The Future of Current Battleships

Sailor.X said:

Just a blast from the past. This is from MY Era of the US Navy. Aka the Jurassic.

Click to expand...

That's New Jersey, right? Or is that Wisconsin? I've seen the photo before, but always forget which Iowa that is.

Also, we retired those ladies too early. They are well suited for the new point defense lasers, railguns, and hypersonic conventional 5-inch shells we have now. Plus, those 16-inch guns could probably fit a mean gun-launched missile.

I know Trump contemplated reactivating them, and they seem well suited to act as defensive AA/counter-IRBM platforms for the carrier groups if you swapped out a couple of the 16-inchers for bunch of VLS cells.

Though you'd probably need to strip a bunch of parts from the other museum battleships in order to get them fully operational again.

Bacle said:

That's New Jersey, right? Or is that Wisconsin? I've seen the photo before, but always forget which Iowa that is.

Also, we retired those ladies too early. They are well suited for the new point defense lasers, railguns, and hypersonic conventional 5-inch shells we have now. Plus, those 16-inch guns could probably fit a mean gun-launched missile.

I know Trump contemplated reactivating them, and they seem well suited to act as defensive AA/counter-IRBM platforms for the carrier groups if you swapped out a couple of the 16-inchers for bunch of VLS cells.

Though you'd probably need to strip a bunch of parts from the other museum battleships in order to get them fully operational again.

Click to expand...

That is the Iowa herself. Shipboard tech has advanced to the point we could retrofit them with modular Engineering systems and electronic tech. We can do things now that we could not do 10 years ago in Marine Engineering. So bringing them back into service is not as costly as it would have been a decade ago.

Bacle said:

Also, we retired those ladies too early. They are well suited for the new point defense lasers, railguns, and hypersonic conventional 5-inch shells we have now. Plus, those 16-inch guns could probably fit a mean gun-launched missile.

Click to expand...

Dear Gods, NO! We reactivated those ships in the 1980s for a single specific purpose, that is to launch nuclear Tomahawk strikes against Soviet installations around the North Cape as part of the Maritime Strategy. Their size made them seaworthy enough to operate in the grim weather conditions up there and they could hold the speed necessary to keep up with the carriers. The cost of bringing them back (and it was a real minimum-level level conversion) was roughly the same as that of a Perry-class frigate. Once that role went away with the end of the Cold War, the ships were expensive white elephants. They are very costly to run and they each have a crew requirement equivalent to six Arleigh Burke class destroyers. In a Navy where economizing on personnel is a primary requirement, spending that much money on four ships with no viable role in the fleet is not justifiable.

I know Trump contemplated reactivating them

Click to expand...

No, he didn't. He did, at one point, ask why they hadn't been reactivated, got the explanation why and never brought up the subject again. PDJT asks a lot of questions as part of his learning process (he, thank the Gods knows what he doesn't know). That doesn't mean there was any serious intent to do so.

and they seem well suited to act as defensive AA/counter-IRBM platforms for the carrier groups if you swapped out a couple of the 16-inchers for bunch of VLS cells.

Click to expand...

No they are not; they are totally useless in that role. They don't have the radars, they don't have the command spaces, they don't have the weapons, they don't have the battle management capability and they don't have the power generation capacity. To convert them to an AAW ship or to an ABM ship would involve dismantling them down to the waterline, gutting what is left and reconstructing a new ship on the resulting hulk. The end result would be greatly inferior to a purpose-designed Burke and be far more expensive. She would also be a major liability to any fleet operations and would blow the defense budget out of the water.

As to stripping out main battery turrets and replacing them with VLS nests, have you any idea what is involved in doing that? The turrets and their barbettes are an integral part of the ship's structure. Take them out and the integrity of the hull is compromised. It can be done, sort-of, but it is time-consuming and costly. The usual way of playing games with a main battery is to simply pull the turret from the barbette, build a light structure over the top and emplace low-impact weaponry (40mm guns, other light weapons etc) on top using the structure and magazines etc already there to serve those weapons. At a guess, the most we could do would be to stick either some Tomahawk ABLs (if any are left, they've all been pulled from service and I don't offhand know if any have been kept in storage) or Harpoon quad launchers.

