Iowa battleships

[El Chapo]

1 hour ago, Cypress Sun said:

 

Way less than half of the population of the US lives within 50 miles of any coast that any battleship (past or present) and supporting vessels could sail with reasonable security.

 

According to my 2 second review on Google, 40%, that is 2/5, of the population of the United States live in a county that touches the coast of an ocean.  "Other sources" opine that a majority, that is over 50%, live within 50 miles of a coastline and 2/3 live within 100 miles of the ocean.  Maybe you just underestimate how populous the coastal areas are, because this trend is worldwide, not just in our country.  In an event, I don't think naval doctrine is to build ships in hopes of firing rounds at our own population, at least, I hope not.

 

The primary driver of having big guns at sea isn't that, it's that it is a capability we are supposed to have to support amphibious landings, and that it's cheaper to send rounds than missiles.  I think it's no different than when they made the F4 Phantom with no gun and then realized that guns were not obsolete in the air and put one on the later models.  If my future predictions are true about the nature of the perceived threats, it will be cost effective to develop naval rifles and build ships to fire them.  It may not happen anyway, because all of this becomes politicized.  But I think it's still a mistake to suggest that battleships are "obsolete" or not useful for modern naval warfare.  I think the people who believe that are consuming too much propaganda from all the private companies that stand to profit from us putting all of our eggs in the missile basket, just like they did with the original versions of the F4, 50 years ago. 

 

If the USS Alaska and Guam weren't scrapped, it sure would be a great choice to recommission them just to demonstrate what I'm talking about.  Unfortunately, the class was not completed with only 2 built of the 6 planned, and those 2 are gone.  That was also 70 years ago, so I would not predict that a modern battlecruiser/battleship would look anything like the Iowas or the Alaskas.  But I think those who think they are impractical or obsolete are simply incorrect, even if there was a period where that idea was the only one that held up.  Guns are not obsolete.  Guns are cheap.  Missiles are expensive.

[PaulH]

The New Jersey was in dry dock last year for maintenance. The curators said it's kept in a state so it could be recommissioned but it would probably take up to 2 years about $1 Billion to get it battle ready. That's  a lot of money and time so you better think ahead. 😁

[El Chapo]

1 hour ago, PaulH said:

The New Jersey was in dry dock last year for maintenance. The curators said it's kept in a state so it could be recommissioned but it would probably take up to 2 years about $1 Billion to get it battle ready. That's  a lot of money and time so you better think ahead. 😁

 

That same video talked about the cost of building a new ship.  Given the crew required and the ongoing cost of running that old iron, as much as I love the Iowas, they are history.

[Joe LaFives #5481]

I'm thinking that the folks that are within 50 miles of the coast are the ones that are expendable

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

8 hours ago, Cypress Sun said:

 

Way less than half of the population of the US lives within 50 miles of any coast that any battleship (past or present) and supporting vessels could sail with reasonable security.

?

I would hope so. Are they shelling US coasts? I’m not tracking this train of thought. 

[Cypress Sun]

19 minutes ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

?

I would hope so. Are they shelling US coasts? I’m not tracking this train of thought. 

 

El Chapo had said that half of the population lived within 50 miles of the coast. I assumed that he was referring to the US as the Country was unspecified.

 

As far as I know, modern US battleships have never shelled the US coast...yet.

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

44 minutes ago, Cypress Sun said:

 

El Chapo had said that half of the population lived within 50 miles of the coast. I assumed that he was referring to the US as the Country was unspecified.

 

As far as I know, modern US battleships have never shelled the US coast...yet.

Gotcha. 
 

He also said the trend was worldwide, so I took it as just an example for his point. 
 

Along those lines about potential bad guy targets, Baghdad and Tehran are nowhere near bodies of water where battleships could lurk. As if battleships could lurk anywhere …. 😊

[Rip Snorter]

Tehran - soon to be a ghost town.  They are nearly out of water.

