To get $5 off your Magic Spoon variety pack and get a head start on New Year’s Resolutions, click this link: magicspoon.thld.co/battleship_0123 and use code BATTLESHIP at checkout!

@jesseusgrantcanales

Жыл бұрын

Question, what is the story of USS Alabama? Among the terms for preservation, one was the option to recommission her; thoughts?

@jonathanstrong4812

Жыл бұрын

Hey Ryan Did the Surface-Action-Group Romeo have a Ticonderoga Aegis cruiser and how they give the datum from their AN/SPY-1 to the New-Jersey? I would of believe that they would have NTDS or something like that Or if they had Royal-Navy warships with them what kind of data-transfer-systems which who would be compatible with all of the NTDS NTU etc

@g-3409

Жыл бұрын

Please Ryan, check your sponsors. Magic Spoon is just a scam as Established Titles and Kyoto Knives… Im really disappointed.. I called out both, you did not respond to it, but I really believe you don’t want to scam the channel subscribers. But now you know. Please make quality control a larger role in the decision route you make…

@The_Observant_Eye

Жыл бұрын

Can you put the link to the Shipbucket design? That would be lovely.

@donchaput8278

Жыл бұрын

@@g-3409 Nah. The Knives are garbage but the cereal is pretty legit

An aged man of war? She has a bluff bow, lovely lines, she's a fine seabird; weatherly, stiff, and fast. Very fast, if she's well handled. She's not old, nobody would call her old. She is in her prime.

@TJY-mb5hk

Жыл бұрын

A glass of wine with you sir!

@eddieb1323

Жыл бұрын

Well said. I raise my glass with you!

@adamhauskins6407

Жыл бұрын

You sir are a cultured gentleman

@arniestuboud

Жыл бұрын

Ahhhh, Captain Jack Aubery lives!!!

@nicksivert5431

Жыл бұрын

LOL! You quoted from Master and Commander. That really made me laughed, I even had the scene playing in my head as I was reading it.

As an aside, does anyone else hope Ryan has a boat with a 'my other boat is an Iowa class' bumper sticker ?

@robertf3479

Жыл бұрын

Or a bumper-snicker for his car?

@BattleshipOrion

Жыл бұрын

I'd want my own sticker like that...

@ut000bs

Жыл бұрын

"I Work on a BB."

@seanm2511

Жыл бұрын

My guess is that calling a battleship a "boat" would either be not irreverent enough or too irreverent for the curator. Might work for the general population though.

@bigfootwalker5399

Жыл бұрын

There are many reasons why the age of battleships ended, those reasons are more true today than it was when that era ended.

Can you imagine the absolutely absurd amount of damage she would do with adding new 5' 62's and auto loading 16's with modern propellant and projectiles? Its almost not fair 😂

@lesleyjoe4804

Жыл бұрын

Des moines comes to mind 10 second reload for the 16s 😮‍💨

@cf453

Жыл бұрын

Zero damage--She'd be slaughtered from outside of gun range by anti-ship missiles.

@tonyInPA

Жыл бұрын

And think of borrowing/adding a bunch of long range HIMARS launchers…a 150 mile reach isn’t a bad thing….with an existing, proven system. Just plug a the Mark 8 fire control (analog) computer in to control for roll and pitch. I know that at least New Jersey could get the job done today 😊

@danielboatright8887

Жыл бұрын

The idea of giving Iowa new modern guns makes me moist

@tunguska2370

Жыл бұрын

She have CIWS and anti ship missile bruh

Ideas "too pie in the sky?" No, if you're going to do something like this DO. IT. RIGHT. No half measures. I especially like adding the VLS systems to the ship. You've just taken this ship and given her the capability to utilize EVERY missile the Navy can stuff into these launchers including the SM-6 and its very long range anti-air capability PLUS if you team this ship with an Aegis cruiser or destroyer you've given her an ABM capability of sorts. Yes, battleships are dinosaurs but the changes you've outlined would give New Jersey some very sharp and effective new teeth. "Jurassic Park" goes to sea.

@n5syr01

Жыл бұрын

They may be dinosaurs, but a dinosaur can kill you.

