Return of the battleship.

[ewen55]

Air bursts? What are these 16 inch airburst shells that you and your esteemed colleague Ewan55 referring to? There were only a couple of shells developed (HE, APC and Nuclear Mk 23) for these guns and none were what you'd call an airburst design like the Bofors AHEAD et al.

U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings had an excellent series of articles in the late 1990's on the comparisons between the proposed "Arsenal Ship" and the Iowas, with the Iowas coming out way ahead in survivability and antiaircraft effectiveness. I believe the rocket booster, similar to the Salvo 8 inch gun tried back in the 1980's, was integrated into the shell, with the TNT sweated out and replaced with microexplosives to up the yield.

One would imagine a dedicated AAA projectile, rather than a pinch penny conversion, would use more of the space inside the shell, since it wouldn't need the semi-armor piercing nose. Given what they've done with simple iron bombs using strap-on guidance units, and the maturity of American Copperhead technology, I would not want to be inside a Backfire trying to get within launch range. Prefragmented warheads aren't needed when several hundred kilos of explosive are detonated. The overpressure alone would suffice to shred any airframe I could imagine.

Since the loss of the F-14 and it's Phoenix missiles, fleet defense has little flexible option to fill in the gaps around the Standard AA missle at medium (beyond CIWS/Stinger Post) to long range, and the gunnery officer who wrote the article seems to have been well recieved. Again, the Marines were desperate for all that extra weight of shot on target, and discussed giving up a regiment of combined arms infantry to finance it.

Over the horizon fire support on a disputed beach, capable of half minute of angle accuracy and 9 shot spaced airbursts comparable to a low yield nuke, with constant fire for hours at a time. Still not a bad idea.

 

[Feanor]

One would imagine a dedicated AAA projectile, rather than a pinch penny conversion, would use more of the space inside the shell, since it wouldn't need the semi-armor piercing nose. Given what they've done with simple iron bombs using strap-on guidance units, and the maturity of American Copperhead technology, I would not want to be inside a Backfire trying to get within launch range. Prefragmented warheads aren't needed when several hundred kilos of explosive are detonated. The overpressure alone would suffice to shred any airframe I could imagine.

Really? And what range in AA mode would these weapons be efficient at? How effective would they be at altitude? What kind of sensors would need to be installed, as well as C2 systems, to coordinate the effective working of multiple such weapons? And would it not be cheaper to add an AAW escort to a Zumwalt?

 

[Marc 1]

I would not want to be inside a Backfire trying to get within launch range. Prefragmented warheads aren't needed when several hundred kilos of explosive are detonated. The overpressure alone would suffice to shred any airframe I could imagine.

Ah, so this is a mythical beast. The proposal is to spend untold millions of dollars to make a 16 inch artillery shell an anti-air weapon. Fired from ageing barrels (more cost in replacing them). Incidentally, given the SS-N-22 has a range of 130km, AS-16 is 300km, BrahMos is 290km etc, I doubt you'll be swatting the delivery aircraft out of the air with a 16 inch shell with a 30 odd km range. Given that these missles are sipping along at Mach 2 to 3 - the maximum warning you'll get would be 25-30 seconds - I'm pretty damn sure that it takes a tad longer than that to load a shell in a 16 inch gun, train the turret, and track the missile - frankly without completely renewing the training/elevating/loading gear you'd need to keep at least 2 barrels permanently loaded with AA shot. Given that these missiles are usually never fired singly, you'd need to tie up more barrels with AA rounds. That will mean a much reduced NGS ability. I'm sure it would also be possible to cut down a Kenworth prime mover to be used as a document courier too, although the cost effectiveness of doing so would be questionable.

NGS, there are far more sophisticated alternatives that can produce nearly the same weight of firepower - MLRS, air support, artillery etc. The only times this NGS system is useful is a seaborn landing. And even then with the new assault concept of sitting some way off the coast (over the horizon) with the LCAC's and EFV's to deploy somewhere crossing the coast in a much wider arc due to their higher speed. The advantage of surprise would be lost if you were to 'indicate' the assault location by needing to park a battleship and its protective screen much closer to the shore.

Over the horizon fire support on a disputed beach, capable of half minute of angle accuracy and 9 shot spaced airbursts comparable to a low yield nuke, with constant fire for hours at a time. Still not a bad idea.

Yields comparable to a tactical nuke - maybe you've missed the last few conflicts - the idea these days is restraint and accuracy - not every war is going to involve pulverising the enemy. The last time the Iowa's were taken out of mothballs was 1982 - it cost $500 million dollars to refit and reactivate them then - given that it is a similar period of time that has elapsed, a cost of well ove a billion dollars per ship would be needed (the hull aparently has buckets of asbestos etc). Reactivating one would be a waste of time, so you'd have to look at 3 to ensure one in refit, one working up and one on station could be assured. So probably 3 billion dollars plus the immense running costs (plus the costs of developing new ammunition, plus perhaps barrels etc) for something that is only really useful as a NGS platform, and then only in a Gulf War type scenario when the ampibious assault is close by. Or, the same money ivested in another carrier - flexible, usefull anywhere strike further than 37km away...

Nup, they make great museums...

 

[MrQuintus]

I'd much rather see a fast cruiser, with 4 155mm 52 calibre guns in 2 twin mounts, sustained combined rate of fire 30 rounds per minute and a range of up to 60km with existing rounds, and with MRSI you can put plenty of iron on target, wrap it all in a large armoured (approx 6 inches) conventional hull with a pile of VLS and a big hanger/flight deck and all the stuff needed to be a self defending asset and you have a very scary ship.

Now imagine they'd spent the Zumwalt money on that!