Messing around with main battery turrets like that also causes massive trim problems. Overall, this conversion would be so extensive there would be nothing left of the original ship. This is why similar conversions in the 1950s were abandoned. Much quicker and less expensive to build an additional DDG-51 and we get a more capable ship at the end.

Though you'd probably need to strip a bunch of parts from the other museum battleships in order to get them fully operational again.

Click to expand...

No, we can't. That's already been done and everything that is worth taking has been taken. Any spares we need have to be custom-made.

Bringing back the battleships, even in their present form, is economically, technically and operationally neither possible nor desirable. They are doing their most useful duty right now, inspiring visitors with the glory of sea-power and (just possibly) putting the idea of a career at sea into the minds of some younger visitors.

Sailor.X said:

Shipboard tech has advanced to the point we could retrofit them with modular Engineering systems and electronic tech. We can do things now that we could not do 10 years ago in Marine Engineering. So bringing them back into service is not as costly as it would have been a decade ago.

Click to expand...

Sorry, that's not correct either. Say again, to bring back the Iowas with any kind of useful role would involve stripping them down to the waterline. We'd certainly have to remove the armor deck in order to get below and start changing the machinery. We would also destroy the ship's stability in the process. She'd need an entirely new upper hull and superstructure.

To put this simply, there are no conversions possible on the Iowas that would provide a useful ship at any kind of reasonable cost, time and labor expenditure. Anything that a proposed conversion would achieve can be done much better by an Arliegh Burke at a fifth of the cost (and a sixth of the crew requirement.

Sorry, I know its a lovely romantic idea to bring battleships back again but doing so is just not practical

Francis Urquhart said:

Dear Gods, NO! We reactivated those ships in the 1980s for a single specific purpose, that is to launch nuclear Tomahawk strikes against Soviet installations around the North Cape as part of the Maritime Strategy. Their size made them seaworthy enough to operate in the grim weather conditions up there and they could hold the speed necessary to keep up with the carriers. The cost of bringing them back (and it was a real minimum-level level conversion) was roughly the same as that of a Perry-class frigate. Once that role went away with the end of the Cold War, the ships were expensive white elephants. They are very costly to run and they each have a crew requirement equivalent to six Arleigh Burke class destroyers. In a Navy where economizing on personnel is a primary requirement, spending that much money on four ships with no viable role in the fleet is not justifiable.


No, he didn't. He did, at one point, ask why they hadn't been reactivated, got the explanation why and never brought up the subject again. PDJT asks a lot of questions as part of his learning process (he, thank the Gods knows what he doesn't know). That doesn't mean there was any serious intent to do so.



No they are not; they are totally useless in that role. They don't have the radars, they don't have the command spaces, they don't have the weapons, they don't have the battle management capability and they don't have the power generation capacity. To convert them to an AAW ship or to an ABM ship would involve dismantling them down to the waterline, gutting what is left and reconstructing a new ship on the resulting hulk. The end result would be greatly inferior to a purpose-designed Burke and be far more expensive. She would also be a major liability to any fleet operations and would blow the defense budget out of the water.

As to stripping out main battery turrets and replacing them with VLS nests, have you any idea what is involved in doing that? The turrets and their barbettes are an integral part of the ship's structure. Take them out and the integrity of the hull is compromised. It can be done, sort-of, but it is time-consuming and costly. The usual way of playing games with a main battery is to simply pull the turret from the barbette, build a light structure over the top and emplace low-impact weaponry (40mm guns, other light weapons etc) on top using the structure and magazines etc already there to serve those weapons. At a guess, the most we could do would be to stick either some Tomahawk ABLs (if any are left, they've all been pulled from service and I don't offhand know if any have been kept in storage) or Harpoon quad launchers.

Messing around with main battery turrets like that also causes massive trim problems. Overall, this conversion would be so extensive there would be nothing left of the original ship. This is why similar conversions in the 1950s were abandoned. Much quicker and less expensive to build an additional DDG-51 and we get a more capable ship at the end.



No, we can't. That's already been done and everything that is worth taking has been taken. Any spares we need have to be custom-made.

