Iowa battleships

[Nickle]

 

 

President Trump talking about bring them back!

This would be what?  4th time from moth ball or museum ships?

Iowas are so cool!

 

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

A fun pipe dream, though...!  

 

And just for fun!  

 

 

 

[watab kid]

i like these old battle wagons - the best of black powder in my mind , but i question returning to the  older technology over all that our current navy has to offer , i realize they would not go back to the old technology completely but , well , maybe , just in case there was a jammer or something for modern stuff we might fall back to the old ....i dont think on that a lot these days but i do appreciate whgat those old iowa class BSs cpuld do 0- and still could in right conditions 

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

Targets

[Chantry]

Not going to happen, too expensive to man and run and the aviators won't allow anything that might affect carrier strength or funding, which was the big reason the USS New Jersey only did one tour during Vietnam.  She was too successful in the role.

 

As for them being targets, perhaps, but very tough targets.  Most countries don't have missiles that can penetrate the side or deck armor.  When they were modernized in the 1980's they were upgraded with jammers and other defensive countermeasures to defeat missiles..

 

Probably only China and Russia still have missiles in the inventory that could sink a battleship, but even then they would have to make it through the air defenses of a battleship's escorts.  The same would apply to a submarine, but only a SSN could catch an Iowa class moving at 33 knots and doing that would make the submarine a very loud target for the escorts.

 

The same things that make them obsolete are the same things that make them so hard to kill.

 

On edit:  None of the Iowa class battleships belong to the US government, all have been struck from the naval registry and are now the property of the organizations that run the museums where they are located.

 

Edited November 6, 2025 by Chantry

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

what can a battleship do that can't be done by less expensive platforms?

[Chantry]

44 minutes ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

what can a battleship do that can't be done by less expensive platforms?

Accurately deliver large quantities of high explosives in all weather, at less cost, with minimal risk to American lives and do it about 2 1/2 times as fast as TWO aircraft carriers.

 

A battleship can also supply much of the same medical care as an aircraft carrier and refuel her escorts if an oiler is not around.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_Jersey_(BB-62)#The_Vietnam_War_(1967–1969)

 

The USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin did similar work during Desert Storm.

 

I had a co-worker who had served in Vietnam and he said that the USS New Jersey saved his life by bombarding enemy positions.

 

The USS Massachusetts, a South Dakota class battleship, is down in Fall River, MA   http://www.battleshipcove.org/

Edited November 6, 2025 by Chantry

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

When the USS Missouri was decommissioned in the early 90s, it was costing $1M a day to operate. That's over $2.4M today - over $900M a year - for one ship. And that's on top of costs to get the old tub running again. The other big piece is the equipment and expertise to crew and maintain one no longer exists, not to mention munitions. The Iowa has a dead turret after its explosion in the 80s because the ability to repair hadn't existed for decades before the explosion. Think about that. While it might be difficult to sink one, battle damage or accidents that were repairable 60 years ago would now render them useless permanently.

 

They've been sitting idle now for decades without the thought of bringing them back on line, not to mention they were already well-used over their lifetimes. As seagoing vessels of war, they're now comparatively fragile. Best to let them stay where they are to remind of us a different time.

 

 

 

 

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

I think missile light cruisers or something like that is a better idea.

[Nickle]

1 hour ago, Chantry said:

Accurately deliver large quantities of high explosives in all weather, at less cost, with minimal risk to American lives and do it about 2 1/2 times as fast as TWO aircraft carriers.

 

A battleship can also supply much of the same medical care as an aircraft carrier and refuel her escorts if an oiler is not around.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_Jersey_(BB-62)#The_Vietnam_War_(1967–1969)

 

The USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin did similar work during Desert Storm.

 

I had a co-worker who had served in Vietnam and he said that the USS New Jersey saved his life by bombarding enemy positions.

 

The USS Massachusetts, a South Dakota class battleship, is down in Fall River, MA   http://www.battleshipcove.org/

 

Look at Russian fleet in Ukraine war. Useless.  Their missile cruisers can't take a hit from a drone.  No armor.  Just splinter protection.  New Jersey like you pointed out could hammer targets on shore with extremely cheap 16" artillery for a long time in a long war.