@jimreilly917

Жыл бұрын

Jurassic Park goes to sea.😎🤣 Outstanding. US enemies, you bout to git JURASSKickked.

@bobkay2827

Жыл бұрын

Wave Motion Gun for sure.

@Followme556

Жыл бұрын

Full modernization would cost so much the sticker shock would make it a non starter. Doing things like going with modern Phalanx SEARAM and replacing the ABLs with a ton of Harpoon quad launchers would be very straight forward, and still give a huge capability increase.

I talked to a Chief petty officer (retired) some time ago. He said that he knew of one of the update proposals and that if it went ahead they'd have to gut the ship first to install a completely new power generation facility to power all the fancy new electronics.

@howlingwolven

Ай бұрын

If you’re trunking the funnels together, that would free up space amidships ‘on top’ of the citadel that you could at least cram a couple of LM2500s into.

This concept is never going to go away

@captaincumrag42069

Жыл бұрын

As cool as it would be it'll never happen again, it would be more worth it to just build new, more capable ships. I'm sure though if for whatever reason earth gets a foreign invader the battleships will be an attractive option for quick and devasting firepower lol

@appa609

Жыл бұрын

@@captaincumrag42069 If we need maximum firepower we use nukes.

@captaincumrag42069

Жыл бұрын

@@appa609 I was joking

@davegolding8861

Жыл бұрын

@@captaincumrag42069 Bill hasn't seen that movie apparently. lol

@matthewbeasley7765

Жыл бұрын

@@captaincumrag42069 A crap ton of ATACMS on a barge would be just as effective and far cheaper to build.

The BB Yamato still culturally resonates in Japan to this day and is subject of countless tv shows, anime and movies, old and new

It hurts me to say this as someone who’s helped rehab mount 55…but pulling the 5”/38 guns and replacing with some Burke mounts…and even long range HIMARS type launchers…would be a tremendous capability increase. BUT…i call first dibs on the mount (and handling/magazine combo) to be placed in a public park for past crew and the public!) to remember…😊

@lurkingcarrier8736

Жыл бұрын

Removing the 127mm/38 legacy turrets is probable (with the caveat of placing them either in storage for a hypothetical post-service legacy refit for _New Jersey_ , distributing them to other museum ships, or arranging them on display in a park in a similar layout as they were on the ship), but I dispute the usefulness of replacing them with navalized M270 array and/or 127mm/62 turrets. Instead, with the knowledge that the opposition force is going to be chomping at the bit to sink _NJ_ the second the battlewagon is detected, going all-in on SeaRAM/ESSM launchers and 30mm bushmasters (the latter maybe even arranged in twin+ turret mountings to maximize volume of fire) sounds more 'reasonable'. This ship is going to attract anti-ship missiles like bees to honey, and given the increasing potency of AShMs, you'll need an obscene amount of AA to defend against a missile swarm fired by a peer-level military.

@tenchraven

Жыл бұрын

HIMARS are just six pack MRLS rather than a twelve pack, mounted on a truck not a stretched Bradly chassis. The bulk of the reloads aren't worth it, I'd rather have modern 5" guns on hand.

@BlackEpyon

Жыл бұрын

@@lurkingcarrier8736 No kidding! If Russia has to keep their Black Sea fleet around the horn of Crimea just to keep them out of range of Ukrainian anti-ship capabilities, imagine them shitting their pants when a REAL ship of the line is detected! I'd definitely invest in anti-torpedo defences, not just rolling-frame AA, because Russia has nuclear-armed torpedoes.

@SealofPerfection

Жыл бұрын

@@lurkingcarrier8736 There IS no "peer level military", though. It sure as heck isn't Russia. Who else? China? Seriously doubt it. The Soviets were scared to death of the Iowas in the 80's. Reactivated and modernized with much better AA, I don't think anything will have changed in that regard. Plus, an Iowa is a capital ship. No capital ship is going to go anywhere without escorts. She'll be in better shape defensively than a carrier group would be.