[Dapper Dave]

There was a plan to further modernize the Iowa class even after the 80s refit which added some Tomahawk and Harpoon launchers, IIRC, the last update which was not put in, would have replaced them with cell launchers amidships which would have given the big battlewagons a long range punch like Tyson. 

I agree, the Alaska was a great compromise warship, the American battlecruiser without being called a battlecruiser. Something along those lines made to modern standards with modern materials and equipment...yes indeed. And, even with missiles ruling the roost nowadays, if you build something like this, you HAVE to have at least two turrets with big honking firepower...well, because.  Heck even if it just two twin mounts with 12 inchers for shore bombardment, and fill the remaining space with missile cells, do it, but I am not a warship designer, nor do I play one on TV. 

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

1 minute ago, Rip Snorter said:

Tehran - soon to be a ghost town.  They are nearly out of water.

Saw that in the news. I’m betting what little water available will be diverted to the powers that be and the peasants will be required to die of thirst and crops will die for the good of the regime. 

[Rip Snorter]

Doesn't much matter, long term, a month maybe?  If there is no one left to rule...

[El Chapo]

41 minutes ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

Gotcha. 
 

He also said the trend was worldwide, so I took it as just an example for his point. 
 

Along those lines about potential bad guy targets, Baghdad and Tehran are nowhere near bodies of water where battleships could lurk. As if battleships could lurk anywhere …. 😊

 

According to the google machine again:

"Global: Around 40% of the world's population lives within 100 km (62 miles) of the coast. A more concentrated estimate is that about 15% of the global population lives within 10 km (6 miles) of the coast. "

 

Even if Baghdad and Tehran are out of reach of the battleships, they're not out of the range of what could be shelled to support a landing headed for those places (both of which are so worthless, maybe they reinforce my view that missiles are way too expensive).

 

[Chantry]

12 hours ago, Cypress Sun said:

 

El Chapo had said that half of the population lived within 50 miles of the coast. I assumed that he was referring to the US as the Country was unspecified.

 

As far as I know, modern US battleships have never shelled the US coast...yet.

 

Aside from test ranges 

[Cypress Sun]

1 hour ago, Chantry said:

 

Aside from test ranges 

 

A popular place in Pinellas County, Florida for tourists and locals alike is Fort Desoto and Fort Desoto beach. During WWII they used a couple of the islands there for aerial bomb practice.

 

After almost every major tropical storm type event, they find 250 lb and 500 lb bombs that have been uncovered by the storm. Most are usually dead or inert. One time they found a 500 lb bomb and decided to see if they could detonate it in place. Bad idea, it blew out windows all over Fort Desoto and nearby Tierra Verde. I'm about 20 miles from there, it was loud and somewhat concussive here.

[Chantry]

14 minutes ago, Cypress Sun said:

 

A popular place in Pinellas County, Florida for tourists and locals alike is Fort Desoto and Fort Desoto beach. During WWII they used a couple of the islands there for aerial bomb practice.

 

After almost every major tropical storm type event, they find 250 lb and 500 lb bombs that have been uncovered by the storm. Most are usually dead or inert. One time they found a 500 lb bomb and decided to see if they could detonate it in place. Bad idea, it blew out windows all over Fort Desoto and nearby Tierra Verde. I'm about 20 miles from there, it was loud and somewhat concussive here.

 

A reminder of, for lack of a better word, just how luck the American citizen has been in not seeing large scale enemy destruction happen in the continental US since the War of 1812.    Aside from 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, I really can't think of the last time there was a major military attack on an US state or major territory that be came a state.  Attu & Kiska were more of a nuisance than significant military attack.  I don't count the Civil War as that was a domestic issue.

[Nickle]

On 11/12/2025 at 9:03 PM, Dapper Dave said:

The Bismarck was rendered helpless from a single light torpedo from a Fairy Swordfish biplane damaging the rudder. 

If a carrier can be protected, we'll then wouldn't a battleship right beside it be protected? 

Wouldn't that same battleship also be able to offer additional air defense to the carrier group? 