The Iowas are fast enough to keep up with carrier fleets and their large size makes them a good platform for cruisers missiles ,etc.

They also hold a lot of fuel and could be used to fuel smaller ships in the carrier fleet.  Yes I know about the Iowas wake and trouble with refueling smaller boats but it still can be done.

Also and I don't fully understand it but there is a new thing called guided artillery.  I'm not sure if or how but maybe this could also improve those beautiful  16 inch guns?

[Chantry]

27 minutes ago, Nickle said:

 

Look at Russian fleet in Ukraine war. Useless.  Their missile cruisers can't take a hit from a drone.  No armor.  Just splinter protection.  New Jersey like you pointed out could hammer targets on shore with extremely cheap 16" artillery for a long time in a long war.

The Iowas are fast enough to keep up with carrier fleets and their large size makes them a good platform for cruisers missiles ,etc.

They also hold a lot of fuel and could be used to fuel smaller ships in the carrier fleet.  Yes I know about the Iowas wake and trouble with refueling smaller boats but it still can be done.

Also and I don't fully understand it but there is a new thing called guided artillery.  I'm not sure if or how but maybe this could also improve those beautiful  16 inch guns?

 

Moot point, they will not be reactivated.  It would cost too much, it will cost too much to crew and those in naval aviation will never allow them to be reactivated.

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

2 hours ago, Chantry said:

Accurately deliver large quantities of high explosives in all weather, at less cost, with minimal risk to American lives and do it about 2 1/2 times as fast as TWO aircraft carriers.

Provided they’re within 35 miles of the target and no one is shooting back. 

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

1 hour ago, Nickle said:

 

Look at Russian fleet in Ukraine war. Useless.  Their missile cruisers can't take a hit from a drone.  No armor.  Just splinter protection.  New Jersey like you pointed out could hammer targets on shore with extremely cheap 16" artillery for a long time in a long war.

The Iowas are fast enough to keep up with carrier fleets and their large size makes them a good platform for cruisers missiles ,etc.

They also hold a lot of fuel and could be used to fuel smaller ships in the carrier fleet.  Yes I know about the Iowas wake and trouble with refueling smaller boats but it still can be done.

Also and I don't fully understand it but there is a new thing called guided artillery.  I'm not sure if or how but maybe this could also improve those beautiful  16 inch guns?

The Russian navy is incompetent. They don’t even make a good bad example.

[Nickle]

Well  Iowas are just so frigging cool.  It's like saying a 73 colt/Winchester obsolete.  Or 1911s no good anymore. 

So missile cruisers obsolete? If you compare a Iowa to a Kirov. I would rather be on board the Iowa. 

Iowas just so gorgeous .

[Chantry]

2 hours ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

Provided they’re within 35 miles of the target and no one is shooting back. 

 

Closer to 20-25 miles and what are they going to shoot back with that would bother a battleship?

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

If you’re going to build it, go to the Montana class and don’t worry about the old Panamax width.

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

Upgrade the technical gadgetry to find and destroy targets (and identify friendly forces that may be used as support, especially defensive systems to protect the ship).  Add target acquisition and identification electronics to spot and destroy other targets using whatever is needed.  If necessary improve the armor of the ships.

 

Use support systems like aircraft, satellites, submarines, and anything else for detection and identification of everything in a vast range.

 

 

UPGRADE AND KEEP THE BIG GUNS.  PROUDLY FLAUNT AND ADVERTISE THE CAPABILITIES OF THESE SHIPs, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THE INTIMIDATION FACTOR

Edited December 4, 2025 by Forty Rod SASS 3935

[Ol Salty Sailor]

I was a battleship sailor.  I proudly served on the USS New Jersey BB-62 from 1987-1990.

The Iowa class have a lot of romantic appeal but they were originally designed in the late 1930's and built in the 1940's.

I don't think the cost would be justified.

 

 

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

40 minutes ago, Chantry said:

 

Closer to 20-25 miles and what are they going to shoot back with that would bother a battleship?

