators, etc. in the numbers needed if at all.
@@sirboomsalot4902correct the essentiality is there was an institution and Naval School of Naval artillery and implementations with the technology of USS New Jersey and her siblings that training and knowledge doesn't exist anymore it's been phased out of the Navy for them to do that they have to go to a comparable School of Naval artillery and reconstitute those skills and it's not something easy and I would say we're right back where we were back where we were in the 1840s as far as Naval artillery goes I mean the Army has artillery but it's automated and so does the Navy but it's automated LOL
@@sirboomsalot4902 True, but we still have veterans, old manuals, videos, and museum ships to practice on. Plus a few remaining 16" guns in land emplacements.
The bigger problem is how many shells do we still have around...
In my estimation, BB 62 and all of our museum ships are as important as the Lincoln, Jefferson memorials and Washington monument. Our forbearers and neighbors, served on these vessels. Please remember
Great point, one not often understood or articulated! Thanks!
All the 5 inches on board would be pull off and replaced with modern units in any upgrades, you would save at least 3 crewman in in each position.
One note for the final question. While I do agree that the movie Battlesship took liberties with what they did with the Missouri. As far as staffing goes besides the volunteers they did have the surviving crews of two sunk modern destroyers. I wonder if that would’ve been enough staffing to make up a skeleton crew
I never want to see these reactivated. If they are it means it really hit the fan. I can only see them used as a barracks, medical triage, or disaster relief headquarters. Even then, I don't want to see that emergency.
I think the ships themselves would work very well. Gearing up to support them and training crews would take time and effort. The fact that they Can reactivate makes them a fleet in being.
Another question is: if they did reactivate any of the Iowas, I doubt they’d reactivate all four and I’m not sure New Jersey would be one of them. Another, I guess more theoretical question is; if they did reactivate them, would they keep any of the museum staff around as advisors and such, as they would likely know the ship better than anyone in the navy?
Assuming this occurs, I suspect they'd reach into the retired reserve and draft in former crew to teach new sailors.
New Jersey and Wisconsin would likely be the first to come back online. Missouri third and Iowa last because they never repaired the turret damage.
@@kman-mi7su I’d actually expect Missouri to come first, as she is already in Pearl and therefore the closest to the frontline. Historical significance isn’t going to matter if we get to the point where the Iowas are coming out. Being the most-used, I’d expect New Jersey and Iowa to stay. Even if Missouri or Wisconsin are lost, I don’t think they will try to replace them.
@@sirboomsalot4902 Nah, I'd say historical significance matters. Plus, New Jersey and Wisconsin are very close to Norfolk Naval Shipyard, which is arguably the best place to do the work of reactivation. Hawaii is not the place they tow ships for reactivation historically, Long Beach California did the work and they are a long way away for a dead ship tow.
@@kman-mi7su Sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures. If the Chinese have somehow blasted enough of our carriers out to the water to warrant bringing the Iowa’s back, then I think they could manage a reactivation at Pearl
I was always thinking IF the navy took her back, they'd make her into a modern constitution that could sail to more ports for fundraising and recruiting. So an active navy vessel but noncombative.
A Pacific pacifist
The biggest issue with reactivating the Iowas is their 16 inch ammo had to be completely destroyed 5 years ago because it all met its expiration date. Next the 5 inch 38s would have to go because it’s all unique equipment now. The missile platforms would have to be replaced with VLS and the CIWS would need an update.
Can make more 16s
The 5s would be replaced with modern models
@@tomhenry897 Not with out 10 years worth of R&D at minimum we haven't made anything to that scale in more then half a century now.
Not impossible.
@@SonOfAB_tch2ndClass Yeah most steel production has moved offshore. So trying to tool up alone to produce the steel for the shells would take years.
@@kman-mi7su True, not impossible, just a lot of time, money, and people effort that might be better spent elsewhere, like pumping out more missiles, planes, and carriers.
If there was ever an emergency big enough to reactivate an Iowa they'd probably requisition the drydocks in places like Philadelphia or Boston.
The Iowas were decommissioned before introduction of female sailors on surface combatants in 1994. A reactivation would likely include reworking of berthing and head spaces to accommodate separate quarters for women at sea. Without these modifications, the crewing problem gets even worse than Jack and Ryan discuss since the service could only draw from the 80% of personnel who are male.
