Worst Idea Ever: Send Iowa-Class Battleships to Fight China in a War

[rangerrebew]

 
Worst Idea Ever: Send Iowa-Class Battleships to Fight China in a War
Story by Brandon J. Weichert • 14h

Summary and Key Points: As China's anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems increasingly threaten U.S. military capabilities, some naval planners suggest restoring Iowa-class battleships to counter these defenses.
 
-However, this idea is impractical due to outdated infrastructure and the evolution of modern warfare.

-Instead of relying on large, vulnerable surface ships, the U.S. should focus on stealthier, more agile platforms like submarines, hypersonic weapons, and unmanned underwater vehicles.
 
-The solution lies in adapting to the changing nature of warfare, not reviving obsolete technologies like battleships.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/worst-idea-ever-send-iowa-class-battleships-to-fight-china-in-a-war/ar-BB1mbPw5?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=cba55d6413194a8da4f10db0fa80b3c1&ei=31

[rangerrebew]

I wonder whose idea it is to take the US back to the 1920s?

[Timber Rattler]

Impossible.  All the 16-inch shells have been destroyed and no one is left who knows how to operate the ship's engines, perform 1940s-vintage maintenance, or aim and fire those big guns.

[PeteS in CA]

Impossible.  All the 16-inch shells have been destroyed and no one is left who knows how to operate the ship's engines, perform 1940s-vintage maintenance, or aim and fire those big guns.

These, the Iowa class BBs' limited electrical power generation capability, and general lack of automation (= needing a large crew) are facts big-gun-nostalgics ignore (or simply do not understand).

[DefiantMassRINO]

 

Why stop there?  Let's use 19th Century sail-driven Ships-of-the-Line to fight a 21st Century war.

[PeteS in CA]

Weapons systems are not obsoleted be cause generals and admirals want shinier and newer toys. Battleships were obsoleted because of their lesser bang-per-sailor compared to other ships and because of machinery and electrical technology advances.

[MeganC]

Impossible.  All the 16-inch shells have been destroyed and no one is left who knows how to operate the ship's engines, perform 1940s-vintage maintenance, or aim and fire those big guns.

Improbable but not impossible.

16 inch shells can be made again and the argument for using them is that no one can defend against a 4500 pound hardened steel projectile.

That said, putting 1940's era battleships back into action would be close to silly.

But...building a new big gun battleship outfitted with modern weaponry and with a hull able to stymie modern weapons would have some uses especially in conflicts where the enemy deploys naval drones and missiles against modern thin-hulled, lightly-armored ships.

Ask Russia how their navy fared against naval drones and missiles.

Perhaps there is a place for a modern capital ship but the day of the Big Four battlewagons is over for sure.

[PeteS in CA]

While shells for the 16"/50 Mark 7 gun could be made - 2700 lbs. for AP, 1900 lbs. for HC - the ~24 mile range just would not justify the effort. Ignoring multiple realities, if USS New Jersey or Missouri got itself all the way on the beach at Guangzhou or Shanghai, only a very small part of the industrial areas would be in range of the 16" guns, and even less area in range of the 5"/38s. Industrial cities like Hengyang or Wuhan are hundreds of miles from China's coast.

One of the weird lessons the USN learned in WW2 was that volume of fire was often more effective than a smaller number of heavy shells. For </= 14 mile range and unprotected targets, 12 or 15 6"/47 light cruiser guns firing 8 or 10 times a minute each, could do more damage than 9 16" guns firing twice a minute.

[MeganC]

I agree.

But a modern big gun ship could apply eight decades of technological advance. Modern 155mm guns can reach 68 statute miles.

Add heavy missiles and a modern battlewagon could be made to pack a terrifying punch.

Perhaps just as terrifying as the Wisconsin when Iraqi troops would surrender to her spotter drone for fear of the big guns. To me this was the crowning achievement of the battleship platform that it did not need to fire in order to defeat the enemy.

It just needed to be there.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

While shells for the 16"/50 Mark 7 gun could be made - 2700 lbs. for AP, 1900 lbs. for HC - the ~24 mile range just would not justify the effort. Ignoring multiple realities, if USS New Jersey or Missouri got itself all the way on the beach at Guangzhou or Shanghai, only a very small part of the industrial areas would be in range of the 16" guns, and even less area in range of the 5"/38s. Industrial cities like Hengyang or Wuhan are hundreds of miles from China's coast.

One of the weird lessons the USN learned in WW2 was that volume of fire was often more effective than a smaller number of heavy shells. For </= 14 mile range and unprotected targets, 12 or 15 6"/47 light cruiser guns firing 8 or 10 times a minute each, could do more damage than 9 16" guns firing twice a minute.

Yeah, they're impractical as hell.  I remember that some of them had turrets replaced by vertical launch missile systems, and the onboard room for ordnance and armor are tempting.

But the Navy already is short sailors, and those ships required large crews even after being refitted during the Reagan era.   Just not worth it.

[Timber Rattler]

These, the Iowa class BBs' limited electrical power generation capability, and general lack of automation (= needing a large crew) are facts big-gun-nostalgics ignore (or simply do not understand).

Right, and it takes at least 1,500 sailors to fully man an Iowa-class battleship.  Where's the Navy going to get that kind of manpower when it's already short thousands of billets.

[MeganC]

Right, and it takes at least 1,500 sailors to fully man an Iowa-class battleship.  Where's the Navy going to get that kind of manpower when it's already short thousands of billets.

The Iowa-class returning to service is a dead issue. Ain't going to happen. At least not unless we get really, really desperate.