Bringing back the battleships, even in their present form, is economically, technically and operationally neither possible nor desirable. They are doing their most useful duty right now, inspiring visitors with the glory of sea-power and (just possibly) putting the idea of a career at sea into the minds of some younger visitors.



Sorry, that's not correct either. Say again, to bring back the Iowas with any kind of useful role would involve stripping them down to the waterline. We'd certainly have to remove the armor deck in order to get below and start changing the machinery. We would also destroy the ship's stability in the process. She'd need an entirely new upper hull and superstructure.

To put this simply, there are no conversions possible on the Iowas that would provide a useful ship at any kind of reasonable cost, time and labor expenditure. Anything that a proposed conversion would achieve can be done much better by an Arliegh Burke at a fifth of the cost (and a sixth of the crew requirement.

Sorry, I know its a lovely romantic idea to bring battleships back again but doing so is just not practical

Click to expand...

The Fleet now is smaller than it was then. We can bring two of them back with not that big a cost. Make them a platform for new weapon systems. Like newer longer range heavy guns or railguns. I don't know if you know this but ships have void spaces for a reason to include new tech. The Iowas were no different. New tech exists to operate her with a smaller crew. So it is doable. People are just being dogmatic against it because it has literally become kool to do so. I have seen enough defense message boards to see that trend.

Sailor.X said:

The Fleet now is smaller than it was then. We can bring two of them back with not that big a cost.

Click to expand...

The per-unit cost of bringing two back will be much greater than the cost of bringing four. The reason is quite simple; the redesign and research and development costs are independent of the number of units to which the products are applied. That's why the B-2s ended up costing so much, the R&D and Techdev were costed out for 132 aircraft and ended up being applied to 20. The same considerations will be applied to any reconstruction of the Iowas, The costs involved being applied to two ships rather than four won't save money, it'll escalate per-unit costs still further.

Make them a platform for new weapon systems. Like newer longer range heavy guns or railguns.

Click to expand...

All of which will have to be developed and which will have no application other than these ships. Therefore the costs have escalated still further. We got away with the 1980s refits of the Iowas because we used equipment that already existed and whose development costs had already been paid off. In fact, the whole renovation of those ships was based around exploiting kit that had been developed for other ships, Mk.15 Phalanx was developed for the surface combatant fleet, Tomahawk ABL for the Virginia class cruisers etc etc. What you are suggesting is the development of total new systems at a cost of billions of dollars for an operational dead-end.

I don't know if you know this but ships have void spaces for a reason to include new tech. The Iowas were no different.

Click to expand...

Of course I know that. Did you know that the Iowas were designed in the late 1930s? That the design margin included within them was scaled on the 1930 requirements and did not include developments such as radar or massed anti-aircraft batteries let alone battle management facilities? By 1945 they were severely overloaded and cramped ships without adequate space for the crew they needed to operate the systems. That's why the first thing that happened post-war was that the ships were stripped of a lot of their anti-aircraft guns and other war service equipment. That eased the problem a bit but the space and volume gained was lost in the 1950s when the ships received essential upgrades. When we worked on them in the 1980s, it was one hell of a job trying to find places to put things. In some cases, it simply couldn't be done and the ships had to do without. That's why they never got proper battle-management systems.

Look at modern ships with those big, boxy superstructures. That's a direct result of the volume needed to provide adequate internal space. Now, there are other problems as well; as a simple example, electrical systems need power. The Iowas don't have enough of it even by 1930s/40s standards. By modern standards they are incredibly power deficient. Installing additional generators is a real problem but that's just the half of it. The generators have to be hooked to the equipment and that means running new cabling throughout the ship. This means we have to drill holes in six-inch thick armor plate and that is not easy. Not easy = costs a lot of money. Again, that is why the 1980 conversions put everything important on external structure. We could do that because it was what it was. We can't do that with the kind of changes you are suggesting. By the time we've finished, we've spent a literal fortune on a compromised lash-up.