Can't we do like Scotty did to the Enterprise and rig it to all work by remote control? Since we're dreaming...
Can yall make a model of Battle ship New Jersey how it would look with all the modifications it would need to be re issued
You would have to asume any reactivation would involve updated ammunition as well. The army has rhe Excaliber system as well as rocket assisted and scramjet projectiles in deveopement for the 155 mm gun. Ranges in the 60 to 100 mile plus range are possible. If theses designed could be scalled up to the 16 inch size then the potential exist to greatly extend thier range. The possibility of a hypersonic scramjet 16 inch shell in particular would give the ship a modern punch with minimal mods to the ship.
We are already taking off the 155mm off of the ddg 1000's.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Bureaucracy screwed those up, and lack of will. If it is going to take a year to get NJ & WI ready, we've got the existing tech for RAP, sabot, and GPS guidance. Making the factory is going to be tougher. A national emergency could cut a lot of red tape.
remember this what happens when the missiles run out or supply issues come up
those 16 inch guns become very important
The steam plants on the Iowa class are standard and it wouldn’t take much to get the younger hole snipes up to speed to steam her. The guns (16”) would require older gunner’s mates to teach the younger ones. It would all be in the master plan. The museum staff aren’t going to be in the mix. They don’t even know why they have no spark dogging wrenches in the ammunition spaces.
Something I haven't seen in the comments (at least in this episode) is:
"What about the existing ships now using the names of these decommissioned ships?"
The Navy doesn't have same-named, in-commision, in-service (active, in-use) combatants. Those old 1800s wooden vessels don't count for purposes of this discussion.
In order for the BB NJ to go back to sea with her WW2 name, the SSN NJ would have to by bad luck or mishap be sunk/prohibitively-expensively scuttled/trashed, or the Navy/Congress/other invested and powerful parties would have to be willing to strip the SSN of the name. Same for any other ships.
Given how historic the BB is, it would create a mess. The SSN might end up being suffixed with NJ II, but it srill could be messy and way too political.
As an ex USN sailor (only 4 years (84-88); only visited the Missouri 2x, once while in the Navy, and once after separation), and as historic as these ships are, it grates my nerves with all the BB-cloying over fantasies of reactivating the BBs.
They're DONE, FINIT.
If they were ordered to be reactivated for actual military use, by bizzaro set of orders, it means the world is toast.
Also, the retaining costs are astronomically prohibitive. Crewing would take over 900 personnel EACH. It won't be Hollywierdo Senior Citizens ambling back in some Star Trek-esque way (for those who don't know, the original cast of ST was in Starlog or other mags of the 80s/90s called "The Geriatric Gang"), risking their bones, winding up on the Binnacle List, and getting sepsis and having to be medevac'd off to a hospital ship.
Also, if the US doesn't start domestically or via close, trusted, non-cheating allies retooling and building ship parts and all the wiring and electronics needed without going through adversarial narions, all it would take is China's seeing a Gov open bid indicating the 6 month reclaim is in play, that suppliers of certsin parts needing to survive shock, G forces, and accelerations consistent with 16" gun use on a BB, and China would just need only mess with the supply chain.
Those ships aren't coming back in any way envisioned to yet again go back into mothballs or museums.
Despite the Jones Act and Congress, only Japan, South Korea, and maybe Germany and Italy can build us some ships (hulls and superstructures, maybe take some of the new FFGs and LSCs (LSCs, mot the LCSs)) fast enough to close the ship count gap - if that's even realistic or relevant, as China could still mess with supply chains. The more and the faster nee ships are needed to be domestically built, the more expensive they'll be. SK and JP build better Burkes and because they build them with room to grow AND to maintain without having to cut them up. They don't build like roadworkers dropping a tablespoon of diesel fuel every 3 miles in ransom places to guarantee fecades of "new" work. More space means less cutting open for future upgrades. (Even the Iowas can't be re-engined for gas turbine engines since the hulls were build around and for the engines as much as for the guns. So, no cutting them open for LM2500s or MT-30s.).
If the USN seriously wants more ships, and if Congress WANTS to compel the Navy to build more DDG, and FFG platforms, PNSY and Bayview Hunters Point Shipyard need to be reactivated. Stop letting the East Coast hog all the contracts. One unexpected 6.5 quake near NY/Philadelphia/VA will cripple the USN's new ship deliveries in a heartbeat.