 

[ewen55]

I'd much rather see a fast cruiser, with 4 155mm 52 calibre guns in 2 twin mounts, sustained combined rate of fire 30 rounds per minute and a range of up to 60km with existing rounds, and with MRSI you can put plenty of iron on target, wrap it all in a large armoured (approx 6 inches) conventional hull with a pile of VLS and a big hanger/flight deck and all the stuff needed to be a self defending asset and you have a very scary ship.

Now imagine they'd spent the Zumwalt money on that!

The cruiser wouldn't be any faster than an Iowa, the 6 inch (155mm) would only have a range of 32 kilometers with base bleed shells, and a tiny explosive charge by comparison to the 16 inch (420mm) shell. An even smaller yield if they used RAP rounds for longer range, about the same power as the 5"54. Plus one third the armor, the battleships are ready to go now, and already paid for.

Two of the Iowas have been completely modernized and professionally maintained, trained reservist crews could be put aboard and worked up in a few weeks, and they can keep up with a modern Carrier Battle Group (33kts.)..

Figuring no enemy could get within 300 nautical miles before launching (got to love those Viking EW planes), then even a supersonic missile would need 12 minutes to get into an attack position, and supersonic missiles suck. Quite simply, they are huge, with monstrous firing signatures, easy, clumsy targets for radar/infrared/lidar, and flying fuel tanks saying "Hit me and watch me blow".

The standard by which all other missiles is judged is still the small and extremely agile Harpoon, and it only gets through to the target by means of electronic spoofing and HARM missiles taking out the enemy's fire control before the Harpoon gets there. At the moment, the only people who have that kind of technology are on our side.

Witness the Israeli attack on Syria's nuclear facilities two years ago, through more than 1,000 kilometers of airspace supposedly controlled by more than 5 billion dollars of Russia's latest radar, equiptment so new the Russian military hadn't taken ownership of it yet. All maintained and operated by first line Russian technicians, yet they didn't know the Israelis were overhead until the plant exploded, and they couldn't track or lock on to any of the Israeli aircraft on their way home.

The 16 inch projectile weighs from about 1 ton to about 1.5 tons, depending on type (HE, AP). It is made of hardened tool steel with a solid nose, and is spin stabilized. Any incoming projectile or missile can be hit if you are willing to invest enough money in AAA or missiles, but only a shell could shrug off any hits with, at best, only minor degradation to it's trajectory.

The Marine Corp's strong interest in the 16'' battleship happened back in the 1990's, when it was realized that Copperhead missile technology had given the big naval gun a new lease on life. We are talking about what is essentially an over the horizon gunfire support vessel for amphibious support operations. The anti-aircraft, anti-missile, and anti-submarine capability is a lovely bonus.

Nine HE shells, cluster detonated at altitude, 35 to 40 kilometers away, produces a deadly overpressure area 600 to 800 meters wide, 600 to 800 meters high, and more than 200 meters thick, that nothing on earth can fly through. Fuzing is controlled by the nearest AEGIS cruiser or destroyer. Instead of trying to hit a bullet with a bullet, you are slamming a door almost half a mile wide on anything that wants to fly through it.

Century old technology modified by the substitution of nothing more than a fuze becomes the ultimate mid-range answer to anti-aircraft needs, between the long range of the Standard missile and the short range AA missles and CIWS mounted on warships now. A capability sorely needed since the demise of the F-14 and it's Phoenix missile.

As an amphibious support craft, the 16'' battleship has no equal. The Arsenal Ship was cancelled several years ago, because it was shown that it couldn't stay in the fight more than a few minutes without a resupply, and it couldn't be kept from being blown out of the water from a serious hit. VLS shouldn't be exposed to combat in littoral waters.

The 1,300 kilo armor piercing 16" shell has penetration far in excess of a Harpoon land attack variant, and an Iowa can deliver 400 of them per hour, at the cost of only 2 Harpoons.

The guns are new, with thousand of liners in storage, and more than 100,000 shells ready to go. Call it better than 75 loadouts of 1,500 shells per fire mission.

Those two ships are there and ready now, and the Navy keeps crews trained to utilize them. If there wasn't a serious chance of their being used, I doubt either the expense of keeping them ready or maintaining the MOS's peculiar to that class of ship could be justified. Or the storage and maintenence of their ammunition.

 

[Feanor]

Two of the Iowas have been completely modernized and professionally maintained, trained reservist crews could be put aboard and worked up in a few weeks, and they can keep up with a modern Carrier Battle Group (33kts.)..

What year were they modernized? I.e. what year was that program started?

Figuring no enemy could get within 300 nautical miles before launching (got to love those Viking EW planes), then even a supersonic missile would need 12 minutes to get into an attack position, and supersonic missiles suck. Quite simply, they are huge, with monstrous firing signatures, easy, clumsy targets for radar/infrared/lidar, and flying fuel tanks saying "Hit me and watch me blow".

You have heard of the R-700 Granit? Akak SS-N-19 Shipwreck? I was under the impression that they were somewhat more impressive then the Harpoon...

The standard by which all other missiles is judged is still the small and extremely agile Harpoon, and it only gets through to the target by means of electronic spoofing and HARM missiles taking out the enemy's fire control before the Harpoon gets there. At the moment, the only people who have that kind of technology are on our side.

Witness the Israeli attack on Syria's nuclear facilities two years ago, through more than 1,000 kilometers of airspace supposedly controlled by more than 5 billion dollars of Russia's latest radar, equiptment so new the Russian military hadn't taken ownership of it yet. All maintained and operated by first line Russian technicians, yet they didn't know the Israelis were overhead until the plant exploded, and they couldn't track or lock on to any of the Israeli aircraft on their way home.

