Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-05-2012, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Cupertino, CA
860 posts, read 2,200,172 times
Reputation: 1195

Advertisements

It's a shame the Brits did not preserve a single BB such as HMS Warspite. Well at least we also have older ships like USS Texas to represent a WWI dreadnought battleship.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-05-2012, 08:59 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,017 posts, read 20,869,471 times
Reputation: 32530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat View Post
So approximately how much will one ticket cost to tour this ship?
Checking their website just now indicates $18 for adults and $10 for children 6 to 10. There is no mention of a senior discount, but it stands to reason there will be one. There is also an annual membership, but I didn't look at the details of that. You can google USS Iowa San Pedro and get to the website; that's what I just did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2012, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,198 posts, read 22,263,933 times
Reputation: 23827
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoxCar Willie View Post
While 5 were planned only 3 Iowa, Wisconsin, and Missouri are of this class.

BTW a litle tidbit here.

On 17 March 2006, the Secretary of the Navy exercised his authority to strike Iowa and Wisconsin from the NVR, which has cleared the way for both ships to be donated for use as museum ships, but the United States Congress remains "deeply concerned" over the loss of the naval surface gunfire support that the battleships provided, and has noted that "navy efforts to improve upon, much less replace, this capability have been highly problematic." As a partial consequence, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act 2006, requiring that the battleships be kept and maintained in a state of readiness should they ever be needed again.[SIZE=3][/SIZE] Congress has ordered that the following measures be implemented to ensure that, if need be, Iowa can be returned to active duty:
  1. Iowa must not be altered in any way that would impair her military utility;
  2. The battleship must be preserved in her present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection, dehumidification systems, and any other preservation methods as needed;
  3. Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16-inch (410 mm) gun barrels and projectiles must be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa, if reactivated;
  4. The Navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Iowa should she be returned to the Navy in the event of a national emergency.
These four conditions closely mirror the original three conditions that the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 laid out for the maintenance of Iowa while she was in the "mothball fleet".

From what i was told by un named parties ALL three battlewagons are kept this way ready to show and tell and fight if need be.
It's very doubtful that any of the last BB's will ever be deployed again. Their bombardment range is too limited in comparison to modern missile ships, and their entire gunnery technology, from the main turrets to their targeting and guidance systems are archaic.
The ships would be nothing but big fat targets in modern combat. The combined attack by modern aircraft and one missile frigate would make short work of any of them.

Battleships are now like castles; they were once the pride of the nations that built them, and in their time, were the most effective weapons to project a nation's military power abroad. But just as castles were, battleships are too easily breached by modern weaponry now. 80 years of technological advances has made them completely obsolete, no matter how magnificent they are.

The massive explosion of one of Iowa's main turrets in 1989 settled the matter for good. 47 sailors died. I read a report recently that stated the silk bags which hold the high explosives used to project the 16" shells are so degraded from age that they are now too dangerous to move and are safer in the ammunition bays than trying to remove them. This gunpowder is all over 70 years old now, and there is no current gunnery officer or gun crew who is trained in firing the main batteries. All that remains for training materials are old training films from World War II.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2012, 09:54 PM
 
827 posts, read 1,669,115 times
Reputation: 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
It's very doubtful that any of the last BB's will ever be deployed again. Their bombardment range is too limited in comparison to modern missile ships, and their entire gunnery technology, from the main turrets to their targeting and guidance systems are archaic.
The ships would be nothing but big fat targets in modern combat. The combined attack by modern aircraft and one missile frigate would make short work of any of them.

Battleships are now like castles; they were once the pride of the nations that built them, and in their time, were the most effective weapons to project a nation's military power abroad. But just as castles were, battleships are too easily breached by modern weaponry now. 80 years of technological advances has made them completely obsolete, no matter how magnificent they are.