I've seen the pictures of what modern anti-ship missiles do to naval vessels. Corvettes, LCS, Frigates, and a lot of Cruisers are basically 1 hit wonders; either Davy Jones Locker or mission kill. In the 80's, someone told Reagan that it would take 19 Exocets to sink an Iowa class. I don't think we can afford the steel needed to make a replacement to current standards, anyway.
For secondary, replacing the 5"/38s. The 120mm tank gun. With nicer seats
What would Ryan, Libby, and other staff be up to during this process? Might the Navy bring them in as contractors (or even commission them)? They know the ship thoroughly, their primary job is education anyway and the new crew is going to need lots of it.
Ship onboard historians maybe
Most likely not. They would have to go through extensive training in firefighting and damage control. Not to mention non of them were ever sailors and have no idea about seamanship. Could they learn , sure , but they aren't 21 yr old kids either.
The other thought is Iowa has old technology which is far less expensive than a new missile. We're targeting systems that would be connected to a 16-inch gun you can drop a round with an meters of a Target
Without massive overhauls to the design of the ammo (read gps guided shells) not really. They tried it in the 80s and they couldn't best the accuracy of the mechanical computers
No….not ever…..no more ammo….no more gun powder…..worn out machinery….let her rest she is a great museum and a tribute to all that served. 😊 Steve
It would be easier to just build a new one
Nope. We no longer have the capability to build that hull. No foundry in the country can make the armor. We COULD start factories for the 16" gun ammo, though.
Minimum one year and a billion dollars and any single BB could fight again. It'd probably take twice that much in money and time to make one FULLY combat ready, upgraded to modern standards, and ready to fight today's war.
From what I saw online in the late 90s and early 2000s from reactivation proponents was to bring back Iowa, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, with Missouri remaining as a museum ship (and probably then a spare parts source). Much of what proposed mirrors what Ryan said in this video, except for no helicopter hanger and no 57 mm gun mounts. Don’t think they were around then. There are some renderings out there on the Internet of what a hypothetical late 1990s Iowa might’ve looked like.
Hmmm, sounds like a good idea for a model…..
Sadly the commentator rambled for 80% of this video and didn’t let Ryan share his expertise.
If that was even thought of the Wisconsin would be the first,she’s in better or the same shape but has the least sea time of all four battleships!
Something to think about with removing Turret 3 is that it would give access to the engineering spaces which would be probably top on anylist for a full replacement or overhaul. You could replace the turret with a VLS array
The main engineering spaces are in the middle of the ship, forward of turret 3 - they'd have to hack the hull open for any replacement of main components
@@garywayne6083which would be costly and take time (and a valuable dock space)
Not practical.
@@garywayne6083 not necessarily. Removing the turret provides a ready made hole into the bowels of the ship. They can cut through the barbett and go backwards to the machine spaces. If replacing the turret with a vls array they would carve up the barbett anyway. Having all that space available to move equipment in and out of the ship with minimal damage to the hull is a boon.
@@HaddaClu The VLS replacement ideas I have seen involve leaving the barbette as armor protection for the VLS launchers, just doing something below them (powder magazine level) so they might be reloaded. Yes, the bulkheads between the magazines and the engine rooms are thinner than the side or deck armor, but you are still talking about gutting a lot of spaces in order to get things in and out. If you are keeping the turbines, they are in the way of any boiler replacement you might be planning. Plus all the plumbing is pretty tightly routed around them.
Then again, if you were to rip out everything and replace with gas turbines, that might be interesting. You'd need new reduction gears, which would be a problem. Or punt 33+ kts and settle for something with less HP, like 25kts.
Interesting discussion. But I think you missed a good opportunity. You jumped around, from idea to concept, and never did present an actual "list" of what would have to be done to the BB to reactivate it. You talked about why it might need to be reactivated, how to crew it (reactivate the draft), what the BBs job might be in future fleets, etc. But the discussion seemed to proceed in a confusing and random order, and you never did create any kind of a specific list.