New tech exists to operate her with a smaller crew.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. There are technology fixes that allow us to install crew-savings on new ships but back-fitting them to old ships doesn't work. It's been tried; it failed. When we built the LHA-1 Tarawa class, the designers tried to install automated machinery integrating the new automated control systems on to legacy steam propulsion systems. The result was a disastrous failure and the machinery spaces had to be rebuilt to revert to older practices. the result was a complete loss of watertight integrity in the machinery spaces. If those ships had even been hit, they would have sunk almost immediately. Today, if we were designing new battleships, we could use modern automation technology but it cannot be backfitted to a design that is almost 90 years old. It would be a bit like trying to fit the avionics and engines from an F-4 Rhino into a Sopwith Camel.

So it is doable.

Click to expand...

I' really am sorry because the Iowas were beautiful ships but making something useful out of them in today's environment just is not possible. What we are left with is using them as they are now - assuming we can get the bits we need. We could fit them with RIM-116 point defense missiles in place of their Mark 15 Phalanx. We cannot fit them with modern sensors or battle management equipment and we most certainly cannot make substantive changes to their main armament or machinery (if there are ABLs left, we could install them to give a Tomahawkl capability). So, if we do bring them back now, what do we do with them? They have no plausible role in the fleet. So we're using 7,200 crewmen and tens of billions of dollars to bring back ships that are of no value at all.

People are just being dogmatic against it because it has literally become kool to do so.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid this is wrong as well. The "internet kool" attitude is the "bring them back" meme that tries to suggest that ships almost a hundred years old can provide any kind of useful service to the fleet. Such suggestions are utterly impractical and are derided by anybody who has any understanding of what the drivers behind modern warship design are. It us poor technical types who are trying to put some practical common sense into this issue. In fact, I'd reluctantly conclude that we made a bad mistake in 1992 when the four Iowas were retired. Instead of laying them up, we should have taken them into deep water and scuttled them as fishing reefs. that way we'd have avoided this whole issue.

Sailor.X said:

The Fleet now is smaller than it was then. We can bring two of them back with not that big a cost. Make them a platform for new weapon systems. Like newer longer range heavy guns or railguns. I don't know if you know this but ships have void spaces for a reason to include new tech. The Iowas were no different. New tech exists to operate her with a smaller crew. So it is doable. People are just being dogmatic against it because it has literally become kool to do so. I have seen enough defense message boards to see that trend.

Click to expand...

Yep; I knew when SB's War Room made a rule against the subject that it had become more about dogma than reality for many people.

Bring back Wisconsin and New Jersey seems like the most realistic option, as they were the last deactivated, IIRC. Plus, doesn't feel right pulling Missouri out of Pearl; the Surrender Deck belongs there.

Take out the turret houses and shell lift workings, and drop some VLS cells in the turret rings to maintain hull integrity while adding fire power. Keep one 16-inch turret per ship to give them some flexibility with either new 16-inch shells or gun-launched missiles. Keep the 5-inchers to use the new hyper-sonic 5-inch shells in. Add on some CIWS and the point defense lasers we have started fielding to beef up the defensive suite.

Francis Urquhart said:

Instead of laying them up, we should have taken them into deep water and scuttled them as fishing reefs. that way we'd have avoided this whole issue.

Click to expand...

Yeah no; the Surrender Deck on the Missouri belongs in Pearl Harbor, watching over the wreck of the Arizona, not as a fishing reef.

Those ships are also soon going to be some of the last links we have to our Greatest Generation, given how quickly those vets are aging and dying now.

Maybe reactivating isn't acheiavable, but sinking them for fishing reefs to keep from having this discussion is an insult to the memory of everyone who served on them.

Francis Urquhart said:

I' really am sorry because the Iowas were beautiful ships but making something useful out of them in today's environment just is not possible. What we are left with is using them as they are now - assuming we can get the bits we need. We could fit them with RIM-116 point defense missiles in place of their Mark 15 Phalanx. We cannot fit them with modern sensors or battle management equipment and we most certainly cannot make substantive changes to their main armament or machinery (if there are ABLs left, we could install them to give a Tomahawkl capability). So, if we do bring them back now, what do we do with them? They have no plausible role in the fleet. So we're using 7,200 crewmen and tens of billions of dollars to bring back ships that are of no value at all.