The massive explosion of one of Iowa's main turrets in 1989 settled the matter for good. 47 sailors died. I read a report recently that stated the silk bags which hold the high explosives used to project the 16" shells are so degraded from age that they are now too dangerous to move and are safer in the ammunition bays than trying to remove them. This gunpowder is all over 70 years old now, and there is no current gunnery officer or gun crew who is trained in firing the main batteries. All that remains for training materials are old training films from World War II.
THAT is where you are wrong the powder that caused the explosion was on a barge in 1988 and stuck in the hot sun for several weeks when the Mississippi River dropped it's level. THAT"S what degraded the powder. THOSE bags were removed and destroyeed the powder is newer and in climate controlled areas. BTW my cousin is a gunnersmate and recieved training for the BB's guns he said if they reactivate em he and others are slated for these wagons. They may be old, BUT if a war erupts and they are needed, they will produce massive amounts of firepower. May be old, BUT not obsolete. If they were NO naval warship would have a gun aboard them
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2012, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,198 posts, read 22,263,933 times
Reputation: 23827
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoxCar Willie View Post
THAT is where you are wrong the powder that caused the explosion was on a barge in 1988 and stuck in the hot sun for several weeks when the Mississippi River dropped it's level. THAT"S what degraded the powder. THOSE bags were removed and destroyeed the powder is newer and in climate controlled areas. BTW my cousin is a gunnersmate and recieved training for the BB's guns he said if they reactivate em he and others are slated for these wagons. They may be old, BUT if a war erupts and they are needed, they will produce massive amounts of firepower. May be old, BUT not obsolete. If they were NO naval warship would have a gun aboard them
Thanks for filling me in on what happened to the gunpowder.

Sorry, but I have to disagree on any battleship's need or viablitlity in modern combat. At a max range of 30 miles, there are many very effective countermeasures against battleships now. That was amply proven in the Faulklands war, when single missiles sunk modern cruisers. A battleship could be 100 miles offshore, and still be within easy range of attack by both guided missiles and guided bombs. While modern AAA is effective against both, as always, the numbers make the difference. The Iowa was effective against World War II aircraft- it bristled with old AAA gunnery that was good protection in an era of subsonic aircraft speed and the necessity of close attack. But all that is 70 years in the past.

A single modern missile can be configured in many ways to suit any destructive purpose, and modern bombs now approach the power of a small atomic weapon in their capability. The Iowa may be able to withstand one of these bombs, which is doubtful, but not 2 or 3, all dropped at the same time. A Bunker Buster is so powerful that a direct hit is not needed to break a battleship in two. Even a nearby hit would level the superstructure if it is an air burst, and a below sea level burst would snap the keel in half. Any modern submarine would make short work of the Iowa from 100 miles away.

A battleship was designed to be the dominant offensive weapon for battles at sea. It was the killer of fleets, defended by it's escorting ships, and in turn defending those escorts. The battleships' use as an off-shore coastal battery was a secondary use.

These days, massive poorly guided firepower is a thing of the past. The objective of offshore battery is to kill the enemy, not level the town.
Every military weapons advancement since World War II has gone in the opposite direction; less massive, much more precision. A deployment of drones accomplishes the same objective at a fraction of the cost, and for heavy offense, modern jets can take care of the big stuff.

A battleship needs deep waters to maneuver. The new littoral designed ships can approach a coast much closer- well into shallow waters, too shallow for a battleship- and deliver more precisely delivered heavy weapons. They are also much faster and have effective full range range defense. They are equally effective in deep waters as in shallow waters. They have much smaller crews, and can be used in a wide variety of combat situations, including fast troop deployment and recovery.

There may come a time when America will need fleet killers again, but for the next 20 years, we alone rule the seas. None of our present enemies, nor our perceived future enemies, have fleets of heavy warships Maybe, in a generation, China will build a fleet.

But all our wars over the past 50 years have not needed them, and none of our present foes have anything approaching the need for a battleship deployment.

If China ever does make a fleet of heavy warships, by then, the Iowa will be 80 to 90 years old.

Last edited by banjomike; 06-10-2012 at 12:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2012, 11:44 AM
 
14,780 posts, read 43,582,793 times
Reputation: 14621
banjomike, I'm assuming that you know that the Iowa's were upgraded with various modern AAA systems, including CIWS, right? In Desert Storm, the Missouri was attacked with two Silkworm missiles, one crashed into the sea as a result of chaffe fired from Missouri and the other was intercepted by a Sea Dart fired from a British ship.

While I agree with you in general that the BB's are no longer needed, I don't think that they are completely gimped in a modern battle, especially with their upgrades. With further revisions, they could become excellent missile platforms. Any vulnerability they have is essentially the same as what exists on any carrier. A modern BB would be the centerpiece of a taskforce or could be an integral part of a carrier battlegroup, so it would not be a lone ship defending itself against attack.