Really? And what equipment (5 billion? really? you have a source I presume, no conspiracy theories please) would that be? A few dozens unoperational Pantsyrs? Fyi they're SAM/SPAAG hybrids, not meant to be employed outside of a wider IADS. And the wider Syrian IADS still proudly sports SA-2s.

The 16 inch projectile weighs from about 1 ton to about 1.5 tons, depending on type (HE, AP). It is made of hardened tool steel with a solid nose, and is spin stabilized. Any incoming projectile or missile can be hit if you are willing to invest enough money in AAA or missiles, but only a shell could shrug off any hits with, at best, only minor degradation to it's trajectory.

Assuming it's accurate enough to begin with. After all this wunderwaffe is for some reason not being used.

Those two ships are there and ready now, and the Navy keeps crews trained to utilize them. If there wasn't a serious chance of their being used, I doubt either the expense of keeping them ready or maintaining the MOS's peculiar to that class of ship could be justified. Or the storage and maintenence of their ammunition.

And I'm sure they'll be activated if shit hits the fan. However they're in RESERVE for a reason. And that reason is that they're expensive to operate, and don't deliver the accuracy needed in a modern war. Additionally, consider the simple fact that there has not been a credible air threat, or missile threat, to a CVBG since the end of the Cold War. And while, should a CVBG show up in the White sea, or near Vladivostok, there are enough Backfires and Blackjacks left to still try to carry out an attack of that sort, it's hardly an issue at this point.

 

[ewen55]

What year were they modernized? I.e. what year was that program started?



You have heard of the R-700 Granit? Akak SS-N-19 Shipwreck? I was under the impression that they were somewhat more impressive then the Harpoon...



Really? And what equipment (5 billion? really? you have a source I presume, no conspiracy theories please) would that be? A few dozens unoperational Pantsyrs? Fyi they're SAM/SPAAG hybrids, not meant to be employed outside of a wider IADS. And the wider Syrian IADS still proudly sports SA-2s.



Assuming it's accurate enough to begin with. After all this wunderwaffe is for some reason not being used.



And I'm sure they'll be activated if shit hits the fan. However they're in RESERVE for a reason. And that reason is that they're expensive to operate, and don't deliver the accuracy needed in a modern war. Additionally, consider the simple fact that there has not been a credible air threat, or missile threat, to a CVBG since the end of the Cold War. And while, should a CVBG show up in the White sea, or near Vladivostok, there are enough Backfires and Blackjacks left to still try to carry out an attack of that sort, it's hardly an issue at this point.

Nobody is calling it a strategic weapon. The Marine Corp wants it for supporting amphibious assaults, and is willing to discuss disbanding a combined arms regiment and reducing their manpower by 2,000 men to get them. The 16'' gun shoots a bit less than minute of angle accuracy. And I'll stand by my statement that large, supersonic missiles are easier to target than Harpoons. Especially if launched without an electronics suit comparable to what the U.S. and it's allies field.

 

[Feanor]

You're talking about currently, in regards to the USMC, right? A source would be appreciated.

Still waiting on the sources about the 5 billions worth of Russian equipment in Syria.

And by the way, it is a strategic weapon in regards to employment and impact. It won't be used alone, it'll be the center of a task-force. And the combined firepower, and even just presence, of such taskforce has strategic implications for any country.

 

[ewen55]

You're talking about currently, in regards to the USMC, right? A source would be appreciated.

Still waiting on the sources about the 5 billions worth of Russian equipment in Syria.

In fairness, the figure quoted was for the entire Russian AA deal with Iran and Syria, but it seems that Iran paid for most if not all of Syria's network, and the two systems were to be esentially merged after the arrival of the S-300/SA-10's.

Give me a few hours to dig up the Naval Institute Proceedings article on the BB's. Since the scuttling of the Arsenal Ship it seems to have more importance to everyone except the manufacturers of the Land Attack version of the Harpoon, which is often wasted on trivial targets more worthy of a $500 AP round. Sadly, they have far more influence with Congress than people who want to use equiptment built and amortized 60 plus years ago.

Still, Congress has made it plain they will have the upgraded Iowa and Wisconsin maintained for duty, reference "Report 109–452. National Defense Authorization Act of 2007." 109th Congress, House of Representatives. p. 68.
1.Iowa and Wisconsin must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility;
2.The battleships must be preserved in their 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 be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa and Wisconsin, if reactivated;
4.The Navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Iowa and Wisconsin should they be returned to the Navy in the event of a national emergency.

In addition to being slaved to AEGIS, the Iowas have a robust fire control set-up of their own.
"Each of the four Iowa-class battleships are equipped with the AN/SPS-49 Radar Set, an L-band, long-range, two-dimensional, air-search radar system that provides automatic detection and reporting of targets within its surveillance volume. The AN/SPS-49 performs accurate centroiding of target range, azimuth, amplitude, ECM level background, and radial velocity with an associated confidence factor to produce contact data for command and control systems. Additionally, the contact range and bearing information is provided for display on standard plan position indicator consoles".
It also is basically EMP proof, and could provide a bridge while EMP broken systems were brought back up by motherboard switches and recalibration.

The Iowa-class battleships are also equipped with the Radar Set AN/SPS-67, a short-range, two-dimensional, surface-search/navigation radar system that provides highly accurate surface and limited low-flyer detection and tracking capabilities. The AN/SPS-67 is a solid-state replacement for the AN/SPS-10 radar, using a more reliable antenna and incorporating standard electronic module technology for simpler repair and maintenance. The AN/SPS-67 provides excellent performance in rain and sea clutter, and is useful in harbor navigation, since the AN/SPS-67 is capable of detecting buoys and small obstructions without difficulty.