@fat_biker

Жыл бұрын

@@SealofPerfection Russia isn't a peer level military, but if & when their ex-Soviet ships aren't broken and/or crewed by untrained conscripts, their whole design philosophy was based around sinking NATO capital ships, mainly carriers. All those BFO missile tubes on Moskva were designed to give her the tools to overwhelm a capital ship's defences with a swarm of big carrier-killer missiles.

If I am tasked with reactivating an Iowa, and they won't take no for an answer, then keeping cost down is not a priority of mine; I'm spending as much money as I can get away with.

@lonnyyoung4285

Жыл бұрын

In response to Ryan's plans, I wonder if the ship would have sufficient electrical generation capacity to handle all of the additional electrical loads. I also wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper to install new engines than to try to repair an aging system that may no longer be able to handle the maximum pressures it once could. I'm not saying nuclear, but a conventional plant or hybrid gas turbine/diesel plant.

@spikedpsycho2383

Жыл бұрын

For same money modernization of 5 frigates each armed with anti ship missiles

@markevans9399

10 ай бұрын

Nuclear reactors for a starter. Automation to reduce crew size. Possibly take out rear turret for an improved missile load.

During this modern refit, all the old wiring and piping that has been layered over the years needs to be gutted and cleaned up, there would be significant weight savings from that alone. another major improvement would be a full LED lighting conversion, the power savings would help free up more of the electrical budget for the new modern systems being installed, this is also critical considering the battleships electric generators would be a huge pain to upgrade because they are under the armored deck. I could go on with more upgrade ideas but id end up with a book the size of the one Navy made.

@runtdegroot

Жыл бұрын

Concur... I was thinking that as well. I reckon they would save a couple of thousand tons in weight if they removed the redundant wiring. Looking at the videos, it seem that with all of the refits they just added new cabling and did not remove the old stuff. Most of the coms stuff could be replaced with fibre too..

@Ryan The 11-inch rocket boosted DARPA sabot shells that were tested in the 80s achieved a range of 90 miles. With GPS guidance each one of them would be far more dangerous and devastating than a cruise missile, and just as accurate. Muzzle velocity for those shells was approximately Mach 5.

@imjashingyou3461

Жыл бұрын

Not doubting you. Do you have a source for this for further reading. That's a massive muzzle velocity increase considering the 16 inch Shells were under Mach 3.0 coming out of the barrel.

@AsbestosMuffins

Жыл бұрын

I could see the poorly reported journalism now "MEET THE NAVY'S NEW HYPERSONIC MISSILE FROM THE 1940S!"

@naidanac1

Жыл бұрын

The only thing I would caution, or think about, is that each of these rounds would be unique to this ship, and the supply chain behind them might make them more expensive than a cruise missile. This is the ultimate problem that befell the Zumwalts

@jakeaurod

Жыл бұрын

Did those DARPA shells include glide wings? I know some tube artillery rounds have glide fins, but I wonder if they could get longer range with full glide wings like the SDBs being attached to HIMARS rockets for the new GLSDB system.

Also reading some forums the A1B nuclear reactors used by the Gerald R Ford fit in the Machinery Spaces and through the Sealed up (by the tomahawk deck, so just need to remove it) machinery access hatches for removing the turbines and boilers. They would likely be cheaper than new boilers too as they are quite inexpensive. We really should just make these nuclear powered to make sure there's powered overhead for future upgrades.

@jamesb4789

Жыл бұрын

Yu would be better off putting in gas turbines and electric motors using the gear reduction in place. BB's are meant to go and take hits. Want to do that with nuke reactors on board? Not really. Besides the existing fuel capacity is so high refueling is not a serious issue unless they need to make a oceanic transfer at high speed.

@sikhandtakerakhuvar3372

Жыл бұрын

Not to mention, the huge fuel usage of a Iowa, in a navy that doesn't use that kind of fuel that much (I think?) would be a logistical headache.

@J-1410

Жыл бұрын

@@sikhandtakerakhuvar3372 bunker fuel, from what I recall, is still widely used in shipping.

