AHC: The Battleship Stays Relevant

SsgtC

Banned
In 1991, the USN decides that the armored, big gun battleship still has a place in the fleet and decides to retain the Iowa class instead of retiring them. Yes, I know this is near ASB and all the reasons why. What I'm curious about is, IF the Navy had kept them, what upgrades/modifications do you think they would carry out to the ships, how much longer would they serve, and what would their replacement be? For the replacement, keep in mind, this is a Navy that has decided to keep armored big gun ships in its fleet. Other than that, go crazy.
 
Last edited:
Battleships need too many sailors. Look at replacing the engines, developing a more automated main armament, reduce secondary weapons.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Following Gopher you would first of all need something to reduce the crew - on top of all the gadgets needed to keep her in action in a modern world.


But when that is said I wonder what PoDs in WWII it would take to increase the relevance of heavily armoured and gun armed vessels in the post-war aera?


In OTL we saw initially Axis aircraft vs. wallied ships with a very rudimentary AA defence and later wallied aircraft against Axis ships with AAA not that much better. IOW the matches were set in the most favourable conditions for the aircraft.


But what if the great Pacific carrier battles had been between forces both having good radar, CAP and very comprehensive AAA like the 1944 USN?


I have an idea that the air strikes would be likely to bleed themselves white without really inflicting decisive damage, apart from slowing down the target, and next this could be the option for the “gunnery-school” to close and perform the kill.


Add to that some scenarios from the North Atlantic where bad weather takes out the air strike option but battleships get the chance to close and kill.


That would pretty much reverse the OTL image of battleships as the inefficient way to kill and the carrier as the efficient.


All surface vessels would still be vulnerable to underwater detonations (torpedoes and mines), no change from OTL here, but the battleship would clearly be less vulnerable to the soon coming availability of SSMs and it would take a generation or two of new technology extra before you could reliably shoot down incoming artillery projectiles compared to incoming SSMs.


In that context I could imagine new post-war surface vessel with a clear focus on protection (incl. subdivision and materials like Kevlar) and with heavy artillery as the main offensive weapon.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Remove all the turrets and replace them with VLS cells, maybe.
Outside the bounds of what the Navy wants in this scenario. Besides, a 16" shell is orders of magnitude cheaper than a tomahawk. In this world, the Navy has decided to keep big gunned ships in service. They don't have to be strictly the Iowas, you can design a replacement. They'd need one anyway. Just curious what people would come up with
 

SsgtC

Banned
Following Gopher you would first of all need something to reduce the crew - on top of all the gadgets needed to keep her in action in a modern world.


But when that is said I wonder what PoDs in WWII it would take to increase the relevance of heavily armoured and gun armed vessels in the post-war aera?


In OTL we saw initially Axis aircraft vs. wallied ships with a very rudimentary AA defence and later wallied aircraft against Axis ships with AAA not that much better. IOW the matches were set in the most favourable conditions for the aircraft.


But what if the great Pacific carrier battles had been between forces both having good radar, CAP and very comprehensive AAA like the 1944 USN?


I have an idea that the air strikes would be likely to bleed themselves white without really inflicting decisive damage, apart from slowing down the target, and next this could be the option for the “gunnery-school” to close and perform the kill.


Add to that some scenarios from the North Atlantic where bad weather takes out the air strike option but battleships get the chance to close and kill.


That would pretty much reverse the OTL image of battleships as the inefficient way to kill and the carrier as the efficient.


All surface vessels would still be vulnerable to underwater detonations (torpedoes and mines), no change from OTL here, but the battleship would clearly be less vulnerable to the soon coming availability of SSMs and it would take a generation or two of new technology extra before you could reliably shoot down incoming artillery projectiles compared to incoming SSMs.


In that context I could imagine new post-war surface vessel with a clear focus on protection (incl. subdivision and materials like Kevlar) and with heavy artillery as the main offensive weapon.
Except the POD is 1991. When IOTL, the Navy retired the Iowas after the Gulf War, here they've decided that the ships are still useful.
 

Driftless

Donor
Increased automation to reduce crew size
Replace the aft turret with some form of VTOL flight deck.
Swap out some of the secondary & tertiary AA guns for AA missiles and later on a Phalanx system too
 

SsgtC

Banned
Increased automation to reduce crew size
Replace the aft turret with some form of VTOL flight deck.
Swap out some of the secondary & tertiary AA guns for AA missiles and later on a Phalanx system too
The Iowas already were equipped with Phalanx, two of them as I recall. And they tried to install SAMs during their reactivation in the 80s. The concussion from the main guns would destroy the missile's electronics. And at any rate, removing the rear turret would be hideously expensive, particularly when they already had a pretty large flight deck
 

Redbeard

Banned
Except the POD is 1991. When IOTL, the Navy retired the Iowas after the Gulf War, here they've decided that the ships are still useful.
What if, during the Gulf War, a number of SSMs strike naval vessels. Those without armour are seriously damaged and with many killed but the SSMs just "bounce off" on the battleships (well a lot of antennas and electronics etc. are out of action, but the public can't see that).
 

SsgtC

Banned
What if, during the Gulf War, a number of SSMs strike naval vessels. Those without armour are seriously damaged and with many killed but the SSMs just "bounce off" on the battleships (well a lot of antennas and electronics etc. are out of action, but the public can't see that).
I could see that. There was a friendly fire incident during the war where I think 20mm shells hit Missouri and didn't do anything but scratch the paint.
 
