wiskybb64's avatar
dave
42 Watchers17.3K Page Views174 Deviations
blockdt1066
Adriano90210
gummy-gundam
conversekidd1998
ljljljs
deadpoolPETERPETRELL
Pwesty
tain669
Goughan86
Logovanni
redtrackz
mavsfan4life
Sketchydeez
Boarguts
SharpWriter
T-RexJones
INKIST
feuerkorn
kasai
MicoSuayan
drazebot
mojette
Paul-Moore
SpiderGuile
Plognark
ardian-syaf
dankatcher

Spotlight

Panama City Statue at Night

0Comments
Artist
Badges
Super Llama: Llamas are awesome! (12)
My Bio
Current Residence: Current - Virginia Beach, Virginia
deviantWEAR sizing preference: Large
Favourite genre of music: motivational music
Favourite photographer: Sam Rami
Favourite style of art: Real
Operating System: Windows XP Home edition IT'S COOL!
MP3 player of choice: Whatever works
Shell of choice: the outer one
Wallpaper of choice: David Finch artwork
Skin of choice: A patch work of my slain enemies
Favourite cartoon character: Stitch
Personal Quote: "Nobody fucks with the king." - Bubba Hotep

Favourite Visual Artist
Brett Booth, David Finch, Jim Lee
Favourite Movies
300
Favourite Bands / Musical Artists
Metallica. Yeah, still a metal head
Favourite Writers
Ronald Reagan
Favourite Games
God of War
Favourite Gaming Platform
computer, PS2 gaining
Tools of the Trade
.5mm Pentel technical pencil, india ink #2 brush, rapidoliner tech pens .25 &.35
Other Interests
movies, writing, drawing

Japan

Japan

Japan: New Munitions Naval Gunfire/Surface Fire Support Battleships Below deck hanger Utility Economics Practicality.... ...hooyah

Getting Stuff Done

Getting Stuff Done

Well, hey there watchers!  I have been in my new place for about a month now, and it's been such a great time, let me tell you.  I feel so liberated and independent, it's incredible.   I am a scientist and an engineer, always willing to change my opinion if new information comes about, not someone who thinks about something a little and then decides that's it.  My current roommate is a very spirited learning machine, and it's awesome.   I have a number of models I am going to be posting pictures of in the coming days and drawings (hopefully if I can balls up and get a scanner).  I am back writing about the Iowa-class battleships again.  T

Vandalism

Vandalism

I own a 2004 VW Golf R32.  What would you think if someone wrote "NAZI FAGGOT" on the hood of your car --- with a brand new paint job --- next to a big swastica?   Me, I caught it just in time and was able to get help from a very nice Walmart Employee named Adam to get the paint pen (or silver sharpie) off automotive paint.  I think if I had missed it by a few more hours, it would have been too late.  As a tip, rubbing alcohol and Goo Gone does wonders for this kind of thing.     I will wait until the morning to see what it looks like in the sun.  I am sure there is a silver haze over my BLACK paint. So, what would you think if someone d

Comments 114

Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Thanks for the fav.
I love your support of the Iowas, and lord knows if the USA wasn't going broke, I would fully agree on the reactivation of the Iowas. (I wouldn't say Wisconsin is the badass king. New Jersey, which killed Arab terrorists in Lebanon with her 16" guns, or Missouri, where the Japanese admitted that the lost WWII, top it. Your what-if of the Kentucky is interesting, but the reason the Iowas didn't get the Sea Sparrow in real life is because the overpressure blasts from the main guns were damaging the systems. If you put the Sea Sparrows at the back that might help, but I think you may be out of luck on that front. The SM-2s wouldn't be an issue, though, and with the Kentucky being built for this, you could design it with a massive SM-2 magazine, and keep and AEGIS cruiser around. The Ticos can guide other ships' SM-2s, and what better way to fuck up Backfire raids than to have a ship with three hundred SM-2s, plus the cruiser's missiles. You could kill every bird in the Russian Navy on your own!
Thanks for the interest, man. I apprecaite the input and comments. Well, the GAO has said that we could reactivate, modernize, and pay operating costs 2 Iowa-class battleships for 18.5 years for the purchase price of a single DDG-1000. The money, justification, industrial base, ammunition supply, R&D, and modernization plans are all there, it's just that the political will is not. Balls are the only thing that are keeping the battleships out of the fleet.
There are so many issues with the DDG-1000 program that I don't even know where to begin, but I get your point. I don't think its political will so much as efficiency keeping them out of the fleet. No US ship uses Armored Box Launchers any longer. Modern radars and electronics would require a redesign of the Iowas' power supply systems, which would be a big job. These are 65-year old ships, and to the best of my knowledge there isn't much, if anything, left in the active-duty US fleet that still uses boilers and steam turbines. And they really are big, expensive ships that really only have one purpose. For shock value, they do belong, but they would be expensive to reactivate and expensive to operate compared to the benchmark, which is the Burke-class destroyer.