I think the presentation would have been more impactful if you had started by creating the list, then addressed the items on the list as to what it would take to upgrade or repair each item. That would be the place to discuss the BBs future role, and staffing and training issues, and the details of upgrades. Then, once you have established the enormity of the task, and the role that the BB might play in future warfare; THEN you talk about why it would, or would not, make sense to reactivate the BB.
Still, an interesting discussion. But I think the flow of information, the order in which you built the presentation, was disappointing. Keep trying! :-)
Yes. I believe that. Uss new yersey and the others can be used again
I grew up working on all kinds of equipment and power plants. I've reactivated generator and marine propulsion equipment that has sat abandoned for decades. The Iowa's were deactivated and mothballed with an eye towards reactivation. Money. Time. Big investment. Worth it? But not for Fun. Unfortunately. But. How Many very uncomfortable Marines could you transport on an Iowa? The Marines want a Battleship more than the Navy. They Like Having that much firepower offshore.
Reactivating New Jersey, with modern upgrades, would be a really expensive, gold plated but quick (relatively ) way to generate the kind of capabilities in speed, firepower, armored protection and other capabilities a ship like her brings.
Just for Fun? Someone with Billions gets USS Texas Fully Operational. Sail around the World. Sail her through the Taiwan Straights, RIMPAC sink exercise starring Texas and her fourteen inch....... Then, Mothballed again and back to museum status. I would Love to see the Engineering Plant on USS Texas Operate!
Any way you look at it, in ways, we’re screwed in the coming years.
Great video, always ready to entertain re-activation of this lady bruiser... The 16's could be dual purpose conventional and a "secret" (shhhhhhh) weapon that could be fired as a 2500 pounder that actually becomes a new fangled thingy after "launch" ... Truly the best benefit of the Battleship would be a fuel-oil and steam boiler trainer, teaching the art of hard work, blood sweat and tears just like the original maintainers learned to do... There is benefit in being able to maintain and work on the machinery in these old-timers, and at only $2 Billion that's a drop in the bucket compared to the overspending that happens every year by the Man.
I love battleships, but they would need so much overhaul internally and externally. If the hulls of the ships would be cost effective I could see it happening on small scale, but I think they will remain museums until they scrap.
OK.....forget the machinery! Barrel Wear....Barrel Replacements... Ammo for the 16" Guns!! They navy lost the ability to make replacement barrels.
I think people who talk about the possible reactivation of these ships forget where the Navy was in the early 1980s when New Jersey was recommissioned.
First and most importantly the Sacramento class AOEs were still in service. These used what was literally 1/2 of an Iowa class engine plant. That means the knowledge of how to run that plant, the schools to teach it, the parts to support it, everything you need was still resident in the Navy when these ships were brought back into service. That’s no longer true today with there being no WWII vintage 600lb superheated steam plants left in operation.
Next since the ships had been mothballed the Navy had retained inventories of parts and 16” ammunition. Thats no longer true it’s all gone.
The last of the Gearing’s were being decommissioned at the same time New Jersey came back which meant everything you needed for the twin 5” 38 mount was still there in the Navy.
The only major system that the Navy was having to teach people from scratch was the 16” gun system. And some elements of that like the Ford Rangekeeper were on the Gearings so not every element was completely new.
That means the lift to return one to service in the 1980s was massively smaller than what it would be today. Sure it’s a theoretical possibility. Just throw cubic money at the problem. But practically you would likely get a new build ship into service sooner.
Very true. We'd need a new factory to build 16" shells, for starters. Then again, perhaps we'd build them with RAP or sabots or something else. Wonder if anyone is doing design work on these things at postgrad school?
@@gregorywright4918 there was work being done on subcaliber sabot rounds that would have given the guns a much longer raise before the decision was taken to mothball the class again. If someone was ever going to build a new “battleship” it would make enormous sense to restart that development.
if something like the New Jersey needs to be reactivated, you're talking about an emergency situation and there will be no time to refit the ship for two years.
I can't imagine a scenario where this would happen.
It would be more realistic to just equip Santa’s sleigh with 16 inch guns.
I’ve seen people unironically talk about reactivating Texas. I don’t think the people who say this really think these things through lol
Mostly romantic notions and lack of knowledge. Texas wasn't maintained well enough in recent years (ALOT of serious and severe rust in her machine spaces, keel, ect ) and like Ryan says here she was even an OLD OLD ship in WW2.