Note, the -67 is an extemely power system with superb burn through capabilities.


I would question the idea of a battleship being considered a strategic weapon in this day and age if it wasn't carrying nuclear tipped Harpoons, something easily proven with inspection by neutral observers.

The big mystery of the strike is how did the non-stealthy F-15s and F-16s get through the Syrian air defense radars without being detected? Some U.S. officials say they have the answer.

U.S. aerospace industry and retired military officials indicated today that a technology like the U.S.-developed “Suter” airborne network attack system developed by BAE Systems and integrated into U.S. unmanned aircraft by L-3 Communications was used by the Israelis. The system has been used or at least tested operationally in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last year.

The technology allows users to invade communications networks, see what enemy sensors see and even take over as systems administrator so sensors can be manipulated into positions so that approaching aircraft can’t be seen, they say. The process involves locating enemy emitters with great precision and then directing data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control.

A Kuwaiti newspaper wrote that "Russian experts are studying why the two state-of-the art Russian-built radar systems in Syria did not detect the Israeli jets entering Syrian territory. Iran reportedly has asked the same question, since it is buying the same systems and might have paid for the Syrian acquisitions."

The system in question is thought to be the new Tor-M1 launchers which carries eight missiles as well as two of the Pachora-2A system.


David A. Fulghum wrote:
I'll be happy to answer any questions on the blog.. The questions seem to be about whether the technology is possible. It has been used for several years by the U.S. in its JEFEX exercises at Nellis AFB. Nev. to attack the air defense systems. They now count cyber kills of emitters as part of their scoring between red and blue forces. cheers, dave fulghum.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Honestly the only conflict I could see that the ships would be useful would be something like North Korea.

The ships are tough enough to withstand shore artillary, lighter missiles in a saturation attack, can out range shore artillary and other most missiles. Those it can't can be easily shot down by escorts and other systems. Could provide the sort of low cost, high penetration firepower needed against numerous NK targets. You could park it off the coast, easily unload a few thousand rounds on numerous dug in coastal targets.

In a suprise nuclear attack, the ships would be more operational than anything else so could be a base to pick up survivers, etc. bomb boats, most mines etc would have almost no effect on a ship of that size. It could be a survival hub to operate in that area.

Something like a NK revolution or flare up would hugely strain the US (with its current commitments). Its the kind of asset that could be operational as a backup in say the loss of a few carriers or way overcommitment/world in anarchy situtation.

While they aren't completely scrapped, they won't be regular commission again. I think the USN keeps them as some sort of "backup" plan.

 

[Feanor]

In fairness, the figure quoted was for the entire Russian AA deal with Iran and Syria, but it seems that Iran paid for most if not all of Syria's network, and the two systems were to be esentially merged after the arrival of the S-300/SA-10's.

You're mixing multiple things together. The total deals together were under 2 billion, and it was two separate sales. One was a deal for 29 Tor-M1 tac-SAMs and associated command and control vehicles, and two Pechora-2M SAMs (a very advanced S-125/SA-3 variant) to Iran. The other was a deal for 50 Pantsyr-1S systems sold to Syria. The deal was allegedly funded by Iran with 10 of the complexes allegedly eventually ending up in Iran. These units had not reached IOC in the Syrian armed forces at the time of the Israeli raid. I imagine if Iran does end up getting the S-300 it would be networked with the Tors. This, however, has nothing to do with Syria, the Israeli air raid, or the question of the utility of the Iowas main guns as an air defense system.

Still, Congress has made it plain they will have the upgraded Iowa and Wisconsin maintained for duty, reference "Report 109–452. National Defense Authorization Act of 2007." 109th Congress, House of Representatives. p. 68.
1.Iowa and Wisconsin must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility;
2.The battleships must be preserved in their 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 be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa and Wisconsin, if reactivated;
4.The Navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Iowa and Wisconsin should they be returned to the Navy in the event of a national emergency.

In other words they're preserved as emergency reserves. Exactly what everyone in this thread has been saying. No sci-fi notions of using them to shoot down Mach 3-6 cruise missiles.

I would question the idea of a battleship being considered a strategic weapon in this day and age if it wasn't carrying nuclear tipped Harpoons, something easily proven with inspection by neutral observers.

Again, the presence of a major naval taskforce has strategic implications regardless of nuclear weapons. It has diplomatic significance, as a show of force, or a show of support depending on context, and it has strategic significance in terms of the landing operations that it can support, or the damage it can deal.

The big mystery of the strike is how did the non-stealthy F-15s and F-16s get through the Syrian air defense radars without being detected? Some U.S. officials say they have the answer.

U.S. aerospace industry and retired military officials indicated today that a technology like the U.S.-developed “Suter” airborne network attack system developed by BAE Systems and integrated into U.S. unmanned aircraft by L-3 Communications was used by the Israelis. The system has been used or at least tested operationally in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last year.

The technology allows users to invade communications networks, see what enemy sensors see and even take over as systems administrator so sensors can be manipulated into positions so that approaching aircraft can’t be seen, they say. The process involves locating enemy emitters with great precision and then directing data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control.

It involves hacking into their ISR nodes and feeding them false data. Yes. Congrats. They hacked their ancient SAMs computers and fed them false data.

A Kuwaiti newspaper wrote that "Russian experts are studying why the two state-of-the art Russian-built radar systems in Syria did not detect the Israeli jets entering Syrian territory. Iran reportedly has asked the same question, since it is buying the same systems and might have paid for the Syrian acquisitions."

The system in question is thought to be the new Tor-M1 launchers which carries eight missiles as well as two of the Pachora-2A system.