If it were me, I would have them back. But there are valid arguments for them being museums that aren't involving cowardice.
Cowardice is a pretty strong word...but I would say it is mix between misconception and lack of political will. If that's cowardice, then that's what it is.
It's interesting you're interested enough to consider battleship reactivation. I think you might like some information about what the battleships were supposed to receive in the 1990s. Their decommissionings were very sudden and off the cuff. The Iowa was in the middle of getting Turret 2 repaired at Norfolk Naval Shipyard when the order to decommission came down. They had to reinstall the armroed bolts into the turret. They were going to re-gun Turret 2's center gun, and that gun barrel is still at NNSY.
Concerning the technology being obsolete and stuff like that, the same thing was said in 1981 when they were pulling New Jersey for reactivation. Just like we would not use the 40mm AA guns of WWII in 1981 and we instead used Phalanx CIWS, we would not use ABLs instead we would use Mk41 VLS.
Not only is a VLS and "modernization" feasible the Iowas were scheduled to undergo the Warfighting Improvement Program beginning with Iowa in 1993. This would have removed the ABLs and raised the missile decks by 1 deck and added strike length Mk41 Mod0 VLS. 128 tubes would have been fitted in four 32-cell arrangements, 2 in the amidships missile deck and 2 in the aft on either side of the aft fire control tower.
The Mk160 GFCS used in the DDG-51s was going to be moded to the Mk160 "Mod4" to control both 16" and 5" batteries. An 11" discarding sabot round was developed and produced at Dahlgren between 1988 and 1989. The Mk160 was necessary to calculate the fire solutions for the long ranges achieved by this round. 51nm was the published unclassifed range achieved. Reports have placed it at 112nm.
The 5" battery was going to be removed and replaced with 5"/54caliber duel mounts designed for the Montana-class. Crane Indiana had received the builder's plans for the mounts, and HY-80 and HY-100 steel stock was being manufactured for construction of the gun mounts. The 54caliber mounts would have used the same base ring as the 38caliber mounts so replacement would have been a plug and play. The only heavy changes would have been in the powder hoists. They just needed to be enlarged to take the longer powder case.
The over-pressure problems with the Mk29 Sea Sparrow octuple launcher you commented on in the Kentucky picture was overcome. An ORDALT was made Sea Sparrow launchers that proofed them against the overpressure caused by the guns, again at Dahlgren. The launchers would have gone in place of Mts 54 and 55.
The TAS-23 missile detection system was to be added to main mast behind the TACTAS antenna. If you look at the Wisconsin's main mast you will see a large platform built behind the TACTAS antenna. They were to receive a service life extension modernization that was to extend their life to 25 years at the time of modernization.
A new propelling charge was developed using off-the-self M31A1E1 triple based artillery propellant to replace the rather aged silk bag wrapped charges of WWII in storage.
These were only some of the modernizations planned and designed by NAVSEA and Long Beach Navy Yard and scheduled for Iowa in FY1993, New Jersey in FY94, then Wisconsin and Missouri both in FY95. So, it's not just feasible, but it was about to happen.