There’s a fun mass market paperback about TEXAS reactivating and helping to defeat a Russian invasion fleet. AYES OF TEXAS, I believe.
U.S. NAVY better start recruiting 16" gun sailors now. Fouls wait till the last minute.
ANYTHING is possible....
I don’t really see them getting activated “just for shore bombardment purposes”. If they’re getting re-activated it’s because the first 6 months of the war went incredibly badly and we’re in desperate need of more VLS tubes.
In that case it’s still probably cheaper and faster to gut out turret 3 and the superstructure and try and plop in 200-300 VLS cells than build your equivalent tonnage to house that many cells in a Burke.
But even then will we have enough SM-2’s/6’s to fill out the cells?
Get them off of the Adams class destroyers, they had 5" guns.
A ridiculous question. Of course it could. It was mothballed as a Class B Mobilization asset and remains in excellent material condition.
@@iowa61 she really isn't. After she left Puget the musuem ripped out the preservation bits that were in used while in mothballs. Remember during the drydock series of videos Ryan spoke about the issues they had with trying to fill the ballast tanks. He said that if the ship were to be called back pretty much every single piece of piping (fuel and water) would need to be replaced due to leaks. There's also the fact that the ship has been completely open to the public - bits and pieces have gone missing due to tourists, there's been holes cut in the armor for easier access in a turret. The areas without AC are left to degrade from temperature swings and humidity - they were protected from this while the ship was in mothballs. Its a shame but the museum can only maintain a small portion of the ship. The majority of the interior will be left to slowly degrade.
And the National Guard is ready to land in China?
When New Jersey was just in drydock, how many other navy ships were around pending final disposition? With some degree of seriousness wouldn't it make more sense to throw those ships against an enemy?
Unfortunately her only real military use might be as barracks or scrap steel at this point. Her current use is her best use. Better plan is to educate the public and congress on the need for new ship yards and steel mills to build new ships.
She's in better condition than just scrap steel, the problem is time, by the time she's ready for war the game will be over. Also, there are no replacement parts and systems in place to support her. Navy scrapped what little was left.
Everything except the 16s would be modernized
Those ships would perform well. I have reactivated generator plants that were haphazardly deactivated, abandoned for decades and not Mothballed, like the Navy does. The fact is that these ships were very carefully preserved for reactivation. Getting these ships working well is not a problem.
From the former Engineering Officer to the next Engineering Officer of the USS New Jersey: "Congratulations, this ship is Awesome!"
You’re ruining my dream
The ship would perform well, until overwhelmed by missiles fired out of range of the big guns and sunk, or taken out of action, before ever firing a round. Assuming a torpedo doesn't break her keel @@daleeasternbrat816
She's a great museum.
Hey Ryan, will they ever reactivate the Iowas?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Lasers and CIWS can't shoot down 16" shells.
Also. Imagine Rocket Assisted 16" High Capacity shells
"Real New Jersey beat real Yamato, Space New Jersey could beat Space Yamato." -- R. Szimanski 2024
what they need at the moment really bad is a Navy Oiler! If I'm not mistaken I thought I heard that idea was proposed in the past ? 😢😊
Keep in mind that when someone says NORFOLK that NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD is actually in PORTSMOUTH VIRGINIA across the ELIZABETH RIVER from the CITY OF NORFOLK VIRGINIA.
Also understand that nearby NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING in NEWPORT NEWS VIRGINIA is the ONLY PLACE that builds CVN's ✈️⚓️
Of course NAVAL STATION NORFOLK itself is in NORFOLK VIRGINIA CITY PROPER, and JEB LITTLE CREEK/FT. STORY straddles NORFOLK, and VIRGINIA BEACH on the CHESAPEAKE BAY.
PLUS the BERKELEY section of NORFOLK has DRYDOCKS as well as other cities in the HAMPTON ROADS area that are able to do/conduct support activities in NORFOLK, VIRGINIA BEACH, PORTSMOUTH, CHESAPEAKE, SUFFOLK, NEWPORT NEWS, HAMPTON, YORKTOWN, AND WILLIAMSBURG/JAMES CITY COUNTY.