Happy to see a new sponsor. The title company was too close to being a scam for my tastes, and instead of going there, I went to the forestry group directly, and got 5x the trees for the same price. The land and title are nothing better than novelties, no matter how many you buy, you'll never be able to do anything with it.

@PrivatePAuLa29a

Жыл бұрын

Same with the knives. Those knives are essentially just run-of-the-mill chinesium kitchen knives. You get same or better quality knives for 10 to 20 bucks at Walmart

Given that the Army has the Excalibur round, I'm sure that as part of an upgrade for the 16" mounts, they'd make something like that for increased accuracy.

@theilluminatist4131

Жыл бұрын

I know an Aerospace company that would love a contract for Extended Range 16" Naval Round.

@Aenonar

Жыл бұрын

9x 16 inch rounds that can't miss... That's just insane

@jamesb4789

Жыл бұрын

Where do you think the Excalibur round came from? The shell is a direct result of work done for the Iowas' 16" guns in the 1980's that reached prototype but never were fielded. Navy developed the first GPS guidance for artillery in that program also. We were very very close to having it on the ships.

@wojtek4p4

Жыл бұрын

​@@Aenonar I think you're thinking too small ;) Add an autoloader into the mix (say, 10 seconds for a gun) with a variable powder charge, and maybe elevation mechanism upgrades and go for a MRSI mission. If doable, you'd bee looking at literally a fleet's broadside weight worth of ammunition impacting... doesn't really matter either way, it'd be gone. Practical? Probably not, but fun to think about.

@TomFynn

Жыл бұрын

Enemy ship: "Our AA is proof against all missiles and planes...wait, what are those huge metal chunks coming right at us?"

The problem with SM-2 isn’t the launchers. You need a SPY-1 radar for mid course guidance. You also forgot a TAS radar for Sea Sparrow. You can also put Sea Sparrow quad packs into a VLS cell. No need for 8-cell launchers.

@bradjennings6740

Жыл бұрын

You don’t need SPY-1 radars for mid course guidance - this is handled via a data link. You can use any number of radars for detection ie SPY-1, SPS-48 or other 3D radar. You can even use a 2D radar like SPS-49 (but then your fire control radar such as SPG-52, SPG-62 or similar fire control radar then has to provide the height data for the missile engagement) This was successfully achieved in the Royal Australian Navy’s Modified FFG-7 class frigates upgrades for the last 4 ships. These frigates used SM-2 Standard missiles with a 2D search radar suite. The mid course guidance of SM-2 Standard missiles is handled by a radio data link obtaining directions from whatever missile control system installed - Aegis, Mk-72 MFCS with NTU or whatever with final targeting control handled over to the missile fire control radar in the terminal stage of target intercept. The radio data links allow a larger number of missiles to be controlled by whatever missile control system being used but the number of missiles actually in terminal stage of target intercept is governed by the number of missile fire control radars ie 4 targets for a CG-47 class.

@dcviper985

Жыл бұрын

@@bradjennings6740 Interesting. I got my ESWS on a Spruance and then a Burke DDG. I always thought Standard was unique to Aegis. And the SPY radar is the data link in Aegis.

@bradjennings6740

Жыл бұрын

@@dcviper985 No, the Standard SM-2 missile was deployed on various ships but probably mostly on Aegis types. In the 80’s the USN developed a modernisation program for all the original Standard SM-1 ships, which was carried out on a lot of the USN CG, CGN & DDG classes called New Threat Upgrade (NTU) which is what Ryan suggests for the New Jersey. This program brought the modified ships to nearly the standard of an Aegis systems in most respects except it still relied on mechanically rotating radars such as SPS-48 & SPS-49, which of course are inferior to SPY-1 in that it still relied on the mechanical sweeping of these radars instead of the electronic sweeping on the SPY-1 which can not only “sweep” faster but can also continually track designated targets. Obviously a mechanically sweeping radar has limitations in the saturation missile attacks for which Aegis was designed for which was probably the main drawback of the NTU upgrades. But using the Aegis combat system talking to the NTU & other NTDS equipped ships the targets could be shared amongst all these ships and therefore more targets could be engaged than by the Aegis system alone. The NTU ships used the Standard SM-2 missiles the same way as the Aegis system in where the ship fires the Standard SM-2 missile to fly using its own “auto pilot” and radio data link tells the “auto pilot” where to go. A fire control radar is used only in the final terminal stage of target intercept to guide the missile to the target. By the “time sharing” of the fire control radars and the missile data links in the Standard SM-2 it allows any compatible missile fire control system not necessary just the Aegis system to control more missiles than fire control radars as was the case with the older Standard SM-1 missile which had to have a fire control radar guide it for its entire engagement. The Kidd class now in service with Taiwan is the only surviving NTU modified ships I know of still in service. The Australian modified FFG-7 class used the Standard SM-2 missile as do the German F124 Sachsen class ships & the Dutch De Zelenograd Provincien class ships (all non Aegis combat system) plus a number of other ship classes.

