BB61, 64 - why reactivated in 80's, why in reserve B?? in Weapons and Warfare Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

BB61, 64 - why reactivated in 80's, why in reserve B??

Author	Comment
PJM18	BB61, 64 - why reactivated in 80's, why in reserve B??	Lead	[-]
Posts: 11 Sep 4 03 5:50 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Tags : None Please, anyone enlighten me. 1. Why were the 4 Iowas re-activated in the 80's? what sort of costs did it take to put the old ships back into service after being deactivated for almost three decades and what use did they serve in the fleet? was there that great of a realitively short range surface action? They carried 32 Tomahawks and 16 Harpoons after their modernisation, but compared to a Ticonderoga, it is not that much different in capacity. They had no SAM defences though, so what was their purpose, solely fire support for landings and sea engagements? 2. In May of 1998, the Iowa and Wisconson were put into Maintenance Category B, the definitin of which is, from the Navy roster website, "Reserve Category B ships are designated by CNO and will receive the highest practicable degree of maintenance within personnel and funding limitations. Dehumidification and cathodic protection equipment and flooding alarms are installed. Category B is applicable to ships ONLY. Ships selected for this category are the most urgently needed to augment the Active Fleet in an emergency." Sounds to me like the vessels are considered to still be a valluable asset to the fleet, if they are in such a reserve status. why are they an asset?? links: www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships...s/BB61.htm www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships...s/BB64.htm
Dave AAA	Re: BB61, 64 - why reactivated in 80's, why in reserve B??	#1	[-]
Posts: 315 Sep 4 03 10:53 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	At the time they were recommissioned, the few Ticos in commission could not carry Tomahwaks. The first few of that class did not have VLS. The Tomahawks were especially wanted then for their nuclear capabilities. In addition, there were fewer financial and manpower restraints facing the navy in the eighties. For the cost of four new frigates, they could resurrect four battleships and use them as centrepieces of powerful Surface Action Groups. Given the size and accessed capabilities of the Soviet Navy, having four battlegroups as strong or stronger than any the Soviets could muster was important. As for remaining in reserve, the USN has permitted it's gunfire support capabilities to atrophy. This is being rectified now (at least to some extent) with the DD(X) and the latest Flight II ARLEIGH BURKE DDG's. Once the new BURKES are operating with the new ERGM ammunition to go with the 5 inch Mark 45 Mod 4 gun, the BB's will be removed from the Naval Register.
A G Williams	Re: BB61, 64 - why reactivated in 80's, why in reserve B??	#2	[-]
Posts: 50 Sep 5 03 12:05 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think politics played a part as well. Their reactivation was a symbol of President Reagan's determination to adopt a high profile for the military, after a period of decline. Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
PJM18	missile carriers?	#3	[-]
Posts: 11 Sep 5 03 11:13 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Dave in 3A's, your have two points that i see. 1. They would not cost more than three cruisers 2. They would add more surface power to the Surface Battle Groups. just a few thoughts 1. Few - huge ships, was it not even an issue? was there no restricitve budget(sorry, was born while they were being re-commissioned)? Parts - where did they get replacements and spares? 2. Unless they closed to within 20 miles of the Soviets, the BBs would be little more than Tomahawk launchers, with no airdefences. why not modify some cruisers to carry a load of missiles instead of the helicopeter facilities and pad? at least that way the vessel would have defences - at least active ones, not depending purely on armor, which it seems the BBs were doing. The insite was welcome.
Dave AAA	Re: missile carriers?	#4	[-]
Posts: 315 Sep 6 03 2:08 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* 1. Few - huge ships, was it not even an issue? was there no restricitve budget(sorry, was born while they were being re-commissioned)? Parts - where did they get replacements and spares? I wouldnt say budget was no consideration, but less of one than now. Reagan was in a mood to expand the USN, and US forces in general. This was a way to get four ships that, even if only symbolically, were almost as potent as carriers, but for much less for all four than the cost of one CVN. As for parts, they did still have some in store, and their power plants were in use in at least two other navy vessels. Other unique parts were obtained from the similar museum battleships, ALABAMA and MASSACHUSETTS. *Quote:* 2. Unless they closed to within 20 miles of the Soviets, the BBs would be little more than Tomahawk launchers, with no airdefences. why not modify some cruisers to carry a load of missiles instead of the helicopeter facilities and pad While the BBs had few serious AAW defences of their own, they would always be escorted. It is very much contrary to USN doctrine for warships to go into battle alone. Even AEGIS cruisers would be in the company od DDGs and DDs. As I understand it, the Armored Box Launchers for Tomahawks may have been too heavy for the recently reclassified DLGs and DLGNs to carry. In addition, they may not have had the space, even if helo facilities were deleted. You also should remember that US CGs are escorts. They need all the space on board for their primary roles of area air defence and ASW. ASuW is very much a secondary task. While BBs had little more value as OTH ASuW assets than any other Harpoon armed ship, their main gun armament was probably the most potent ASuW system within visual range and sixteen inch shells cannot be shot down very easily in flight. Given the Soviet's lack of aircraft carriers, a visual range surface engagement between a US IOWA centred SAG and a Soviet KIROV centred one would have been little more unlikely than similar engagements in WW2 in the Med and in the Pacific.
RalphZ	Re: BBs in the US Navy	#5	[-]
Posts: 73 Sep 6 03 3:29 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Two additional points that may help enlighten the readers about the re-introduction of battleships: 1) BBs were qualified flagships -- something the new generation cruisers were not. The US Navy required more flagships and the BBs were an obvious choice. In part, this was because... 2) wWII BBs are armored in such a way as to be virtually immune to modern anti-ship missiles. These ships were brought back to service at a time when everyone still remembered the British experience in the Falklands. (An Exocet missile would have little effect on the old BBs but just one of them managed to sink the "state-of-the-art" HMS Sheffield.)
Dave AAA	Re: BBs in the US Navy	#6	[-]
Posts: 315 Sep 7 03 10:04 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* WII BBs are armored in such a way as to be virtually immune to modern anti-ship missiles. That isn't entirely correct. While one or two Exocet sized missiles probably would not put an IOWA out of action, STYX sized missiles and larger should do considerable damage. The armour scheme, after all was designed to keep out gun fired AP rounds of a certain size fired within certain range parameters, not anti-ship missiles. They would likely hit in places where there is either little or no armour (e.g. above the belt), or where the armour can be overmatched (e.g. from above). Recall, for instance, what happened to the ROMA. A ship of similar vintage and comparable, though smaller, size, it was sunk by two primitive guided weapons in 1943. They are also as vulnerable to being mission killed by mines and modern, under-keel detonating, torpedos as cruisers. Their real protection against these weapons, as demonstrated in the 1991 Iraq war, was the AAW suites of their escorts. Of two Chinese made STYX fired at a US battleship, one missed completely and the other was shot down a Type 42 RN DDG that was one of her escorts.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>