If a battleship is obsolete and can be sunk then the carrier right beside it certainly could be destroyed as well?

I'm no expert on any of this. I just find it interesting. 

I know we have a history of going into wars prepared to fight like the last war but everything different in the new war.

[Chantry]

51 minutes ago, Nickle said:

If a carrier can be protected, we'll then wouldn't a battleship right beside it be protected? 

Wouldn't that same battleship also be able to offer additional air defense to the carrier group? 

If a battleship is obsolete and can be sunk then the carrier right beside it certainly could be destroyed as well?

I'm no expert on any of this. I just find it interesting. 

I know we have a history of going into wars prepared to fight like the last war but everything different in the new war.

 

If a carrier can be protected, we'll then wouldn't a battleship right beside it be protected? Yes, the surface action groups built around a battleship had 3  escorts, much like a carrier.

 

Wouldn't that same battleship also be able to offer additional air defense to the carrier group?  Minimal, the Iowa's were equipped with 4 CIWS, but that was for point defense only.  It is unlikely the 5" guns would be of much use in modern air defense.

 

If a battleship is obsolete and can be sunk then the carrier right beside it certainly could be destroyed as well? Anything can be sunk, but a carrier w/escorts can start defending 400-500 miles from the carrier and in, depending on the plane missile/range combination.  Additionally there would be  passive and active jamming from potentially planes as well as ships.

 

I know we have a history of going into wars prepared to fight like the last war but everything different in the new war.  It's that very difference that made the battleship viable.  There have been huge leaps in guided missiles since the battleships were brought back into service in the 1980's.  I don't know the answer, but it MAY be cheaper to used the expensive guided missiles compared to building, crewing and operating an existing or building a new "battleship".  Either updating one of the existing battleships or building a new one, would cost billions of dollars and take years to complete.  And none of the above includes getting those appropriations through Congress or the push back from the Navy, which doesn't seem to want a battleship. Or re-developing the tools and machinery required to build a new "battleship".

Edited November 14, 2025 by Chantry

[El Chapo]

52 minutes ago, Nickle said:

If a carrier can be protected, we'll then wouldn't a battleship right beside it be protected? 

Wouldn't that same battleship also be able to offer additional air defense to the carrier group? 

If a battleship is obsolete and can be sunk then the carrier right beside it certainly could be destroyed as well?

I'm no expert on any of this. I just find it interesting. 

I know we have a history of going into wars prepared to fight like the last war but everything different in the new war.

 

I think the idea that big guns at sea are obsolete stems from the surface warfare of two ships shooting at each other, which post-Leyte Gulf, would be considered unlikely.  Ships were armored as they were then because the primary threat they faced was from other guns similar in size to theirs.

 

I would imagine that were we to design a new battleship, while the machinery and ammunition magazines would be protected, I doubt we would armor them like the early 1900s.  Torpedo protection would be a must as submarines are a major threat, and given their cost, armor would be needed to protect them from missiles and bombs that made it through their defenses, however unlikely that would be.  But a modern battleship would not need armor plating sufficient to absorb hits from its own guns unless we sincerely believed that our enemies would build them, too, which I'd be curious to know how many nations even have the facilities to build ships of this size and displacement.

 

The other problem, referenced above, is that while we do have the capability to build ships of this size, the number of facilities is significantly less than it was 70 years ago, such that we are deferring maintenance on existing ships.  Building a new class of warship would be a stretch to say the least.  I think this is actually a serious national defense concern, and I hope we abate it somehow, even if my hope for a modern battleship never happens.

 

  

Just now, Chantry said:

 

the push back from the Navy, which doesn't seem to want a battleship.

 

It's understandable that they'd behave that way, just like they did in the 80s.  The reason is that the primary beneficiaries of a new battleship would be the Marines and Army, and of course they'd rather have fancy/expensive toys rather than a capability that benefits other branches.  Fortunately there was a critical mass of people who realized the value the battleships had, and they proved themselves in Lebanon and the Persian Gulf before being decommissioned and struck.