I'll recycle the same post I made a few months ago about having battleships relevant by the present (though I will edit parts of it to make a point):

The closest you'd get to a modern battleship are the type like the Arsenal and Kirov ships with one big cannon and a massive amount of missiles (paraphrasing Spacebattle's war room rules on that one). The only way gun based naval battles would make a comeback is if the anti-missile technology is so great that missiles as a weapon are either outdated or regulated to secondary roles and even then something with greater range and tech to do so is needed.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I'll recycle the same post I made a few months ago about having battleships relevant by the present (though I will edit parts of it to make a point):

The closest you'd get to a modern battleship are the type like the Arsenal and Kirov ships with one big cannon and a massive amount of missiles (paraphrasing Spacebattle's war room rules on that one). The only way gun based naval battles would make a comeback is if the anti-missile technology is so great that missiles as a weapon are either outdated or regulated to secondary roles and even then something with greater range and tech to do so is needed.
Oh I understand WHY the battleships are gone. And why they're not coming back. I'm just curious what people think the USN would do having decided that the armored big gun battleship still has a place in the fleet
 
Outside the bounds of what the Navy wants in this scenario. Besides, a 16" shell is orders of magnitude cheaper than a tomahawk. In this world, the Navy has decided to keep big gunned ships in service. They don't have to be strictly the Iowas, you can design a replacement. They'd need one anyway. Just curious what people would come up with
Remove all the turrets
I think the USN will simply get some sort of monitor if it really needs (or at least the USMC/congress thinks it needs) NGFS using the 16" guns, it doesn't really need speed or much protection so will be a merchant/Amphib hull underneath.
Since I don't think you will be willing to remove the mounts from the Iowas then you will end up with fixed side casements, this will anyway make it easier to automate the loading and save on crew etc....
 
I'd keep both forward turrets, modernizing them as others have said, but replace the aft turret with a VLS system for more missile launching capability. Next, maybe replace the engineering system with a new nuclear powered engine. That would free up it's fuel tanks for refueling escorts or something else and maybe some of the old boiler space would be available for other uses too. Not to mention increasing the ship's available power and increased time between refuelings. Also, I honestly don't know if the Iowas need that aft helo deck. It would always be escorted by dedicated ASW platforms. Perhaps put another Phalanx or two there instead?
 
Last edited:

trurle

Banned
In 1991, the USN decides that the armored, big gun battleship still has a place in the fleet and decides to retain the Iowa class instead of retiring them. Yes, I know this is near ASB and all the reasons why. What I'm curious about is, IF the Navy had kept them, what upgrades/modifications do you think they would carry out to the ships, how much longer would they serve, and what would their replacement be? For the replacement, keep in mind, this is a Navy that has decided to keep armored big gun ships in its fleet. Other than that, go crazy.
Battleships may be retained as mobile low-cost coastal defenses in case of severely weakened USA been targeted by opportunistic powers. I can imagine the battleships used to bombard suspected landing sites of Cuban (or Soviet, if you like it) special forces on the coasts of the mainland US. With functioning R&D and industry of US, battleships cannot be of much use, because their functions (anti-shipping, and coastal bombardment) are mostly taken by aviation.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I think the USN will simply get some sort of monitor if it really needs (or at least the USMC/congress thinks it needs) NGFS using the 16" guns, it doesn't really need speed or much protection so will be a merchant/Amphib hull underneath.
Since I don't think you will be willing to remove the mounts from the Iowas then you will end up with fixed side casements, this will anyway make it easier to automate the loading and save on crew etc....
Makes sense. Not as sexy as a battleship, but would still get the job done. Good idea.
I'd keep both forward turrets, modernizing them as others have said, but replace the aft turret with a VLS system for more missile launching capability. Next, maybe replace the engineering system with a new nuclear powered engine. That would free up it's fuel tanks for refueling escorts or something else and maybe some of the old boiler space would be available for other uses too. Not to mention increasing the ship's available power and increased time between refuelings. Also, I honestly don't know if the Iowas need that aft helo deck. It would always be escorted by dedicated ASW platforms. Perhaps put another Phalanx or two there instead?
At that point, you might as well just build a new ship. Could definitely work though
Battleships may be retained as mobile low-cost coastal defenses in case of severely weakened USA been targeted by opportunistic powers. I can imagine the battleships used to bombard suspected landing sites of Cuban (or Soviet, if you like it) special forces on the coasts of the mainland US. With functioning R&D and industry of US, battleships cannot be of much use, because their functions (anti-shipping, and coastal bombardment) are mostly taken by aviation.
Again, IRL, I understand all that and acknowledge that the Battleships time is over and all they are is a resource sink. I'm just curious what people would come up with if the Navy had decided there was still a place in its fleet for a big gunned ship.
 
Battleships may be retained as mobile low-cost coastal defenses
Isn't this a contradiction in terms? No BB will be cheap to run and without training its virtually useless, a small ASM battery would be far cheaper and still be better at killing invasions.
 

trurle

Banned
Again, IRL, I understand all that and acknowledge that the Battleships time is over and all they are is a resource sink. I'm just curious what people would come up with if the Navy had decided there was still a place in its fleet for a big gunned ship.
Short-range coastal defense against low-level threats. Battleship used as monitor, jsb already noted.
 
Top