Missiles and drones. Don’t have to sink it, just disable it. Germans did that with their Fritz-X glide bombs in the Mediterranean.
 

Like Old Salty said, these things were conceived in an another era. Like mounted cavalry and ironclads that were fearsome in their own day, these ships days are past. 
 

My last post on this topic. 
 

Edited November 6, 2025 by Abilene Slim SASS 81783

[Rip Snorter]

Scroll down to JS Squidley https://www.quora.com/Has-an-Iowa-class-battleship-been-damaged-in-an-attack

[Dapper Dave]

5 hours ago, Ol Salty Sailor said:

I was a battleship sailor.  I proudly served on the USS New Jersey BB-62 from 1987-1990.

The Iowa class have a lot of romantic appeal but they were originally designed in the late 1930's and built in the 1940's.

I don't think the cost would be justified.

 

 

I was on the USS Pyro Ae-24 when we rearmed you in 87. Just seeing that beautiful ship at sea was incredible, a steel shark with one message: I am here to kill everyone and I don't care about names. Aircraft carriers are floating airports, and the light ships like DDG, FFG, etc., fast sleek multi purpose ships, but battlewagons? They are the heavyweight killers, through and through. 

But now? I really don't think they would be the right choice. The New Jersey was launched in 1942, and even with the modernization in the 80s, she is still very elderly. I would LOVE to see a new battleship designed from the water up with modern tech, but the cost would be insane, and no political will to do it. I remember when they were calling retired sailors in to teach new sailors how to run the big beautiful beasts, rates that had been struck because they were no longer needed. 

[Chantry]

It is remarkably hard to sink a battleship and aside from the big ship killers designed to sink carriers that the Russians and maybe the Chinese have, most modern missiles will not penetrate the armor.  I'm not aware of any drone that could penetrate the armor.

 

This is a theoretical conversation, the battleships will never be re-activated, it will cost too much, the bill won't make it through Congress and the US Government doesn't own the battleships anymore.

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

38 minutes ago, Chantry said:

 

This is a theoretical conversation, the battleships will never be re-activated, it will cost too much, the bill won't make it through Congress and the US Government doesn't own the battleships anymore.

they really would have to start from scratch which would make the whole program far too expensive

[Chantry]

1 hour ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

they really would have to start from scratch which would make the whole program far too expensive

Agreed.   I've been on the USS Massachusetts a number of times and while much the technology and equipment isn't very complicated by today's standards, it is very large and would be hard to make.   We would have to re-create the tooling to make the armor and probably the 16" barrels as well. 

 

I've been on the USS Massachusetts (Fall River, MA), USS New Jersey (Camden, NJ) and the USS Wisconsin (Norfolk, VA) and pictures don't  capture just how big and solid they are.  When they were built they were among the largest ships in the world (by tonnage) aside from maybe the large ocean luxury liners and the three Yamato hulls.

Edited November 7, 2025 by Chantry

[Cypress Sun]

As much as I would love to see the Iowa class battleships roaming the oceans again, it would be damn near impossible to do regardless of how much money the government had available. Building submarines would be a much better choice imo.

[Chantry]

Here is a link to a YouTube channel about the USS New Jersey, lots of video's by the curator of the USS New Jersey museum.

 

https://www.youtube.com/@BattleshipNewJersey

[Nickle]

On 11/7/2025 at 5:12 AM, Chantry said:

It is remarkably hard to sink a battleship and aside from the big ship killers designed to sink carriers that the Russians and maybe the Chinese have, most modern missiles will not penetrate the armor.  I'm not aware of any drone that could penetrate the armor.

 

This is a theoretical conversation, the battleships will never be re-activated, it will cost too much, the bill won't make it through Congress and the US Government doesn't own the battleships anymore.

New Jersey  is a museum ship but way things are written up. The Navy can still reactivate her. I'm 100 percent sure about this.

 New Jersey because it is a  museum ship is not in bad condition.  They are always restoring something on her. 