Edited November 14, 2025 by El Chapo

[Chantry]

10 minutes ago, El Chapo said:

The other problem, referenced above, is that while we do have the capability to build ships of this size, the number of facilities is significantly less than it was 70 years ago, such that we are deferring maintenance on existing ships.  Building a new class of warship would be a stretch to say the least.  I think this is actually a serious national defense concern, and I hope we abate it somehow, even if my hope for a modern battleship never happens.

 

  

 

 they'd rather have fancy/expensive toys rather than a capability that benefits other branches.  

 

I question how many shipyards in the US could build something so large, only Newport News springs to mind and they are busy with aircraft carriers.

 

I also doubt, without spending a LOT of money, that we can recreate the technology used to build a Iowa carrier battleship.  We would need a steel factory to make the armor plate and another to built the guns if they are going to be larger than 6".

 

A common issue with all the military branches of service and I think the aviators (Air Farce & Navy) are the worst of the cliques.

[Stump Water]

22 minutes ago, Chantry said:

And none of the above includes getting those appropriations through Congress or the push back from the Navy, which doesn't seem to want a battleship.

 

Hell, they don't even want cruisers.

[Chantry]

19 minutes ago, Stump Water said:

 

Hell, they don't even want cruisers.

 

Partly a money issue as the new cruisers were supposed to based on the Zumwalt hull and partly because the Arleigh Burke's can do the same job having 1 less 5" gun and 90-96 missiles depending which flight against the 122 missiles a Ticonderoga class cruiser carries.  Almost certainly cheaper to build more Arleigh Burke DDG than design and build a new DDG cruiser class.

[El Chapo]

16 minutes ago, Chantry said:

 

Partly a money issue as the new cruisers were supposed to based on the Zumwalt hull and partly because the Arleigh Burke's can do the same job having 1 less 5" gun and 90-96 missiles depending which flight against the 122 missiles a Ticonderoga class cruiser carries.  Almost certainly cheaper to build more Arleigh Burke DDG than design and build a new DDG cruiser class.

 

The Zumwalts were supposed to be how they replaced the congressionally-required naval gunfire support requirement.  Then they discovered that the cost of buying the rounds would be up to $2 Billion, aka, as much as a whole new battleship, just for ammunition.  The people were lied to so the Navy didn't have to keep the battleships on the naval register, and then the Navy refused to procure the ammunition they claimed could replace their capability.  It'd be a scandal if anyone cared, but the defense contractors just went back to running the meter on something else.

[Nickle]

1 hour ago, Chantry said:

 

I question how many shipyards in the US could build something so large, only Newport News springs to mind and they are busy with aircraft carriers.

 

I also doubt, without spending a LOT of money, that we can recreate the technology used to build a Iowa carrier battleship.  We would need a steel factory to make the armor plate and another to built the guns if they are going to be larger than 6".

 

A common issue with all the military branches of service and I think the aviators (Air Farce & Navy) are the worst of the cliques.

I’m kind of a gun nut.  I’m not into boats or navy.  But battleships are cool.  
been watching battleship New Jersey show for years.  On that show one time he was talking about this and he said no facilities in America are even capable of producing 16”  or 18”armor anymore. 

Im starting to think anything big is going to be obsolete in near future including carriers. Example i know Russians are plagued with internal problems but holy crap look what’s happening in Ukraine. 
every abrams sent over there destroyed pretty quickly.  So not just Russian tanks obsolete. 
Russian navy and air force scared to go anywhere handy to Ukraine. 

[Chantry]

39 minutes ago, Nickle said:

I’m kind of a gun nut.  I’m not into boats or navy.  But battleships are cool.  
been watching battleship New Jersey show for years.  On that show one time he was talking about this and he said no facilities in America are even capable of producing 16”  or 18”armor anymore. 