Syria does not operate any Tor-M1 systems. The Pechora-2A is an ancient SA-3 with a modern guidance package/system. The systems in question are the Pantsyr-1S systems. The question of course is whether they were connected to the overall IADS, in which case they may have been compromised along with the system as a whole. In any event without some more reliable info this is all speculation, and says little, if anything, about the capabilites of a modernized Iowa.

Let me know if you find the USMC interest in the Iowas, and especially the dates.

 

[stoker]

Let me know if you find the USMC interest in the Iowas, and especially the dates.
I would be as interested as Feanor on your answer.

i appreciate we are looking at the emergency re-activation of Iowa class battleships purely hypothetically, I hope?

These battleships will never become active units again.

The cost (and time) to re-activate these OLD battle wagons would be immense ( it would be cheaper to build a new ship ).

The steam plant alone would take years to bring it up to a SAFE working condition.

You would have to re-tube all the steam boilers, replace condenser tubes, replace ancillary pumps ( both feed water and fuel ) replace most of the major and minor steam pipes, upgrade all the main engine turbines, and unless you,ve actually been a stoker on a 'steam' ship the amount of abestos to replace is mind boggling. The rigid safety aspects of the removal and disposal of the abestos material would run in to months and cost a fortune.

The cost to man a battleship would be massive ( 1500 + ), just trying to find the qualified trainers with the expertise to train a battleship crew is most probably beyond hope, all the 'old' skills on guns and machinery no longer exist, there may be some old geriatics like me kicking around but most of what they knew has long passed in to memory.

Plus the Marines have moved on from the WW 2 type opposed landings, they really don't need battle wagons to pound the enemy any more. The public would not take the death rate body count of a Marine frontal attack any more. Neither would the Marines, they are brave, not stupid.

Battlleships are not needed to fire 'Tomahawks' either any more, their replacement's are the SSGN Ohio class ( x4 ) with up to 154 Tactom/Tomahawk cruise missiles each..

The Marine's now have Osprey, Helicopters, NLOS, etc, etc. The new LHA's, LPD's and LSD's stand off the coast about 50 km', out to sea.

Times and tactics have change there is no more need for battleships anymore, they make great museum exhibits. Let them rest in peace, they've deserved it.

 

[EngineerScott]

big mo

Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard Returns 'Mighty Mo' to Battleship Row

Story Number: NNS100114-05 Release Date: 1/14/2010 4:00:00 PM 0 Comments

Font Size: A A A 0 0



For more information on PHNS, visit Home - Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility.

Fore more news from Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, visit The US Navy -- Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard.



By Katie Vanes, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard Public Affairs

PEARL HARBOR (NNS) -- Nearly 100 Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard (PHNS) employees undocked USS Missouri (BB-63) Jan. 7 in support of the floating naval museum's return to "Battleship Row" next to the USS Arizona Memorial.

"Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard played a key role in winning World War II, so shipyard workers have tremendous appreciation for Missouri's historical significance," said PHNS Commander Capt. Gregory Thomas.

As the 54,889-ton ship glided over the sill of Dry Dock 4, Missouri entered the harbor waters for the first time in more than two months. The ship had been dry-docked at PHNS since Oct. 14 for $18 million of maintenance and preservation work.

"We are proud of our role in helping to preserve this vital symbol of victory over oppression in World War II — but we are also humbled," Thomas said. "We are in awe of the great men and women who served on Missouri over five decades and in three wars."

Thomas also said the historic significance of the vessel was recognized by several PHNS employees.

"It was particularly moving for shipyard workers to look upon Missouri, sitting proudly in our dry dock as we went to work the morning of Dec. 7, 2009," he said.

The majority of the maintenance and preservation work was performed by BAE Systems Ship Repair, the lead public-private venture partner with the shipyard. The shipyard supported the effort by docking and undocking the vessel.

Engineers planned the dry-docking and riggers, shipwrights and other shipyard workers placed 309 four-ton keel blocks to support the battleship, more than five times as many keel blocks required to support a modern guided-missile cruiser.

Missouri's docking was completed on schedule, within one minute of the planned 10-hour evolution, and within one foot of each of the 309 keel blocks.

The same engineers and naval architects planned for the successful undocking, and a small team from PHNS's Environmental Division provided environmental oversight.

Despite the vessel's successful docking, however, the massive, 887-foot-long battleship presented unique challenges during the undocking evolution.

"The shipyard docking team completed extensive preparations to control this large vessel," said Dockmaster Sonny Del Toro. "During planning, we kept asking how we could make the process better for battleship Missouri."

Docking Officer Lt. Lorenz Tate pointed out two unusual concerns undocking the battleship presented: ensuring the watertight integrity of Missouri's hull and the number of people aboard the ship.

"It's different from an operating (U.S. Navy) ship, where you know the integrity of the hull," he said. "With (Missouri), you don't know, given the age of the ship and the age of the hull. You have to plan for scenarios, such as leaking."

Nearly 1,000 passengers were aboard Missouri for the two-mile journey to Ford Island, and their movement had to be controlled during the initial phase of undocking because it could mask indications of shipboard flooding, he said.

Approximately 500,000 gallons of ballast water were placed in selected tanks, voids and spaces aboard Missouri to properly balance the vessel for lifting off the docking blocks without damaging the blocks or the ship.

When 53 million gallons of seawater flooded the dry dock, shipyard employees began thorough inspections aboard Missouri, checking the ship's water-tight integrity.

Missouri was also closely monitored to determine if the ship was listing too far to port or starboard, an effort to observe potentially adverse flooding into the empty tanks around the plating, according to PHNS Naval Architect Jason Morrison.

