USS IOWA moving????

Would have thought that it would cost a small fortune to get one back in service again, and then add on top of that, the 1000+ crew requirement & running costs for such a large ship & perhaps, as much as your Marines want one back in service, it won't be financially viable.

Maybe a better solution would be to build something along the old monitor lines? Smaller hull, single turret & a lot less crew required. For these reasons, & being a modern ship, it should cost a lot less in service &  may stand more chance with the folks who control the purse strings?

A lot less firepower than an Iowa certainly, but maybe the GPS shells being more accurate & modern autoloaders could do something to offset the reduced number of guns on the ship?

Here is a link to some photos of British Royal Navy monitors from the First World War. Not a patch on the beautiful lines of an Iowa I grant you :)

  I would love to see some old BB's back in service.

 Anybody know how many are able to return to service? The Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin? What others?

                                                                       -60
 

David Harris wrote:

Would have thought that it would cost a small fortune to get one back in service again, and then add on top of that, the 1000+ crew requirement & running costs for such a large ship & perhaps, as much as your Marines want one back in service, it won't be financially viable. Maybe a better solution would be to build something along the old monitor lines? Smaller hull, single turret & a lot less crew required. For these reasons, & being a modern ship, it should cost a lot less in service &  may stand more chance with the folks who control the purse strings? A lot less firepower than an Iowa certainly, but maybe the GPS shells being more accurate & modern autoloaders could do something to offset the reduced number of guns on the ship? Here is a link to some photos of British Royal Navy monitors from the First World War. Not a patch on the beautiful lines of an Iowa I grant you :)

Where's the link Dave? 

 Yes, Ed I know that. Which ones would require the least amount of time and be cost effective enough to do it. Don't give no smart aleck answers, Ed.

 The emoticons are disabled, so just to let you know, I winked and smiled at you after the above sentence!

                                                               -60
 

m60a3 wrote:

I would love to see some old BB's back in service.  Anybody know how many are able to return to service? The Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin? What others?                                                                        -60

I just found out the format has changed up as well. There's The USS iowa as she aint been turned into a museum yet. Not sure how many others there are as you said the Wisconsin hasn't been made into a museum yet (to my knowledge) Alot of Destroyers & such are in Mothballs... 

I heard a rumor that the reason the Navy can not continue operating the Iowa Class BBs was that the stockpile of actual rounds is all but depleted.

And much like the battleships 16" guns, and the SaturnV rocket booster, No one can manufacture them any more.

You'll love the brass plaque outside the citadel bridge - "We are battleship sailors, when it gets to [sic] tough for others, its just right for us."

 I love the typo!

 Steve

David Harris wrote:

Would have thought that it would cost a small fortune to get one back in service again, and then add on top of that, the 1000+ crew requirement & running costs for such a large ship & perhaps, as much as your Marines want one back in service, it won't be financially viable. Maybe a better solution would be to build something along the old monitor lines? Smaller hull, single turret & a lot less crew required. For these reasons, & being a modern ship, it should cost a lot less in service &  may stand more chance with the folks who control the purse strings? A lot less firepower than an Iowa certainly, but maybe the GPS shells being more accurate & modern autoloaders could do something to offset the reduced number of guns on the ship? Here is a link to some photos of British Royal Navy monitors from the First World War. Not a patch on the beautiful lines of an Iowa I grant you :)

The Marines want them back as there is nothing in the U.S. arsenal that fills the role of the battleship in amphibious operations (shore bombardment) and I wonder if a "monitor" would fill that role. I do like the monitor idea and I think there a lot of options to explore before re-activating the BBs as is (re-use the old Nimitz class reactors to make BBs nuke?). 

 Possibilities. A nuke BB, with modern weapons, maybe a pair of Harriers...  What else? Man the possibilities are endless.

                                                                -60
 

http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/monitors.htm

Sorry, me bad :(

 Cool website, David.

                                  -60
 

i thinks that the navy should open more museums like that

the cost to run them could be kept to a min. with the use of not only volenteers but using regular sailors on thir last 30-45 days of their enlistment they are already paid any way and it would give them something even more memorable as part of their tour of duty

subfixer wrote:

...I don't think that ammunition shortages are the problem as new types of ammo were being developed (sabot types and I think guided munitions, too) but the powder charges that were being used were of WW II vintage and were of questionable condition.

Did they use silk or linen powder bags? Not really important to the thread but something I just wondered about. 

claymore68 wrote:

subfixer wrote: ...I don't think that ammunition shortages are the problem as new types of ammo were being developed (sabot types and I think guided munitions, too) but the powder charges that were being used were of WW II vintage and were of questionable condition.   Did they use silk or linen powder bags? Not really important to the thread but something I just wondered about.

They used a coarse silk called "shallon". This was replaced by rayon bags after smoldering residue from it caused a premature detonation in a gun on the BB 57.

claymore68 wrote:

TY subfixer, I'd heard that bagged charges were silk because it burned off better than linen and, therefore, limited bore fouling and unburned embers and rayon would make sense as it would about vaporize under that kind of heat.

That is a part of history, as for not being thread related, I think that is is a valid question since the USS Iowa is a piece of history herself  

From what I understand, the Iowa will need a lot of work.  Turret two is still out of commission - it was cleaned up, but there is still damage to repair.  Her state of preservation is not as good as the Wisconsin, as there have been problems with the dehumidification process and water ingress - areas of the ship have been left open to the atmosphere that should have been sealed.  Museum groups have been inspected her in the last month or two to deterime what it will take to get her on display, and it will be expensive.

 I heard that Stockton was balking at the cost of bringing her in, and that Vallejo is moving up the list on possible locations, but I don't have definitive information on that.  Time will tell.  It is a shame she cannot go on display in San Francisco, where the tourist crowd would help the financial situtation of the ship tremendously.  Local politics, both left wing (anti-war other groups protesting the ship) and right wing (shorefront developers seeking to line their pockets with other projects) are working against that however.

 Kurt

The Iowa was on Fox News a while back- a supervisor of San Francisco ended up making himself look rather foolish. Great reading:

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185563,00.html

Oh, and I mean "Yeah" as in the powder was kept in silk and linen bags.

Man, I'd say he grew long ears and really left no-doubt to what he was!! [oops!!]

I think Stockton is looking at the big picture though, the fact of having such a historical ship in our midst would bring people (& money) to this city. I for one wouldn't mind it being here. We did have a sub in the deep water channel for a number of years but, it wasn't  a museum. Just on static display at the pier & could be seen from the Interstate 5 overpass. 

On the powder bag question, I know personally that what ever the bag is made of it definrtly is ALL consumed int the breech area. When the breech opens there was nothing left in ours. Our powder was held in place with linen straps around linen bags.

155 mm Green bag and white bag powder charges.

Privateer wrote:

On the powder bag question, I know personally that what ever the bag is made of it definrtly is ALL consumed int the breech area. When the breech opens there was nothing left in ours. Our powder was held in place with linen straps around linen bags. 155 mm Green bag and white bag powder charges.

You are referring to Army field artillery I assume, the powder bags being referred to here are the Navy type, and, in this case, were 16 inchers and were not made of linen. In certain instances, there apparently was the danger of burning residue in the breach. This was, after all, WW II technology.