I know all this as a HONORABLE DISCHARGED NAVY VETERAN, as well as being a former, NAVSEA employee, growing up in NORFOLK in a FAMILY that has served HONORABLY in EVERY MILITARY 🪖 SERVICE except the SPACE FORCE, and I live in VIRGINIA BEACH close to MASTER JET BASE NAS OCEANNA, and have DEEP MILITARY 🪖 ROOTS including 2 cousins who are NAVAL ACADEMY GRADUATES.
💣💥☠️⚓️💪🇺🇸
The North Carolina is encased in mud. It would be an impossible job to get her out of her berth. Also the Navy had stripped her of any usable spare parts.
It’d be Wisconsin and Missouri first Iowa and Jersey would be a last resort
Tht was great fun, guys. It’ll never happen, but wouldn’t it be amazing if it did?😂
I think it would be difficult to find the men to run the Engineering areas / Power Plant and the 16" Guns ?
No. If you wanna sail an 80 year old rustbucket go ahead you wont catch me dead trying to fight that ship. For the cost of reactivating or you can jusr build a new one that has all the bells whistles and even a fighting chance.
Simple answer to "Could she?" is yes, but the answer to "Should she?" is "probably not..."
I could see her in a rapid fleet growth program perhaps activated for training programs with a single trainee crew able to feed four or five new build frigates or destroyers each round. While the tech is dated one would learn the basics of ship handling and Navy lingo. This would be with an arms race build up that would only seem likely with China, Russia, or post NATO EU. I also could see the IOWA design as a starting point for a new Battleship that is forward like the proposed arsenal ship (missile loads) and aft a scaled down landing assault carrier. Trading the big guns for missile and hanger spaces but adding back with a nuclear power plant some rail gun or energy weapons mounts with similar destructive power as the big guns with the mass of only a single barrel forward and aft. Also because they would be energy driven weapons the danger of large magazines to feed the old big guns would be gone. Only need explosive magazines in the new design for secondary (CWIS) and small arms. Of course the missile boxes forward could be copied from our current missile ships and duplicated. The new design would serve special ops as well as a modernized version of the traditional roles of the Battleship either with the fleet or on side missions.
If there was a reactivation I'd imagine it would only be used once total capture of enemy waterfront secured and they needed to bombardment of inland was needed
Fight again, or just sail again?
Add more CIWS, restore missiles as was, fix fuel tanks, guns are not rearmed. Navy's newest fast oiler/resupply vessel for the desperation cruise.
Let's pray the Navy doesn't come back to re-activate her for war. An interesting discussion would be if they took two, which ones? I'm thinking New Jersey and Wisconsin. If they needed another they'd take Missouri. Iowa from what I've read, has never had its damage from the turret explosion fixed so it would be the last choice.
@@kman-mi7su I think your right about New Jersey and Wisconsin being the two that would get taken back if any. Iowa would be a can of worms due to the turret damage, and Missouri is in Pearl as a memorial - the cost to tow her to the west coast alone wouldn't be worth the trouble.
If the blanks over the water intakes were not removed, no water=no steam. I would love to her deleting land masses but not the case I'm assuming. Thanks to the museum for taking care of her
Removing blanks would be the easy part, everything else would be hard.
@JoshuaTootell agreed. if they got removed that's when you apologize to your friend who is a conspiracy theorist
Reactivate The USS Texas!🤣
She has a lot fewer vets still alive...
I don't think it would be worth the cost to bring one of the Iowa Class battleships back into service. It would be better, I believe, to build a new ship for that role.
Having said that, i don't really know what many modern naval weapons could do to her. I watched a video of the navy sinking a modern ship with missiles to make a reef out of her and that ship, which was unarmored was a 1/3 the size of a battleship but it took 6 or 7 missiles and still hadn't sunk. They finally had to bring in a sub and hit it with torpedoes to sink it.
To be honest, the damage from those missiles were relatively unimpressive and that was to ship without armor plating. I believe if a WW2 battleship was 10 miles away from a modern ship and they started firing on one another, the old battleship with those 16 inch guns would blow it out of the water.
I just don't think it could get close enough.
Ships being sunk as reefs are stripped of all of the flammable things, and Harpoon missiles are designed to set fire to things: in practice, they have been quite effective, see Praying Mantis. To mission kill a BB, you don't need to penetrate the armored citadel, it was one of the big pieces of learning that Lee took away from the pounding with small weapons that South Dakota took. As much of a damage sponge as it could be without sinking, you could still wreck its day at least as easily as a modern Arleigh Burke.