Im starting to think anything big is going to be obsolete in near future including carriers. Example i know Russians are plagued with internal problems but holy crap look what’s happening in Ukraine. 
every abrams sent over there destroyed pretty quickly.  So not just Russian tanks obsolete. 
Russian navy and air force scared to go anywhere handy to Ukraine. 

 

As the only naval global superpower, we need carriers or something equivalent to a carrier to visibly project power.

 

A carrier group is a hard target, excluding the use of nuclear weapons, and at least one of a carrier's escorts will be carrying surface to air missiles capable of shooting down ICBM's.

 

I would suggest not using Ukraine to predict future combat.  Tanks are not supposed to operate by themselves, they are supposed to have infantry, artillery and helicopter support, aka combined operations.

 

However brave and motivated, soldiers without enough training or experience are not going to use high tech equipment to the best effect.  What is happening in the Ukraine is showing the deficiencies of the Russian military: poorly trained and unmotivated troops, lack of combat experience*, poor or mediocre officers, an apparent lack of combined operations and less advanced equipment compared to NATO.

 

*For Russia in all of her forms, the military has always been a blunt object, using mass, lots of artillery and accepting high casualty rates to achieve it's objectives. Aside from Afghanistan and some rumored border skirmishes with China, they really haven't fought a war since WWII.

Edited November 14, 2025 by Chantry

[Stump Water]

https://www.instagram.com/p/DRC8T2nD6aP/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

[El Chapo]

I was watching a documentary on the A-10 Warthog and the parallels between them trying to retire the A-10 with nothing that can replace its capability reminds me of the arguments over battleships.  The most important beneficiaries of both the A-10 and the battleships are the Army and Marines, yet it's Air Force and Navy that have to pay for them, so both are behaving accordingly, hoping to get rid of an expense that primarily benefits another service.  Fortunately the A-10 people are losing the argument for now, and sadly, the capability of the Iowas was taken from us by fraud with the Zumwalts.

[Stump Water]

Ran across this recently.

 

 

[El Chapo]

26 minutes ago, Stump Water said:

Ran across this recently.

 

 

 

Have to have ground to build airstrips.  And you have to support the ground troops to have ground.

[Seldom Seen #16162]

The war in the Ukraine is essentially a repeat of W.W.1. Trench war with heavy infantry losses with gains measured on yards only to have to retreat by counterattacks.

 

The air war can be thought like.the development of the airplane. Just as airplane technology advanced quickly the same is said for drones. Drones were first used for observing and have advanced into effective bombers.

 

Just as the German Navy stayed bottled up in their ports due to the stronger British Navy the Russian fleet has been confined to ports to far away from the fighting due to heavy loss of ships damaged or sunk. Ukraine has developed sea drones so effective that they are successfully attacking ships even sitting in port.

 

The A-Bomb was to prevent future wars as just threat of using them would cause so many casualties and damage that nobody would risk starting a war. Well we know how that has worked out. Putin tried threatening the use of nukes but failed to rattle NATO and Ukraine into surrendering.

 

So we.have W.W.1 2.0 in Europe.

Edited December 2, 2025 by Seldom Seen #16162

[Nickle]

On 12/1/2025 at 8:44 PM, Seldom Seen #16162 said:

The war in the Ukraine is essentially a repeat of W.W.1. Trench war with heavy infantry losses with gains measured on yards only to have to retreat by counterattacks.

 

The air war can be thought like.the development of the airplane. Just as airplane technology advanced quickly the same is said for drones. Drones were first used for observing and have advanced into effective bombers.

 

Just as the German Navy stayed bottled up in their ports due to the stronger British Navy the Russian fleet has been confined to ports to far away from the fighting due to heavy loss of ships damaged or sunk. Ukraine has developed sea drones so effective that they are successfully attacking ships even sitting in port.

 

The A-Bomb was to prevent future wars as just threat of using them would cause so many casualties and damage that nobody would risk starting a war. Well we know how that has worked out. Putin tried threatening the use of nukes but failed to rattle NATO and Ukraine into surrendering.

 

So we.have W.W.1 2.0 in Europe.