I'm afraid this is wrong as well. The "internet kool" attitude is the "bring them back" meme that tries to suggest that ships almost a hundred years old can provide any kind of useful service to the fleet. Such suggestions are utterly impractical and are derided by anybody who has any understanding of what the drivers behind modern warship design are. It us poor technical types who are trying to put some practical common sense into this issue. In fact, I'd reluctantly conclude that we made a bad mistake in 1992 when the four Iowas were retired. Instead of laying them up, we should have taken them into deep water and scuttled them as fishing reefs. that way we'd have avoided this whole issue.

Click to expand...

And right there you show you have no idea what you are talking about. The Iowas had around 1,800 Enlisted and Officers. Everyone who knows anything about those ships know that. Also using the Tarawas as an example? You are using 40 plus year old tech to say we can't do the same now? Really!!!! Look dude I mean no offense but I can't take anything seriously you say now. So to not cause a flame war. let's just drop it. Because I think we might be derailing this thread.

Bacle said:

Yep; I knew when SB's War Room made a rule against the subject that it had become more about dogma than reality for many people.

Click to expand...

I don't care what spacebattles did or did not decide. Their collective technical knowledge base is pathetic

Bring back Wisconsin and New Jersey seems like the most realistic option, as they were the last deactivated, IIRC. Plus, doesn't feel right pulling Missouri out of Pearl; the Surrender Deck belongs there.

Click to expand...

It's not a realistic option at all. The ships would need massive renovation and billions of dollars of investment simply to restore them to an operational (1980s standard) condition. So what do we do with them then? There is no conceivable role role they can fulfill.

Take out the turret houses and shell lift workings, and drop some VLS cells in the turret rings to maintain hull integrity while adding fire power.

Click to expand...

This was evaluated during the 1980s refit program It was rejected as impractical due to the lack of power and essential services.

Keep one 16-inch turret per ship to give them some flexibility with either new 16-inch shells or gun-launched missiles. Keep the 5-inchers to use the new hyper-sonic 5-inch shells in. Add on some CIWS and the point defense lasers we have started fielding to beef up the defensive suite.

Click to expand...

Now you have a serious trim problem. Quite apart from that, none of the equipment you mention (with the exception of the RIM-116) exists and it will have to be developed specifically for these ships. Cost measured in more billions. Yet, all of that equipment is useless because you don't have the command control and battle management systems they need. Command control and battle management are the most space- and power-consuming equipment installed on a modern warship. Without it, she goes into battle blind, deaf and dumb. The Iowas never got that equipment in their 1980s refits because they lacked the room and power to operate it (plus the cost of said equipment would blow the budget. Note how often that power requirement factor comes up. It really is critical.

Yeah no; the Surrender Deck on the Missouri belongs in Pearl Harbor, watching over the wreck of the Arizona, not as a fishing reef.

Click to expand...

Not my problem. I think we have too many museum ships anyway. Much better to have a few well-funded and properly maintained ones than a dozen or more that are rotting away. It looks very likely we will lose the USS Texas unless some major investment is made pretty sharpish. Now, if we'd scuttled three of the iowas, we'd have the resources to preserve her and Olympia properly,

Those ships are also soon going to be some of the last links we have to our Greatest Generation, given how quickly those vets are aging and dying now. Maybe reactivating isn't acheiavable, but sinking them for fishing reefs to keep from having this discussion is an insult to the memory of everyone who served on them.

Click to expand...

Why? Sinking the ships is actually quite a good way of preserving them. It's the interface between air and water where corrosion occurs - that's where Texas is rusting out. Look at the wreck of Mogami that's just been discovered - or Lexington before her, The absence of oxygen in the water and the cold preserves the steel much better than having the ships at the surface. There's a school of thought that sinking ships is as good a way of memorializing them as any other and at least they're in their natural environment.

Sailor.X said:

And right there you show you have no idea what you are talking about. The Iowas had around 1,800 Enlisted and Officers. Everyone who knows anything about those ships know that.

Click to expand...

And right there, you are proving you did not read what I posted. Four ships, 1,800 men per ship = 7,200 men. Which is what I said. You owe me an apology.

Also using the Tarawas as an example? You are using 40 plus year old tech to say we can't do the same now? Really!!!!

Click to expand...

