Shipbucket

TheMann? what the hell, it's CrasyHorse whish did it

It is my understanding that when reactivated the priority was to (in this order):

1. Get the ships functional (able to move and in general, be ships).
2. New weapons upgrades (again in order):
   1. Tomahawks
   2. Phalanx
   3. Harpoons
3. Reactivation of the main armament
4. Reactivation of the secondary armament†

†Actually easier than the main guns because the 5"/38 was still in more or less frontline US service in the 1980s.

IIRC, if the budget wasn't there for either of the later two parts then they would have been left off the reactivations. The ships armor wasn't a factor in the reactivation, and I've also heard it said that the ships that would have really filled the role (That of a large pre-built TLAM shooter) would have been the Alaskas had 4 of them been built instead of 2½ and they not been scrapped in the late 50's / early 60's.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Their speed was reduced progressively every time they were activated. At the end container vessels could outrun them.
Useless when even a helo launched AT missile can penetrate it, let alone something big and nasty.
I'll give you that one.
Would have been the first thing to be scratched from the reactivation if money became tight.
Don't make me laugh.
Nope, not possible. The USN doesn't have the capability to train engineering staff for them anymore.
Thanks for your comprehension and greetings. [/quote]

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Anyone else notice that big lopsided hack on the lower stern? Could someone fix that eyesore? I'm not sure what it's supposed to look like originally and I've gotta crash now.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!

Yeah I see it too. The drawing also uses the old SLQ-32. The new one can be found various places including on DG/AEGIS or in the Old Board's Parts Thread. You've also got a rather ugly 2-D radar on there that should be pulled. I'd also question where you have the Goalkeeper on the top of the superstructure.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

the navy maintains that the wisconsin might have a place in the future.. maybe. as a condition of her release as a museum ship she was to be maintained in a state of battle readiness. this is because the navy and congress feel there is nothing on the books that can match her firepower and over the horizon naval artillary. the ships were called fast battleships for a reason because of thier speed and were attached to carrier battle groups, had they have been slow they would not have been becuz they need to match the speed of the carrier. In the first gulf war scores of iraqi troops surrendered to wisconsin.not just because of her cruise missiles but the main guns aswell terrified them and they caused a lot of damage. The hull of Wisconsin is in good shape, the best of them in fact. This is why she is still technically in reserve and the navy hasbt removed her officially from the registrar. If she had been removed her name would have been available for.one of the new Virginia class subs. The navy also maintains a cache of shells for the ship. This agreement for her possible return has even survived the Obama administration (so far) while the f-22 hasnt and now rumors are circulating that so is one version of the.f-35 if not the whole program (just a rumor.. Hopefully).. With a defense budget so close to $1trillion the navy could eeeaaasily refurbish the iowa.. Hell even if someone caught a wild bug in the ass and wanted convert her to nuclear the money is available.. Oh and the argument about the armour i would have to agree with, missle technology would sink her BUT that doesnt mean anything when a well placed.missle can sink anything on the sea...

In the first gulf War score of iraqi troops surrenderd to journalists.
There's no money to refurbish her. Sure, the US may be spending close to a trillion dollars on defence, but that's just it. It's using all those money already.
True, anything can be sunk, but most ships are capable of putting up something resembling resistance. The Iowa's couldn't, at least not by the late eighties.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

The truth is a lot of that money gets tied up in slush funds or sent over seas or for research and development. If her recomissioning/refit was truely needed it would happen... No doubt. The ships were fitted with the same weaponry as the modern front line frigates and destroyers (minus ageas [sp?]) during the 80s giving them the same chance. Side note: Ppl also dont credit the battleships with the kills they deserve, giving total glory in the war to aircraft carriers.

They didn't have a chance in the eighties, let alone now. (Three phalanx does not a proper airdefence make)
What kills are you talking about? So far I've run into one situation where a BB could have been utilized to greater effect than than aircraft, and that had more to do with inexperienced pilots and overdeveloped aircraft than any inherent superiority in the BB.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

It's because they have political backers with no sense of the march of technology who refuse to let them die.

If the navy could get away with it they would conduct a live-fire exercise and SINKEX or turn them into reefs, simply because in warfare they would tie up a lot more manpower for the capability set.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