Conerning the feasibility today, the US Navy has a whole class of steam powered ships that we will be operating for 20-25 more years: the Wasp-class LHD. All but one of the Wasp-class have steam poweredboiler power plants, as do the two Tarawa-class LHAs. So the knowledge base is still active in the fleet.
The ships themselves are big, but that's a good thing. They are as survivable (if you believe NAVSEA they are more surviable) as a CVN and have armor that was designed to withstand damage far greater than what modern cruise missiles can inflict. They're not unsinkable but they are more survivable than anything else around.
Concerning cost, I don't know what you're comparing them to, but battleships are not expensive when compared to their peers. If you compare them to an MCM ($19 million/yr) or a PC ($3 million/year) or a DDG ($30 million/yr) a battleship's yearly operational cost ($58 million) is higher and thus make them "expensive" in relation, but none of those ships have the same purpose or capabilities as a battleship. So it's not a proper comparison. However if you compare them to their peer ships, capital ships LHDs ($290 million), LHAs ($250 million), and CVNs ($401 million) they are very inexpensive.
Like in the 1980s the battleships would be the centers of battleship battle groups, or "battleship strike groups" as the terminology is today, and they would take the place of CVNs in areas that need a high volume ordnance ship but where the US Navy cannot afford to send a CVN either due to risk or because there are higher priorities. These "lower priority areas" are areas such as Somalia, Syria, the Northern Persian Gulf, North Korea, or as recent as the conflict in Lybia. These are all areas that need the potential of a heavy punch close by that cannot be delivered by a single or group of DDGs and CGs. The 16" gun provides that and the 128 VLS tubes offer 120 TLAMs.
As for the purpose of "shock value", you are right! They do have more shock value than any other type of ship, but their purpose is not shock. It is to deliver ordnance, and people can tell. That's why they have "shock value".
But to me, a guy on the ground who needs support, their most valuable quality is the ability to respond to a call for fire either in support (NGFS) or as a naval gun strike on a target that is so time sensitive that you can't wait for a TLAM fired from a DDG to get 1. programmed 2. launched 3. make the transit from the operating area (sometimes a hundred miles off the coast for a DDG) and fly all the way across the water to the land and then to the op area two dozen miles inland to hit a GPS coordinate that is now 30 minutes to an hour old. The battleship can put an 11" round in the air within 2.5 minutes of receiving the call for fire and takes less than 1 minute to arrive on target. The precision guidance kit for the NATO 155mm round (which is a replacement fuse with fins and a GPS guidance chip in it) was certified by Dahlgren last year to be used in the 11" DSR and Mk25 8" projectiles. Dahlgren is always looking for advertizing points for the 16" guns and the Mk71 MCLWG (Dahlgren wants 16" guns in the fleet and 8" guns on all new DDG and CG construction).
Reaction time and volume of ordnance is what's needed, and battleships not only provide that, but the ships are ready to go.
Thanks for the interest and feed back!