Yes, really. Of course we can use Tarawa as an example. Her machinery was the same basic generation as Iowas and is very similar in configuration/steam conditions. Therefore, she provides us with a useful baseline. The automation that was utilized in her original machinery configuration is the same that is available today which is why the basic design of that machinery was radically changed in LHD-8. The inability of automated engine room controls to work reliably with steam turbine machinery was one of the primary drivers behind the shift to gas turbines - which do work well with automated controls.

Look dude I mean no offense but I can't take anything seriously you say now. So to not cause a flame war. let's just drop it. Because I think we might be derailing this thread.

Click to expand...

Yes, you do mean offense and I am not going to let this matter drop now. I tried to discuss this matter reasonably based on technical issues that are common knowledge. You have started flaming.

Francis Urquhart said:

And right there, you are proving you did not read what I posted. Four ships, 1,800 men per ship = 7,200 men. Which is what I said. You owe me an apology.



Yes, really. Of course we can use Tarawa as an example. Her machinery was the same basic generation as Iowas and is very similar in configuration/steam conditions. Therefore, she provides us with a useful baseline. The automation that was utilized in her original machinery configuration is the same that is available today which is why the basic design of that machinery was radically changed in LHD-8. The inability of automated engine room controls to work reliably with steam turbine machinery was one of the primary drivers behind the shift to gas turbines - which do work well with automated controls.



Yes, you do mean offense and I am not going to let this matter drop now. I tried to discuss this matter reasonably based on technical issues that are common knowledge. You have started flaming.

Click to expand...

Look if you want to discuss this topic just make another thread. I don't want to cause a derail.

One thing that many people may be forgetting is that the Iowas are now almost 3 decades older than they were in the 1990's. That necessarily puts the argument that had more weight better back then in a worse situation now. Time and use takes its toll on any complex machines, doubly so ships, constantly under various physical stresses due to the fact that they are usually remaining on moving bodies of water. And then there are chemical processes (salt water), vibrations from machinery functioning, so on. That all adds up. It's not Battletech or WH40k, things weren't and aren't built "ragnarok proof".

Marduk said:

One thing that many people may be forgetting is that the Iowas are now almost 3 decades older than they were in the 1990's. That necessarily puts the argument that had more weight better back then in a worse situation now. Time and use takes its toll on any complex machines, doubly so ships, constantly under various physical stresses due to the fact that they are usually remaining on moving bodies of water. And then there are chemical processes (salt water), vibrations from machinery functioning, so on. That all adds up. It's not Battletech or WH40k, things weren't and aren't built "ragnarok proof".

Click to expand...

This is indeed true and their recent service as museum ships hasn't done them any favors. Now, the good news is that Congress specified that the ships should be maintained in such condition that they could be restored to service at 1990 level if the navy deemed it necessary. That made sure that the four were maintained to some degree until the provision was rescinded (in, I think, 2007). Now Iowa is in beautiful condition. One of my friends is a guide on her and is entrusted with "special tours" to places guests don't normally go. But, the rest are not so good. The public areas are well-maintained but the private places, not so much. In contrast, when I was on Texas, I got a special tour that put me in the conning tower. That was terrible; rust flaking off in great slabs anywhere. That's why I think we have too many museum ships.

To be honest I don't think anybody quite knows what would happen if we tried to start an Iowa up. I suspect Iowa herself could be turned from cold iron to active given a few days (say 30) work but the rest? Theoretically in 2007 they were at 180 days readiness but I don't think anybody in their hearts believed that.

Olympia is the real tragedy; she's in terrible condition and may be beyond saving.

They might make good pierside naval accommodation and training ships, manned by crusty old officers and chiefs, and lots of shy new boot sailors.

The boots learn the Navy life, and provide the musclepower to maintain the ship.

Darth Robbhi said:

They might make good pierside naval accommodation and training ships, manned by crusty old officers and chiefs, and lots of shy new boot sailors.

The boots learn the Navy life, and provide the musclepower to maintain the ship.

Click to expand...

Hmm, gives me another idea on how to use the Iowa's; fundraising boats for the rest of the Navy.

Get the engines operational, do a little house-keeping to remove any remaining sensitive or dangerous materials, and offer several day cruises on them for civies willing to shell out several hundred per day to say they sailed on an Iowa.

