USS Iowa (BB-61) and USS New Jersey (BB-62) Modernization

Master Chief Brown wrote:

I would like to pose a question to you: If Congress gave the Navy money and an order to restore a pair of Iowa-class battleships to counter, once again, the Russian's Kirov-class battlecruisers,

What do you mean counter the Kirovs again? The Iowas were reactivated because the USN was short on command platforms to control the rapidly expanding 600 ship navy and because they could take a lot of Armored Box Launchers. If the goal had been to counter the Kirovs they would have stepped up AEGIS production.

Master Chief Brown wrote:

what could be done to them with the weapons of this day and age to improve their weapons, propulsion, and electronics to the point where they could feasibly become the most powerful ships in the history of the world?

Melt them down and use the material to build new ships. Exactly what ships is hard to say since powerful doesn't equal useful or even practical.

Master Chief Brown wrote:

This has been written about from the pearly gates to breakfast by people with an internet connection and a bare knowledge of weapons, nuclear reactors, and what would be fun to do. They want to replace the 16"/50's with railguns, melt down the 5"/38s for scrap, put Mk-41 VLS where the ABL's are, give the battleships the Aegis System, and use them as Theater Anti-Ballistic Missile Ships.

Like I said, melt the entire ship down and start over. It'll be cheaper, more effective and it'll last longer.

Master Chief Brown wrote:

My requirements are simple: Keep the 16"/50's in their original, unaltered configuration, and possibly replace the 5"/38 guns with 5"/54 or 5"/62 if the electronics would withstand the shock of the main battery firing (either design and field a dual turret, or just put the single turrets on where they would go). As for missiles, maybe put SeaRAM in place of two or all four of the R2D2's, leave the Harpoons alone, and either replace or retain the ABL's. I have doubts as to how well Mk-41 VLS would fare when the 16" guns fire, but if you know anything to the contrary: drill, baby, drill.
If you can put UAV facilities on them, even better. I will promise this to you: anyone who submits a drawing will, in a few years' time, have a package delivered by the Federal Trolls bearing cookies and a highly unusual tome.

What purpose would this ship serve? Aside from being a gold plated white whale?

Master Chief Brown wrote:

I have seen the inside of the turrets of the USS Missouri, and it is entirely possible to bring ammo up from her magazines, blow out the wooden plugs in her barrels with the detonation of a single bag of powder, and fire on Aloha Stadium if you can hook up some generators.

Last time I checked, turret two was off limit to the public and it might even have been sealed off completely.
Anyway, the turret were completely gutted, the breach mechanism damaged beyond repair, the liner was unseated and so on and so forth. And let's not even talk about what twenty years of neglect will have done to the recoil system or the turret ring rollers.

Master Chief Brown wrote:

And here we are in the greatest, most powerful nation on earth (at least I am), and you are telling me we cannot rebuild boilers or turbines in six months with plans we still have? It would take at least 20 months to restore one of those beautiful BB's to service.

It would take a whole lot longer than that. You'd have to manufacture every single piece by hand which is both time consuming and incredibly expensive. Having blueprints won't be of much use if you don't have the production infrastructure to utilize them.
And there are in fact some parts that you wont be able to manufacture at all, such as spare barrels. Aside from the fact that the highly specialized manufacturing facilities have been repurposed or demolished, the expertise simply isn't there any more.
And since the barrels and liners were sold for scrap last year you can't rely on surviving stocks. And that's not even considering the crew.

Master Chief Brown wrote:

I never said I wanted to put missile defense, Aegis, and fire support on their hulls. In fact, I think it is stupid, ignorant, and worse than child pornography or molestation to even consider doing such a thing. I simply asked how you would modernize it if given an order and money by the US Congress to do whatever you wanted to them, within the bounds of today's technology and making them even more lethal.

Like I said, I'd sell them for scrap and use the money to build new ships.

Master Chief Brown wrote:

If the Soviet threat was still around today, would you say we were desecrating the corpses of our father's and grandfather's ships by reactivating them and sending them against an enemy just as bad, if not worse than the Nazis or the Japanese then?

While the wording might be a bit extreme, you're asking the Navy to use huge amounts of tax money on reactivating old ships that won't add any real capability to the navy. (A single Tico can launch as many Tomahawks as all four Iowas together)
On top of that you're advocating using said ships in front line service despite the fact that they are effectively defenceless. (armour is all well and good, but it's not really going to help when all the things that makes the ships fight are in the unarmoured superstructure or out in the open. Command facilities, electronics and tomahawks respectively)

Master Chief Brown wrote:

President Reagan talked to Gorbachev about the threat of radical Islam and how terrorists would do everything in their power to destroy the world and "convert" it to their own twisted version of that religion of peace. After the Marine Barracks were bombed in 1983 in Beirut, the USS Iowa, I believe it was, was sent to prevent attacks on US forces. She succeded magnificently.

Did she? Sure the increase in surveillance flights and better alertness amongst the troops stationed there didn't do that. The Iowas would have been dismal anti terrorist weapons since terrorists rely on civilians for cover. So unless you're willing to kill hundreds of innocent civilians (As much as some people want it to be a crime, being Lebanese isn't a crime) in order to kill maybe a handful of terrorists, BBs would be of little use. And that's assuming the Terrorists don't just pack up and move inland.

Master Chief Brown wrote:

We can make them even more lethal than they were back then. I feel we should.

How?

Shipbucket

Who is online