When  mothballed the boilers and everything else was put away in such  a condition that everything  could be reactivated down  the road.  It wasn't  just parked, abandoned  like it was scrap.

Ukraine has definitely changed battle field.  Maybe carrier fleets or anything large and expensive are obsolete and we just  don't  know it yet?

 

[Chantry]

12 minutes ago, Nickle said:

Ukraine has definitely changed battle field.  Maybe carrier fleets or anything large and expensive are obsolete and we just  don't  know it yet?

 

Perhaps, but it's always dangerous to to try to predict the future of war based on a specific situation. 

 

Oversimplifying it a lot*, most in the world's militaries thought WWI set the example of what future warfare would be, trench warfare with a limited number of heavily armored, slow moving tanks supporting the infantry and artillery blowing everything up.  Warfare at sea was supposed to be the same, decisive fleet actions fought by battleships with aircraft carriers in the support role.

 

Between advances in technology and some smart people not wanting to fight WWII the same way as WWI, WWII was significantly different.

 

Right now drone counter measures are being researched and being put into production and my prediction is that we will see drone jammers and anti drone lasers,  ways to kill drone operators, although fitting a laser into a tank sized vehicle that supplies enough power to the laser AND vehicle is going to be a challenge.

 

*Trying to shorten what is often covered in books into a couple of short paragraphs is always a challenge.

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

I still think the Intimidation Factor is valid.  Battleship is all muscle, bone and guts.  Bristling with guns and gear should scare the hell out of adversaries.   They are designed to look like brutes and bullies...and should be just that. 

 

Submarines aren't usually SEEN, so they aren't intimidating to those who aren't around them.  Kind of out of sight, out of mind.  Let's get real: a sub has no visual weaponry and can't give the same aura as a gun boat of almost any kind.

 

Aircraft carriers are impressive, but are so pretty they just don't measure up.... and they don't LOOK deadly and intimidating.  They look like an LAX that floats

 

Most of the remainder of our combat ships are are sleek and impressive but simply don't have the visual brute force intimidation factor.  Some are almost cute, looking more like pleasure craft than killing machines.

 

As to the cost: if we would stop trying to buy loyalty from our "allies" and spending too much of our money on useless crap, we could afford it.  Financially the USA is the super sucker of the entire planet.  We give away the cost of a several battleships every year to countries that repay us by voting against us in the UN, supporting terrorist groups and out-and-out military enemies, building infrastructures for questionable countries, ignoring our borders and laws, and we give everyone who asks all of our military equipment and technology, and we allow them to buy up vital industries both on our soil and all over the world and then allow them to throw it all in our faces.

[Seldom Seen #16162]

I once read a proposal that to refit and modernize a BB would be about the same cost as building a new cruiser. 

 

Replace the engines with nuclear power engines, remove the aft turret and reconfigure the aft space with missile launchers. Of course a lot of internal changes such as computers, radars, etc. backed up by old fashion wiring.

 

[Stump Water]

2 hours ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

Submarines aren't usually SEEN, so they aren't intimidating to those who aren't around them.  Kind of out of sight, out of mind.  Let's get real: a sub has no visual weaponry and can't give the same aura as a gun boat of almost any kind.

 

With subs it's the fear of the unknown.  You can't see it, which is the point.  Look at all of the effort, technology, resources that go into "anti-submarine".

[Cypress Sun]

12 minutes ago, Stump Water said:

 

With subs it's the fear of the unknown.  You can't see it, which is the point.  Look at all of the effort, technology, resources that go into "anti-submarine".

 

All of those "other" ships weren't there to protect the battlewagon from other battlewagons. 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2025 by Cypress Sun

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

3 hours ago, Stump Water said:

 

With subs it's the fear of the unknown.  You can't see it, which is the point.  Look at all of the effort, technology, resources that go into "anti-submarine".

Okay, but the average person doesn't see them as a war ship, likely will never see one at all.  Sailors are trained for that, but public opinion will win out.

 

Battleships are scary as hell.  

 

Submarines look like huge lovable dolphins.

[Stump Water]

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

Wheeeee!  I'm gonna go out there and find a decent wave to ride.