Very good chance that the Russian Soviet era nukes don’t work anymore. 
American nukes are different story   
Even if they did work. I don’t see Putin gaining anything by launching a nuke or several nukes.  
I believe Ukraine not only will win but they will take back lost territories when Russia collapses from within. 
It’s an economic war thats going on and Russia is circling the drain 

[Chantry]

1 hour ago, Nickle said:

Very good chance that the Russian Soviet era nukes don’t work anymore. 
American nukes are different story   
Even if they did work. I don’t see Putin gaining anything by launching a nuke or several nukes.  
I believe Ukraine not only will win but they will take back lost territories when Russia collapses from within. 
It’s an economic war thats going on and Russia is circling the drain 

 

 

 

Very good chance that the Russian Soviet era nukes don’t work anymore. 
How many lives are you willing to bet on all of Russia's nukes not working?

Even if they did work. I don’t see Putin gaining anything by launching a nuke or several nukes.  
Same as above

 

The biggest mistake this country (as well as some of the other Western countries) makes is thinking that everybody else thinks the same way as we and has roughly the same values..  See Vietnam (France, US) and Afghanistan (Russia, US, NATO) as good examples.

 

 

[Nickle]

Well none of this war is up to me. I'm just watching it.

Russia had so many lines in the sand that I can't even remember all of them anymore. 

If ukes expand the war and attack Russian soil they will nuke

If Ukes get certain help from Nato they will nuke 

It's been how many years now of this now. Russians can't even pull off simply things. Corruption, drunkenness, social poison and culture that’s just destroying Russians from within.  

I believe Russian nukes are more dangerous to the Russians than they are to Ukes. Nukes are not like bullets that you can just put in storage.  Even if they paid to maintain them they are so corrupt and crooked that they most likely were not maintained like they were supposed to be.

 

Edited December 4, 2025 by Nickle

[Sedalia Dave]

 

On 12/1/2025 at 1:09 PM, Stump Water said:

Ran across this recently.

 

 

 

On 12/1/2025 at 1:43 PM, El Chapo said:

 

Have to have ground to build airstrips.  And you have to support the ground troops to have ground.

 

Halsey was advocating for more aircraft carriers in lieu of building more battleships. He knew that Aircraft carriers allow for the projection of airpower anywhere in the world and that while Airpower alone doesn't win the war, without it, you are unlikely to win.

 

If you look at the kill record of battleships on all sides during WWI, it was pretty poor. Especially when compared to the damage inflicted by aircraft, submarines and small torpedo boats. 

 

About the only place battleships excelled was shore bombardment and without air superiority they wouldn't have been able to get close enough to shore to be of any use. 

 

 

 

 

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

We are still overlooking the intimidation factor.  Battleships are scary, not to the military as much as the civilian population.  Those ships just ooze danger, strength, and awe to people who may never see one.  

 

They just cry out "WE WILL KILL YOU AND DESTOY EVERYTHING YOU HAVE!"

 

It's a public image matter because very few nations will ignore their population.  Too many countries do, however, and we can still intimidate them in many other ways, but a humongous steel fortress bristling with weaponry and leading all the many other ships just outside your major cities can raise the pucker factor and force those countries to divert funds to  places they wouldn't consider spending them otherwise. 

 

Wouldn't need the heavy armor any more, nor huge guns, but something massive with modern weaponry and tech advantages, all visible and intimidating, can work as well....just so it's an apparent visible threat.

Edited December 12, 2025 by Forty Rod SASS 3935

[Nickle]

Honestly if Iowas were not so gorgeous.  If they weren't just so cool. I wouldn't be interested in them.  Probably not best reason to pump money into them. 

I'm happy they are preserving them as museum ships. Be nice if they could  be made operational and could actually be used again in some way that sort of makes economic sense. 

I look at them like  I do an old truck or an old gun. Both can be kept running and  both can  make economic sense.  But in my examples nobody is trying to blow me up when I'm out trucking or hunting.