"In regular spaces, it is one thing (to check for leaks), but it is tough with the tanks, and Missouri has roughly 600," said Morrison. "That's why it was very important for the ship riders to stay very still as the ship lifted off."

After Dry Dock 4 was filled to sea level, the caisson - the "door" to the dry dock - was removed, and the docking team carefully guided the ship to the dry dock's entrance. There, four tugboats met the battleship, pushing and pulling the historic vessel to Foxtrot 5 Pier at Ford Island.

The USS Missouri Memorial Association will resume tours of the ship the weekend of Jan. 29.

The U.S. Navy donated the ship to the Missouri Association in 1998 as part of the Ship Donation Program authorized by Congress. The battleship is one of 46 museum ships donated by the U.S. Navy.

"(Missouri) is a national monument. We have to save it. If we lose this ship, we'll lose an important piece of history," said PHNS Environmental Protection Specialist Gail Shon.

PHNS is the largest industrial employer in the state of Hawaii with a combined civilian and military workforce of more than 4,700 personnel.

 

[EngineerScott]

pics big mo

Navy News Service - Eye on the Fleet

US Navy Daily News Update - USS Missouri (BB-63)

USS Iowa (BB 61)
USS New Jersey (BB 62)
USS Missouri (BB 63)
USS Wisconsin (BB 64)

Last Update: 23 February 2009


USS New York (BB 34) ,survived a nuclear bomb test it stayed a float with minor damage

it was concieved to save the ship for future use but was too radioactive to be used.
It was scrubbed down with lye and soap as to clean it ,but as everyone knows the radation will always be there.

In the end it was used as target practice for the US navy.then she was laid to rest.

A battleship will survive an atomic device unless its the torpedo type

my sources US NAVY.MIL.

 

[EngineerScott]

Battleship Readiness

Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 required the United States Navy to reinstate to the Naval Vessel Register two of the Iowa-class battleships that had been struck by the Navy in 1995; these ships were to be maintained in the United States Navy reserve fleets (or "mothball fleet"). The Navy was to ensure that both of the reinstated battleships were in good condition and could be reactivated for use in the Marine Corps' amphibious operations.[49] Due to Iowa’s damaged turret, the Navy selected New Jersey for placement into the mothball fleet, even though the training mechanisms on New Jersey's 16-inch (406 mm) guns had been welded down. The cost to fix New Jersey was considered less than the cost to fix Iowa;[19] as a result, New Jersey and Wisconsin were reinstated to the Naval Vessel Register and placed back in the reserve fleet.[49]

New Jersey remained there until the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act of 1999 required the United States Secretary of the Navy to list and maintain Iowa and Wisconsin on the Naval Vessel Register. The Act also required the Secretary of the Navy to strike New Jersey from the Naval Vessel Register and transfer the battleship to a not-for-profit entity in accordance with section 7306 of Title 10, United States Code. It also required the transferee to locate the battleship in the State of New Jersey.[50] The Navy made the switch in January 1999, allowing New Jersey to open as a museum ship in her namesake state.[51]

For several years, plans had been underway to berth Iowa in San Francisco as a museum ship, but in 2005 the city council—citing opposition to the Iraq War and the military policies regarding homosexuals—voted 8–3 against maintaining Iowa in the city, paving the way for other California communities to bid for the battleship.[52][53][54] Vallejo, site of the former Mare Island Naval Shipyard, and Stockton submitted proposals.[55] The Historic Ships Memorial at Pacific Square (HSMPS) organization, which had attempted to place the ship in San Francisco, supported the Mare Island—Vallejo site. Ultimately, the Navy decided in the winter of 2007–2008 to side with the HSMPS bid, and ruled that the Vallejo site would be the candidate to acquire Iowa.[56][57]


The USS Iowa, laid up in the Suisun Bay Reserve FleetOn 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".[58] As a partial consequence, Congress passed Pub.L. 109-163, 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.[59] Congress has ordered that the following measures be implemented to ensure that, if need be, Iowa can be returned to active duty:

Iowa must not be altered in any way that would impair her military utility;
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;
Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16-inch (410 mm) gun barrels and projectiles be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa, if reactivated;
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.[59]
These four conditions closely mirror the original three conditions that the Nation Defense Authorization Act of 1996 laid out for the maintenance of Iowa while she was in the "mothball fleet".[19][60]

Iowa earned nine battle stars for World War II service and two for Korean War service.[1]


All current Battleships have in service a DC current anti-corrosion system working at all times to inhibit dilapidation of the armor plating in sea water,at times ships are put in at clear water sites to clear off barnacles and other sea life forms.

Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996

 

[StevoJH]

Fairly sure all four ships have now been stricken from the US Navy Register. Two are Museums, the other two are rusting away in the mothball fleets.

Pretty much every part in the ships would be out of production by now, with many of the companies not even in existence. Even the 1980's upgrades are now 25-30 years out of date.

The Iowa's are gone and they arent coming back, even if the US Navy wanted to bring them back, within another couple of years there wont be any former crew members of those ships still serving, making relearning lost skills extremely difficult.

 

[Feanor]

Fairly sure all four ships have now been stricken from the US Navy Register. Two are Museums, the other two are rusting away in the mothball fleets.

Pretty much every part in the ships would be out of production by now, with many of the companies not even in existence. Even the 1980's upgrades are now 25-30 years out of date.

The Iowa's are gone and they arent coming back, even if the US Navy wanted to bring them back, within another couple of years there wont be any former crew members of those ships still serving, making relearning lost skills extremely difficult.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that reserve crews are maintained for two of the ships. Those crews would have the MOS training necessary to operate them.