Use volunteer crews, either from the Naval reserve or just old sailors who want to sail with their ladies again, and put the money into maintaining them and increasing the naval budget.

No need for refits or upgrades, outside getting them mobile and livable (easy and cheap I would think) and lets them do more than sit at anchor. Might do the same with the South Dakota's (Alabama is in decent condition, they used her for an Iowa stand-in in the original 'Under Siege') and other ships (Turner Joy and Little Rock come to mind).

Give the old girls something besides sitting pier side, and get civies more invested in maintaining them long term.

Another good use would be liveaboard technical vocation skill centres for at-risk youth. They get the same level of accommodation as seamen would, they learn trades like seamen would. Basically replacing the fact that the modern military is too selective to be used as a "you're in the service instead of jail, son" means of rehabilitating people who are on the borderline but haven't fallen off into perpetual lives of crime yet.

Darth Robbhi said:

They might make good pierside naval accommodation and training ships, manned by crusty old officers and chiefs, and lots of shy new boot sailors. The boots learn the Navy life, and provide the musclepower to maintain the ship.

Click to expand...

This has been suggested on a number of occasions and some of the museum ships actually have programs like this. Massachusetts at Fall River is one battleship I know that does just that. They do excursions for schools and organizations like the Boy Scouts where the kids come on board for two days spending the night in the sailors quarters, learning to sleep in hammocks (which is an art) and eating good honest Navy food. Anecdotally (I know of no written source), the program is quite successful with a number of the participants building on the experience.

Bacle said:

Hmm, gives me another idea on how to use the Iowa's; fundraising boats for the rest of the Navy. Get the engines operational, do a little house-keeping to remove any remaining sensitive or dangerous materials, and offer several day cruises on them for civvies willing to shell out several hundred per day to say they sailed on an Iowa. Use volunteer crews, either from the Naval reserve or just old sailors who want to sail with their ladies again, and put the money into maintaining them and increasing the naval budget. No need for refits or upgrades, outside getting them mobile and livable (easy and cheap I would think) and lets them do more than sit at anchor. Might do the same with the South Dakota's (Alabama is in decent condition, they used her for an Iowa stand-in in the original 'Under Siege') and other ships (Turner Joy and Little Rock come to mind). Give the old girls something besides sitting pier side, and get civvies more invested in maintaining them long term.

Click to expand...

The problem there is that they cost so much to run that it would be an enormous effort to make them generate a positive cash flow. Having said that, I believe that it is possible to pay for rides on some old historical ships. Aircraft too; a 30-minute ride on a B-17 will cost you about $450. The big issue is likely to be insurance. These old ships were not built with safety as a prime consideration and its very easy to hurt oneself. Somebody getting burned by 850 psi steam is going to get very bad injuries at best. The later 1,200 psi plants were called Ensign Eliminators for a reason (the huge problem with steam under those temperatures and pressures is that the steam jet is invisible and it'll kill before anybody knows it is there. Then there's falling down hatchways etc. I think you have the germ of a good idea there but actually taking the ships out would be hairy and blindingly expensive. The last problem is that most of the museum ships have been seriously modified to allow tour groups to go through them safely. Setting them up for overnight accommodation would certainly be possible though. As I said, Massachusetts and (I think) Alabama already do that.

Captain-General said:

It's a shame that we didn't preserve any turboelectric ships; that were actually all AC and they could have seen a use as museum ships in providing mains power during emergencies and summer grid demand peaks. Might have even been worth removing the turbogenerators to put in diesel gensets at that point. I know that Alabama supposedly has an emergency management command post function, or at least did. Would be better if she could also serve as a base for restoring power to the area.

Click to expand...

