Hi All'
I'm probably in the wrong forum but here goes. Recently read a book called Firelance by David Mace, and it got me wondering:
IF the USA was to reconstruct an Iowa class (just assuming the had one to use and the money to waste), Right down to the hull (except main armament) Give it gas turbines instead of steam propulsion, fit VLS missile systems instead of B turret and elsewhere, put some modern 5" on, updated radar and ECM stuff, rebuild superstructure (lots of CIWS and RBOC mounts; maybe put a hangar where some of the engines/boilersused to be for a few helos/ospreys with AEW capability? and a couple of Joint Strike fighters and just make it as modern as possible with modern weapons (and laser guided 16"?)
Well, given all the above would any surface threat be able to sink it with current weapons (apart from Nuke) or would they have to target it with a sub (torpedo it).
Looking back to WW II BB's and the damage they could absorb is a Harpoon or Tomahawk as destructive as a large shell.
Tom

Those ships as built back then can absorb a hell of a lot of damage. I think it took something like 15 torpedoes and 20= bombs to sink the Yamato. Now you're talkingabout using newer construction techniques. As long s they don't go to thin armor like on frigates and DD's and stick to heavy uranium depleted and all that special material like on tanks, I sincerely doubt 1 Tomahawk or harpoon could stop one. I am by no means an expert. Go to one of the ship web sites like steelnavy or modelwarships. This ought to get a few of those boys worked up

Wwll I am by no means an expert but look at what happened to the Warspite when she was hit by the worlds first smart bomb it almost broke her back.An Italian battleship the Roma(I could have the wrong name.)was sunk.If battleships were to be built again it would only be a matter of time before someone had a missile to sink it. Actually can you imagine what one of those bunker busting bombs would do to an Iowa class ship.

Actually the hulls of the Iowas are pretty resistant to damage. One of them got stuck between a pair of rock pinacles in the '50s, and they got her unstuck by strapping 4 500 lb bombs to each pinacle and detonated. IIRC there was very little structural damage.

I also read that the Navy expected them to survive the damage from at least 3 Shipwrecks from a Kirov or Slava and be able to continue the mission. They built them tough in those days! :-)

I'm by no means an expert in naval subjects...just think they're cool, but I'm a firm believer in the "Magic BB" Despite the level of survivability engineered into it, it seems that things of that nature are brought down by some weird twist of fate that allows the most low tech weapon to inflict the most damage...thus the "Magic BB".

As evidence, the F117 brought down in Yugoslavia some years back...Magic BB. That given, I would suspect that a well placed, low tech, torpedo could sink it.

But that's just me.

Well I know I read somewhere that the thinnist armor on the Iowa class was something like 4 or 6 inches, with the armor going all the way up to something like 17 inches thick on the vital areas.

With modern updates to the armor....I am sure it could withstand even more damage.

Take out the rear turret, replace it with an enclosed elevator, with a hangar underneath, ski ramp off the back. Could hold maybe 4-6 Harrier/F-35s, and or some combination of Helos, Osprey and Jump jets.

Leave the front turret for the 16" onslaught, replace turret 2 with a VLS cell. For that matter, smaller VLS cells could be positioned ahead of turret 1 for that matter.

Modern 5" guns are of no consequence, as they have 6 down each side, replace 2 Phalanx with RAM launchers, or just add some RAM launchers to other parts of the hull.

With ASW helo,s (Ospreys?) it might be difficult for a sub to get too near, that's assuming she's not got any escorts. Surface mounted tubes don't have the warhead to hurt too much. Props and rudders could be shrouded in 'tunnels' for added protection. It'd need lots of AA to stop aircraft dropping PGW's laser guided bombs etc.

First of all, being a high value target, she would never be left un escorted, so there would be no worries there.

However with VLS cells replacing turret 2, and also the addition of VLS cells ahead of turret 1, she could hold her own compliment of Standard SAM missiles anyway, so would be quite cabable at protecting herself from incoming missiles and aircraft to a point.

Escorted by a couple of Aegis ships, along with a compliment of F-35s, I am sure she would be able to hold her own.

Elevator where turret 3 sits big enough to lift and launch 2 F-35s at a time.

If you read (if you haven't already) the article on the 21st century BB you'll see a real proposal for upgrading an Iowa BB. No body wants to remove any of the 16" guns. The Marines had a fit when they saw that proposition. For pre-landing prepratory bombardment nothing else comes close. Plus a 16" round is a heck of a lot cheaper (since there are tons available) than a missile from a VLS. The increase in the number of VLS was intnded to improve the "over the horizon" capability. Any ship is vulnerable to contemporary cruise missiles. Rapid blooming chaff (RBC) and CIWS are believed to be able to counter these threats and new anti missile missiles are being developed ( I think sea sparrowa are being modified?). Bur congress hase dismissed this project in favor of rearming/firring out ssbn's to carry cruise missilesand cruise around in ths shallow littoral waters off the enemies coast to pop up and launch.

My son spent 6 years active duty on Los Angeles Class fast attack submarines, and I learned something from him that I didn't know about modern torpedos. The old torpedo as you will remember actually detonated against the hull of the ship for the purpose of opening holes causing the ship to (hopefully and eventually) take on so much water, she'd capsize of sink. There were contact detonators (PD fuzes for us Arty types) and the infamous magnetic/proximity fuzes which caused the warhead to explode as it got near the ship.

Modern torpedos are not designed to actually "penetrate" the ship as we think of it. They are designed to explode under the ship. The immediate reaction is to force the center of the ship up, which is followed by the creation of (in effect) a huge "hole" under the vessel. I don't care how strong you make a ship, if you leave the entire center of the vessel unsupported by the water, it will break in two.

The trick becomes for the sub to get close enough to effectively engage the target. Nuc subs, for all their capability and range, do make some noise. The reactors have to be cooled and that means pumping water to do that. Diesel-electric boats on the other hand are almost totally silent at low speeds. Their problem is underwater endurance and range.

A while back there was some discussion about using the USS America as a target vessel. While she is nowhere nearly as protected topside the way a battleship is, if she is used in this fashion it will be interesting to see exactly what weapons are used and how they work.

Tom

Hey mike, where did that article go? Either I am going blind or it is no longer in the warships section. So you have a link?

Still on the Warships front page knucklehead! Here ya go anyway:
article