USS New York (BB 34) ,survived a nuclear bomb test it stayed a float with minor damage

it was concieved to save the ship for future use but was too radioactive to be used.
It was scrubbed down with lye and soap as to clean it ,but as everyone knows the radation will always be there.

In the end it was used as target practice for the US navy.then she was laid to rest.

A battleship will survive an atomic device unless its the torpedo type

my sources US NAVY.MIL.

What was the size of the device? Additionally, would anyone on board survive the explosion for more then a few days? (radiation poisoning is a nasty thing )

 

[Marc 1]

The cruiser wouldn't be any faster than an Iowa, the 6 inch (155mm) would only have a range of 32 kilometers with base bleed shells, and a tiny explosive charge by comparison to the 16 inch (420mm) shell. An even smaller yield if they used RAP rounds for longer range, about the same power as the 5"54. Plus one third the armor, the battleships are ready to go now, and already paid for.

Many of the classic 737's in the boneyards are not there because they had an expired fatigue life, most are there because they have been replaced by something cheaper to operate and better. The airlines had already paid for the classic 737's but they realise that even being paid for, the larger maintenance requirements, and far more costly running costs will mean that a newer more expensive aircraft is not only going to be cheaper to operate, but the onboard systems are current and don't need to be expensively upgraded, and well as the operating economics. Your argument of 'because we already own it' reminds me of how in the 1980's my little brother boasted to me how he'd bought a CD really cheaply. I remember telling him it would end up being very poor value indeed seeing as it was a Culture Club CD - and no-one would listen to it.

Two of the Iowas have been completely modernized and professionally maintained, trained reservist crews could be put aboard and worked up in a few weeks, and they can keep up with a modern Carrier Battle Group (33kts.)..

What's all this emphasis on speed? Do carrier battle groups regularly move around the place at 33 knots? I'd suspect all that would do is annoy the hell out of the logisticians as consumption of the escorts fuel would be horrendous at those speeds.

When you say completely modernised, you'd be telling me it's equipped with digital datalinks etc yeah? After all for this wonder AAA weapon to really be useful it would be linked to the Aegis Cruiser at the heart of the AAA defence of the CBG wouldn't it? That to me would represent 'completely modernised'. If not, we are talking more expense.

So, there is a complete reservist crew that regularly drills on the ship is there? Have you read the problems the navy experienced in USS Iowa in an explosion inside the turret that could have cost them the entire ship - not just the lives of the 47 men inside the turret? USS Iowa turret explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If an inexperienced crew of regs can stuff that up what hope do inexperienced reservists have? Reservists who have not seen a uniform in months, on a ship hastily bought back into commission, with systems designed in the 1940's is a recipe for disaster.

Figuring no enemy could get within 300 nautical miles before launching (got to love those Viking EW planes), then even a supersonic missile would need 12 minutes to get into an attack position, and supersonic missiles suck. Quite simply, they are huge, with monstrous firing signatures, easy, clumsy targets for radar/infrared/lidar, and flying fuel tanks saying "Hit me and watch me blow".

These missiles are sea skimmers. If they have been launched, unless you have radars airborn above the fleet capable of transmitting precise data to the BB (there's that need for modern data links and combat systems - not something from the 1980's) then the first time the BB will 'see one of these supersonic sea skimmers will be 20 seconds before it hits. It may have been launched 300km away, but the radar horizon will limit the ability of a shipborn radar to pick it up. And it won't be just one missile, it'll be several, ripple fired maybe from different directions. What's the point of emphasizing these monstorous firing signatures? The signatures will be over 300km away - its not like a BBDA on a recoiless weapon giving away your position. Then they cruise on ramjet or turbojet propusion a few meters off the sea. As to their effectiveness and your claim that they 'suck': Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Sizzler' Missile (Update1) - Bloomberg.com . I'd say they are taken very seriously indeed. Remember, to take a BB out of the battle, you don't need to sink it. Destroy its antennae, and computer and combat systems and the old battlewagon becomes a floating liability.

The standard by which all other missiles is judged is still the small and extremely agile Harpoon, and it only gets through to the target by means of electronic spoofing and HARM missiles taking out the enemy's fire control before the Harpoon gets there. At the moment, the only people who have that kind of technology are on our side.

Small? Its only 2 meters shorter than the brahmos - albeit half the diameter. The Brahmos carries a larger warhead, and flies at three times the speed of the Harpoon. When you talk about Harpoon you speak of it being agile - how do you think that helps?

The Marine Corp's strong interest in the 16'' battleship happened back in the 1990's, when it was realized that Copperhead missile technology had given the big naval gun a new lease on life. We are talking about what is essentially an over the horizon gunfire support vessel for amphibious support operations. The anti-aircraft, anti-missile, and anti-submarine capability is a lovely bonus.

What antisubmarine capability? What anti air capability? What anti missile capability? The anti balistic missile capability deployed on the SPY 1D Aegis cruisers comes at a massive technological cost. Technology that the BB's don't have. Nor do they have the ammunition (fantasy at this stage) nor do the guns elevate that far to enable a dual role. Nor do the guns have sufficient range (any aircraft attacking the task force will be shooting and scooting from 300km away).

Nine HE shells, cluster detonated at altitude, 35 to 40 kilometers away, produces a deadly overpressure area 600 to 800 meters wide, 600 to 800 meters high, and more than 200 meters thick, that nothing on earth can fly through. Fuzing is controlled by the nearest AEGIS cruiser or destroyer. Instead of trying to hit a bullet with a bullet, you are slamming a door almost half a mile wide on anything that wants to fly through it.