Its only survivable feature are the 16" rifles, which do have some use in anti-ship warfare, as with a 40,000 yard range in a 200,000 yard wide Taiwan Strait, with Aegis and SSN escorts it could absolutely dominate and prevent supplies from reaching it from the mainland.
I'd automate as much of the ammunition and propellant handling as possible in the time given to reduce the manpower requirements. Develop a new shell that fills the vacuum behind the round, to effectively double the range, like they do with the M777.
I don't know if it would be worth the effort to strip out the conning tower.
Clearly, more electrical power would be a good thing, as you pointed out.
When they did the work to automate the 8" guns on the Des Moines they found they needed more room for the automation machinery, so space in the turret was very tight. Doubt you could do that in the existing 16" turrets. Perhaps in the magazines, but it would have to keep the flash-tight integrity. A lot of the additional crew was in the 5" systems anyway, which could be replaced with modern 5" single-tubes that are automated. But developing a new shell will take a lot longer than reactivating the ship.
I think the question I'm most interested in is .. what happens to the name? There wouldn't be 2 New Jersey's in the fleet 👀
They could raid some nursing homes for people with 16" gun knowledge.
If you read this. I like one question if they had to reactivated BB62. They just deployed a new uss new Jersey sub. Would you still carry BB 62 name. In navy. You cannot have 2 same name ships
Right. I'm guessing the sub would have to change its name. But the fact that they named a sub New Jersey means, unfortunately, she's not returning. Just saw her this weekend. She looks in better shape than a lot of our ships.
How much would it cost to build a new Montana class today?
I would keep turrets 3, remove turrets 1 & 2 and replace them with up armored missile tubes, this should give you close to 256 missile tubes. Scrape the super structure of. Make it a missile barges with 3 16” guns
If the use of 16 in guns won’t be of use then the USMC beach invasion is not feasible.
problems would be a very long refurbishment/upgrade time, outdated Engine in a need of overhaul,
no 16 inch shells nor powder bags, a lot of loss of institutional operations knowledge and
NOT enough replenishment tanker for the current fleet.
Would the navy do something about the generators? Ryan has said several times that the Iowas were short on power with all new 80s equipment.
it is a hardened weapons platform that could be reconfigured, in ww2 the BB provided concentrated AA umbrella fire and took absorbed a lot of damage, with over 100 AA guns shooting down planes, anyone who thinks it will be less planes while missiles and drones have been added to the mix is fooling themselves, the BB still has a roll in full blown war, maybe not these ships but others will be built, maybe in South Korea.
If the oscillating device is enrobed in fecal mater enough to reclaim its history the congress would institute the draft, as far as training there are former sailors around who can teach folks how to work the ship’s systems.
You don't have to laugh at the subject...jeez 🙄
It is a laughing matter
No way would they reactivate them. Why would you? For the 16 inch guns? For what? 25-30km range? Please... Antiship missiles have ranges in the hundreds of miles. Aircraft carriers are much more valuable over an antique big gun battleship. I mean Isn't WW2 enough proof that battleships were obsolete back then. Why keep them in service now? Because the hull is armored? It was designed to be armored against weapons of the day. Not for modern anti ship missiles.
I wonder if any carriers can be reactivated? Midway, Intrepid, Lexington, Hornet...
I visited this ship 7 years ago. The best thing you can do for her is to preserve it as a monument to our parents period. Leave it as is. She is a witness to the last world war. Leave it for future generations.🤔
I'm sure that the first thing the navy would want to do is rip out the 16" gun turrets and stuff the empty holes full of VLS cells. They seem to be pretty big on those lately.
Would be the most practical use of it. Those old 16" mark 7 guns are just obsolete. Don't have the shells for them anymore, and they would never be able to produce new barrels for the guns when they wore out. Just strip off all the old 1940's era weapons and put modern weapons on.
We don't need a giant Missile ship.
Can the modern radars and electronics handle the over pressure from the main guns? Clearly the older CWIS could, but can the new model CWIS? Also, I can not even imagine all the parts that would have to be replaced that no longer exist. Though with the spare parts problem, I suppose you could, in theory, get the specs for hte parts and then use an industrial CNC and 3D printing system to machine and build the needed parts relatively quickly.