David
View all replies
Cowardice is a pretty strong word...but I would say it is mix between misconception and lack of political will. If that's cowardice, then that's what it is.
It's interesting you're interested enough to consider battleship reactivation. I think you might like some information about what the battleships were supposed to receive in the 1990s. Their decommissionings were very sudden and off the cuff. The Iowa was in the middle of getting Turret 2 repaired at Norfolk Naval Shipyard when the order to decommission came down. They had to reinstall the armroed bolts into the turret. They were going to re-gun Turret 2's center gun, and that gun barrel is still at NNSY.
Concerning the technology being obsolete and stuff like that, the same thing was said in 1981 when they were pulling New Jersey for reactivation. Just like we would not use the 40mm AA guns of WWII in 1981 and we instead used Phalanx CIWS, we would not use ABLs instead we would use Mk41 VLS.
Not only is a VLS and "modernization" feasible the Iowas were scheduled to undergo the Warfighting Improvement Program beginning with Iowa in 1993. This would have removed the ABLs and raised the missile decks by 1 deck and added strike length Mk41 Mod0 VLS. 128 tubes would have been fitted in four 32-cell arrangements, 2 in the amidships missile deck and 2 in the aft on either side of the aft fire control tower.
The Mk160 GFCS used in the DDG-51s was going to be moded to the Mk160 "Mod4" to control both 16" and 5" batteries. An 11" discarding sabot round was developed and produced at Dahlgren between 1988 and 1989. The Mk160 was necessary to calculate the fire solutions for the long ranges achieved by this round. 51nm was the published unclassifed range achieved. Reports have placed it at 112nm.
The 5" battery was going to be removed and replaced with 5"/54caliber duel mounts designed for the Montana-class. Crane Indiana had received the builder's plans for the mounts, and HY-80 and HY-100 steel stock was being manufactured for construction of the gun mounts. The 54caliber mounts would have used the same base ring as the 38caliber mounts so replacement would have been a plug and play. The only heavy changes would have been in the powder hoists. They just needed to be enlarged to take the longer powder case.
The over-pressure problems with the Mk29 Sea Sparrow octuple launcher you commented on in the Kentucky picture was overcome. An ORDALT was made Sea Sparrow launchers that proofed them against the overpressure caused by the guns, again at Dahlgren. The launchers would have gone in place of Mts 54 and 55.
The TAS-23 missile detection system was to be added to main mast behind the TACTAS antenna. If you look at the Wisconsin's main mast you will see a large platform built behind the TACTAS antenna. They were to receive a service life extension modernization that was to extend their life to 25 years at the time of modernization.
A new propelling charge was developed using off-the-self M31A1E1 triple based artillery propellant to replace the rather aged silk bag wrapped charges of WWII in storage.
These were only some of the modernizations planned and designed by NAVSEA and Long Beach Navy Yard and scheduled for Iowa in FY1993, New Jersey in FY94, then Wisconsin and Missouri both in FY95. So, it's not just feasible, but it was about to happen.
Conerning the feasibility today, the US Navy has a whole class of steam powered ships that we will be operating for 20-25 more years: the Wasp-class LHD. All but one of the Wasp-class have steam poweredboiler power plants, as do the two Tarawa-class LHAs. So the knowledge base is still active in the fleet.
The ships themselves are big, but that's a good thing. They are as survivable (if you believe NAVSEA they are more surviable) as a CVN and have armor that was designed to withstand damage far greater than what modern cruise missiles can inflict. They're not unsinkable but they are more survivable than anything else around.
Concerning cost, I don't know what you're comparing them to, but battleships are not expensive when compared to their peers. If you compare them to an MCM ($19 million/yr) or a PC ($3 million/year) or a DDG ($30 million/yr) a battleship's yearly operational cost ($58 million) is higher and thus make them "expensive" in relation, but none of those ships have the same purpose or capabilities as a battleship. So it's not a proper comparison. However if you compare them to their peer ships, capital ships LHDs ($290 million), LHAs ($250 million), and CVNs ($401 million) they are very inexpensive.
Like in the 1980s the battleships would be the centers of battleship battle groups, or "battleship strike groups" as the terminology is today, and they would take the place of CVNs in areas that need a high volume ordnance ship but where the US Navy cannot afford to send a CVN either due to risk or because there are higher priorities. These "lower priority areas" are areas such as Somalia, Syria, the Northern Persian Gulf, North Korea, or as recent as the conflict in Lybia. These are all areas that need the potential of a heavy punch close by that cannot be delivered by a single or group of DDGs and CGs. The 16" gun provides that and the 128 VLS tubes offer 120 TLAMs.
As for the purpose of "shock value", you are right! They do have more shock value than any other type of ship, but their purpose is not shock. It is to deliver ordnance, and people can tell. That's why they have "shock value".
But to me, a guy on the ground who needs support, their most valuable quality is the ability to respond to a call for fire either in support (NGFS) or as a naval gun strike on a target that is so time sensitive that you can't wait for a TLAM fired from a DDG to get 1. programmed 2. launched 3. make the transit from the operating area (sometimes a hundred miles off the coast for a DDG) and fly all the way across the water to the land and then to the op area two dozen miles inland to hit a GPS coordinate that is now 30 minutes to an hour old. The battleship can put an 11" round in the air within 2.5 minutes of receiving the call for fire and takes less than 1 minute to arrive on target. The precision guidance kit for the NATO 155mm round (which is a replacement fuse with fins and a GPS guidance chip in it) was certified by Dahlgren last year to be used in the 11" DSR and Mk25 8" projectiles. Dahlgren is always looking for advertizing points for the 16" guns and the Mk71 MCLWG (Dahlgren wants 16" guns in the fleet and 8" guns on all new DDG and CG construction).
Reaction time and volume of ordnance is what's needed, and battleships not only provide that, but the ships are ready to go.
Thanks for the interest and feed back!

David
Do you recognize me?