Assuming you get this fictitious AA fuze sorted, excellent! Well done, you just stopped the first missile. Then you reload your guns (30 seconds for a well trained crew) before you are in a position to fire the next shot - opps, too late there was another 2 or 3 missiles a couple of miles behind the first pair - and coming in on a different bearing.... The enemy are not fools - they will try every 'dirty trick' in the book to get a couple of missiles through

Century old technology modified by the substitution of nothing more than a fuze becomes the ultimate mid-range answer to anti-aircraft needs, between the long range of the Standard missile and the short range AA missles and CIWS mounted on warships now. A capability sorely needed since the demise of the F-14 and it's Phoenix missile.

Doubtful. The F14's were designed to intercept the bombers beyond Standard range - not between Standard and CIWS. Besides, the incredibly long reload time makes these 16 inch guns very poorly suited to any anti air role. There's an article here on the threat: http://www.ausairpower.net/ascms.pdf (don't know how accurate that may be given the source).

As an amphibious support craft, the 16'' battleship has no equal. The Arsenal Ship was cancelled several years ago, because it was shown that it couldn't stay in the fight more than a few minutes without a resupply, and it couldn't be kept from being blown out of the water from a serious hit. VLS shouldn't be exposed to combat in littoral waters.

Probably correct. Pity the concept of operations means that we no longer need such short ranged NGS. I've said it before, its been confirmed by another poster - ampibious assaults are not going to be Iwo Jima style in the future. The Task force will disgorge the LCAC's and EFV's 50Nm from shore (beyond the range of the BB's guns) then approach anywhere along a wide range of coastline. CAS by F-35B & C.

The 1,300 kilo armor piercing 16" shell has penetration far in excess of a Harpoon land attack variant, and an Iowa can deliver 400 of them per hour, at the cost of only 2 Harpoons.

Penetration of what? There are no enemy battleships around, fortified beachheads will be avoided and the Tora Bora Caves complex is too far away from the wet stuff to allow the BB's to get Osama that way.

The guns are new, with thousand of liners in storage, and more than 100,000 shells ready to go. Call it better than 75 loadouts of 1,500 shells per fire mission.

Impressive. And a waste.

Those two ships are there and ready now, and the Navy keeps crews trained to utilize them. If there wasn't a serious chance of their being used, I doubt either the expense of keeping them ready or maintaining the MOS's peculiar to that class of ship could be justified. Or the storage and maintenence of their ammunition.

The ships are there but I very much doubt your claim that they are ready now. They are the equivalent of a Model T Ford with parts updated at various times (had a cassette deck installed in the 1980's) Up on blocks. The preservation techniques simply mean that someone had the foresight to coat the car with oil so it wouldn't rust. BUT, to get the car going again, you'd have to renew every seal, replace most of the electrical wiring, change all the fluids, replace the old asbestos brake pads, train a driver how to operate a crash gearbox, and then install a modern Hi Fi and sat nav system. Not worth it. Do you really think the navy keeps a crew trained on the ships? Seriously? You cannot call a crew trained if they only get to pretend that there is a fire in the boilers.

 

[StevoJH]

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that reserve crews are maintained for two of the ships. Those crews would have the MOS training necessary to operate them.

I wouldn't be so sure. As said previously, all four ships have been stricken by from the Navy lists. Apparrently an application has been put in for Iowa to go to San Pedro California as a Museum ship.

Can I post a link to another forum here? Couple of people over there involved in the 1980's reactivation of them as well as the 1990's decommissioning.? gf and possibly AD probably know the forum I am referring to (WAB).

 

[AegisFC]

n addition to being slaved to AEGIS, the Iowas have a robust fire control set-up of their own.

No. The Iowas were never equipped with CEC, that system didn't exist until quite a while after the Iowa's were decommed for the final time. Assuming you are talking about Link-11 that is different than being "slaved" to another ships combat system.

Fairly sure all four ships have now been stricken from the US Navy Register. Two are Museums, the other two are rusting away in the mothball fleets.

Pretty much every part in the ships would be out of production by now, with many of the companies not even in existence. Even the 1980's upgrades are now 25-30 years out of date.

The Iowa's are gone and they arent coming back, even if the US Navy wanted to bring them back, within another couple of years there wont be any former crew members of those ships still serving, making relearning lost skills extremely difficult.

3 of them are museums. The New Jersey is Camden NJ, the Wisconsin is in Norfolk, VA (either this year or next the interior will be opened up for tours) and the Mo is in Pearl.

The major reason why the Iowa's were brought back in the 80's was that they could carry more Tomahawk ABL's than other ships either in service or in reserve, there were plans that if the limited refiting went over budget that the main guns would remain in layup.

Threads like these are extremely silly the Battlewagons were thrown away for good in the 90's for good reason and they will not be coming back. None of the engineering or combat systems "C" schools exist anymore and opening them up would cost a small fortune and no sailor will want to go work on irrelevant analog computers that date to the 40's (the analog computers were not replaced during the 80's refit), good luck finding replacement parts for those.

Battlleships are not needed to fire 'Tomahawks' either any more, their replacement's are the SSGN Ohio class ( x4 ) with up to 154 Tactom/Tomahawk cruise missiles each..

The Iowa's were disposed of once a decent number of VLS equipped Tico's and Spruances were in service The Iowa's carried 32 Tomahawks while that was more than any other ABL equipped ship could carry the 2 Burkes I served on always deployed with more than that in our tubes. The Ohio conversions are not and never were Iowa replacements, that program didn't kick off until around 2000 or so.

Note, the -67 is an extemely power system with superb burn through capabilities.

HA! The SPS-67 is the standard USN navigational radar, extremely powerful is not something most people who have used it or worked on it would call it.

BTW how about you provide the links to the Wiki articles you quote (the bit about the SPS-67 being a replacement for the SPS-10)