Though I think if the ship took damage, that would be it. We don't have armor plate anymore, nor can we made Class A or B face hardened armor plate. The shells and powder could probably be remade with newer variants, but that takes time to design, develop, make, and test.
Plus what happens if the ship gets hit and a boiler room or engine room gets damaged and knocked out? You can't just "take the engine room" from one of the other ships and bolt it into the active-duty one.
Whole super structure would have to go except the big guns. The design of defences should be for mass missile incoming...or mass torpedo defence. Both should not interfere with each other.
Put 6 X 30mm CIWIS (to act as pairs, 1 fires, 1 reloading).
57mm or 76mm auto guns for antiaircraft/missile defence (defence in layers). 4 to 8 in number positioned near side of ship with negative elevation to hit small boats near ship.
Add 150-200 missiles in verticle launch pods. to the sides of the front guns. in front of big guns fwd end. In superstructure along hull side. behind aft big gun and outwards.
C-RAM for antidrone defence.
Rim 116 missile.
Small Torpedoes that counter act sea drones /ASROC type for those fast rocket torpedo. Ship to subsurface torpedo rocket launched.
Design a Yamato anti missile shotgun shell for long range missile defence.
Hangar for drones. Maybe 2nd hanger on top superstructure for launch. Top hanger could launch a balloon for long range detection on spool.
Add 4-6 155mm long range guns shore stuff.
Maybe a 50mm gatling gun. (1 fwd 1 aft). Anti missile (like WW2 anti-aircraft rounds)
4 lasers. With battery/capacitor backup.
The best thing is material upgrades. Carbon fibre, new tougher metals (Cr, Ni,Co), Kevlar, (Tank armor ceramic like Chobham), titanium, H-150 steel, etc.
The best thing to do is to design a new hull that has new Panama Canal sizes of (1200 x 160 ft), with torpedo bulkhead (25-30 feet in depth), nuclear powered, Yamato armor equivalent to modern materials. Turtle deck (bismark) design. Azipod propellers (6-10 pods) some fwd, some aft. Can even look at some jet pods. Both can help with steering. Equivalent electrical power of new aircraft carriers.
Build a battleship, missile carrier, antisub/anti-air boat, large escort carrier, Assault ship with ocean bay, large drone carrier. Zepplin carriers (carries anti sub stuff, torpedoes) that are perimeter defence for sea groups.
You want people to join, show them that the ships survive with modern weapon impacts.
Seriously, it would be used as a semi-mobile battery not as a navy ship.
towed to a position, Anchored then you use the munitions from mothballs( if any are still available) with jury rigged artillery equipment.
Question. How many gun barrels larger than 8 inch currently exist? I'm thinking here 12 inch, 14 inch and 16 inch. I've always felt that if the capability of an Iowa Class Battleship was required, then the best way to do that would be to build some new ships along the lines of the Mississippi (BB.23) Class of ships. They are smaller vessels, with 4 12 inch guns, along with 8 8 inch and 8 7 inch guns. Eliminate the 7 inch guns (which were in casements), and replace the 8 inch guns with 5 inch guns, and replace the 12 inch guns with those from the Alaska Class Large Cruisers (or maybe updated 16"/50 from the Iowas), and perhaps lengthen the hulls to increase the speed, and you'd have a very good shore bombardment vessel, without all of the expense and difficulty of reactivating an Iowa.
More realistic if you just need platforms would be to bring back Midway or tow CV-67, with $2B in a box,to South Korea and tell them to have at it.
There was that thought briefly, typically every time one of the carriers between CV-59 and CV-67 (except CVN-65) were decommissioned. I believe the Japanese were serious about it somewhere along the line, but the problem is that, like any old car we want to keep on the road, the longer you go, the more its maintenance costs until you reach the point of the costs being so high it makes more sense to replace it. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment.
@ my thought is that the next 5 years is critical with the Taiwan threat and the excessive delays of the Ford class. So until that’s straightened out a couple of well used platforms may sufffice
They will need to have manufacturing facilities for 16inch shells and the powder bags .Without 16 inch ammunition the gun turrets are useless and just dead weight.