We can do that these days. Most modern warships have gas turbine power trains and they make really efficient generators. After the Fukushima tsunami, the Japanese used several of their destroyers to power emergency services ashore. Several navies did that after the Indonesian quake/tsunami (Friend of ours sent us a picture of a frigate sitting in a car park after that). One thing is that even the older destroyers have a huge amount of generating power compared with WW2 ships. A Burke for example has three Allison 501K generators rated at 3.5 MW each. Normally two are available at any one time with the third as a hot spare but it is possible to run all three. Now turboelectric has made a huge comeback in recent years and pretty much all modern surface combatant designs are IFEP (integrated fully-electric power). What this means is that instead of having the main propulsive power LM2500s driving shafts via a gearbox and three 501Ks providing electrical power via generators, all the turbines are hooked to generators and provide electrical power that goes into a computer-controlled pool. Some of that power goes to electric motors that drive the propulsors, some to weapons and sensors, some to hotel services. Those applications can be shifted around as needed. Alternatively, the power can go ashore. An IFEP DDG-51 can put about 110 MW to use which is as much as a small power station. The new Flight IIIs may be able to put 130MW to use. That's nowhere near enough when we have ABM-capable radars, lasers and railguns to power; there we will be looking at probably something in the region of at least 240 MW running through an IFEP system.

Back after WW2, the US Navy did use its turbo-electric DEs as emergency power stations because local power plants had met with unfortunate accidents. Some of them kept going until the mid-1950s with (IIRC) Hong Kong being the last to go. So, emergency power is a very real function. However, arguably the most important role the ships have is providing fresh water. In Indonesia the water supply in the affected area was out of action and the warships held the line until it could be restored.

Captain-General said:

Another good use would be liveaboard technical vocation skill centres for at-risk youth. They get the same level of accommodation as seamen would, they learn trades like seamen would. Basically replacing the fact that the modern military is too selective to be used as a "you're in the service instead of jail, son" means of rehabilitating people who are on the borderline but haven't fallen off into perpetual lives of crime yet.

Click to expand...

Museum ships need to tap into a deeper vein of support than just donations of passionate warship fans. It may be worth maintaining a warship the way the NPS maintains a battlefield or a historic house. If you accept that said warship is going into honorable, but permanent, retirement, there are a lot more preservation options available to you. Encasing in concrete, for example, does a LOT to take the maintenance costs away. So would making sure they're used. Not as active duty warships, but as historical monuments.

I like the idea of vocational centers for at risk youth. But I'd also say broaden that to any kid who likes to work with their hands, or just likes ships. Sure, warships involve a lot of just chipping and painting, but even that is a useful skill to obtain. And, especially if paired with retired sailors who can tell you what life is and was like aboard ship, they might become an effective recruiting tool as well.

Darth Robbhi said:

Museum ships need to tap into a deeper vein of support than just donations of passionate warship fans. It may be worth maintaining a warship the way the NPS maintains a battlefield or a historic house. If you accept that said warship is going into honorable, but permanent, retirement, there are a lot more preservation options available to you. Encasing in concrete, for example, does a LOT to take the maintenance costs away. So would making sure they're used. Not as active duty warships, but as historical monuments.

Click to expand...

This is what the Japanese have done with Mikasa and the Thais with several of their older warships. There's a lot of pressure starting to do the same with Olympia and Texas. In the UK, putting the ship in concrete has been done for Victory. It works very well and does reduce the maintenance overhead significantly. It has to be done carefully though; Fall River did sloppy concreting work on Massachusetts and it nearly wrecked her,

I like the idea of vocational centers for at risk youth. But I'd also say broaden that to any kid who likes to work with their hands, or just likes ships. Sure, warships involve a lot of just chipping and painting, but even that is a useful skill to obtain. And, especially if paired with retired sailors who can tell you what life is and was like aboard ship, they might become an effective recruiting tool as well.

Click to expand...

It does seem to work. This is why I like the idea of getting rid of some of the marginal museum ships and diverting the funds so freed up into supporting the really significant ones.

As much as I like those old ships, it doesn't make any sense to me to try to refit and reactivate them. Doing so destroys their historical significance and guarantees that they could never return to their role as museum ships after this proposed service was over. Also, as plenty of others have said, the cost of refitting them would exceed that of simply building a new ship, and the engineering involved would also be more difficult. It would make more sense to design an entirely new ship for the purpose of these weapons systems.

With modern guided MLRS rounds the solution probably really is Arsenal Ship, just hardened to survivability and integrated into amphib groups. Quad-packing MLRS rounds into VLS cells gives enormous potential.