While I don't think they will ever sail again, it makes sense to keep them in a state of readiness. The overhauls done in the 1980's reportedly cost less to re-arm and modernize all four Iowa's then the cost of producing a single modern Perry-class frigate, that's a major cost benefit when you need ships and need them fast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2012, 02:44 PM
 
580 posts, read 448,914 times
Reputation: 351
Based on NJGoat's statement of these ships accuracy (which I don't doubt he is correct) how did these battleships ever hit, much less sink anything?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2012, 04:38 PM
 
Location: the Beaver State
6,464 posts, read 13,410,280 times
Reputation: 3581
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjski View Post
Based on NJGoat's statement of these ships accuracy (which I don't doubt he is correct) how did these battleships ever hit, much less sink anything?
Skill, practice, and a bit of luck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2012, 05:27 PM
 
Location: One of the 13 original colonies.
10,190 posts, read 7,934,674 times
Reputation: 8114
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
that seems more like a load of pork. I can't imagine any national emergency that would necessitate their re-activation. Between the subs, carriers, missiles, and long range aircraft I think we have enough firepower to project without them. They were obsolete when built.

I was thinking the same thing myself. I can see no reason these old Battleships would be of any need in the future. We have so much greater firepower now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2012, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,198 posts, read 22,263,933 times
Reputation: 23827
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
banjomike, I'm assuming that you know that the Iowa's were upgraded with various modern AAA systems, including CIWS, right? In Desert Storm, the Missouri was attacked with two Silkworm missiles, one crashed into the sea as a result of chaffe fired from Missouri and the other was intercepted by a Sea Dart fired from a British ship.

While I agree with you in general that the BB's are no longer needed, I don't think that they are completely gimped in a modern battle, especially with their upgrades. With further revisions, they could become excellent missile platforms. Any vulnerability they have is essentially the same as what exists on any carrier. A modern BB would be the centerpiece of a taskforce or could be an integral part of a carrier battlegroup, so it would not be a lone ship defending itself against attack.

While I don't think they will ever sail again, it makes sense to keep them in a state of readiness. The overhauls done in the 1980's reportedly cost less to re-arm and modernize all four Iowa's then the cost of producing a single modern Perry-class frigate, that's a major cost benefit when you need ships and need them fast.
Yup. I knew about the Missouri upgrades.

The biggest problem with the battleships is they are simply too old. To do a major retrofit, especially if the main batteries are to be replaced with modern missile systems, would be so costly that the money would be better spent on a brand-new ship.
The Iowa's engines can probably run forever, but they are going to fail in some way increasingly more often; parts is parts, and parts wear out. In combat, an engine failure would be disastrous.

We have other mothballed ships that are just as you describe- they would indeed be faster and cheaper to get back into action if needed. But they are vessels that are 10 to 30 years newer than the battleships, and are more versatile; one of the newer heavy cruisers, light cruisers or frigates would be much cheaper to upgrade.

The Navy is looking right now at mothballing some of the carrier fleet. In this era of super carriers, it seems more probable that a carrier would be the first to come out of mothballs; the latest I heard are some of the early nuclear carriers are going to be mothballed.

All ships have a lifespan. 30 years is the average for a warship. 40 years is stretching it, and 50 years is very rare. Sending a 70 year old warship into battle is a recipe for disaster. Even the nations like Brazil, who inherited much of our WWII battle fleet, have scrapped those ships over 10 years ago.

Realisitically, where is the present need for a battleship in a fleet that was built to fight major sea battles, not 3rd world ships? The heaviest ships found in the newer fleets in the Middle East are the size of large destroyers. Our former Cold War adversaries have mothballed almost all of their heavy ships 20 years ago. They would face many problems putting them back into service now.

We have at least a 20 year window where we rule the seas, and we already have a vast fleet at sea in both oceans and the Mediterranean. We simply don't need a 70-year old ship joining them. If another nation was ever to build a fleet approaching the size of ours, it will take 20 years to do it. By then, the Iowa will be 90 years old.

That's the equivalent of taking an elephant into modern combat. Powerful and impressive, but not so good as a war weapon anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:45 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top