@wlbyrd1

Жыл бұрын

The NTU systems that were on our Leahey class cruisers in the 90's handled the SM2 missiles guidance without the need for SPY radar systems. The Standard missiles were developed with these originally. The AEGIS stuff came after.

@dcviper985

Жыл бұрын

@@wlbyrd1 this is why I love this channel. When I'm wrong about a thing, people are happy to correct me and tell me why

Ryan I love your videos. One thing would help make them better is if you include a diagram/map of where your video is taking place. You talk about and show us all of these spaces but most of us have no idea of where it is on the ship. Something as simple as an overhead or side view with a red dot to show us where you are would be amazing.

One way to get the Verticals in there, would be to re-trunk and eliminate the rear stack. As has been suggested by others, scrapping the steam turbines and replacing with gas turbines or Diesels would make it unneeded anyway. Then, a nice big space going down several decks would be available. I remember hearing that was being considered back in the late 40's anyway.

@pdmacguire

Жыл бұрын

You'd almost have to scrap the whole steam system. Realistically diesels, a couple of really big ones - something from MAN or Wärtsilä I suppose - would make the most sense. Then you could pretty well eliminate both stacks.

@ryuukeisscifiproductions1818

Жыл бұрын

@@pdmacguire it probably need to be done anyway. According to what I've heard, the steam plant is near enough worn completely out and is in need of replacement anyway, and was part of the reason the iowa's where decommissioned in the first place.

@stevewindisch7400

Жыл бұрын

Yeah it makes sense to modernize the power plants (if you are doing all this work anyway); but I would either go with 4 gas turbines, or 2 big sets of Diesel-Electrics with full cross coupling of the 4 shafts. Or even a mix, 2 jet engines used for flank speed only. Constant speed variable pitch props could then also be used, Fuel efficiency at cruising speeds would be improved. And the re-fit would be fairly easy by eliminating all the trunking and going straight down to the engine spaces.

@Followme556

Жыл бұрын

@@ryuukeisscifiproductions1818 Not only that, literally no one in the navy knows how to use the old steam plants, and there is no school to teach people how to use them either. The old engines have to go, regardless of what else is done. That is a must.

@TOW2MAN

10 ай бұрын

Turbines would be hugely more efficient. I gamed out installing nuke plants similar to those on Nimitz, but nice as that would be, it's very cost-prohibitive. Turbines make much more sense,.

You could look at removing the armoured conning tower. It will be a weight saving. And give you more buoyancy.

@rogue9ine

Жыл бұрын

At least on the 0-4 level. This could give the ship a nicer bridge layout.

@wlbyrd1

Жыл бұрын

I came here to say this. Since you are already reconfiguring the aft part of the superstructure, just take the front off and do the same. Reconfigure the front end to do away with the armored conning tower and add all the electronics here, then move the CEC down below.

@MisterLongShot_Official

Жыл бұрын

I agree. I also think in the modern era we can find a way to have windows that don't blow out, so roll down windows wouldn't be needed.

A condition should be made for it: all things pulled from it during the process go to the museum, not scrapped or disappear into storage.

I met a former engineer from Pratt & Whitney Aircraft that had developed a 16 " extended range rocket assisted shell that he claimed would have a range of up to 100 miles and offered it to the Navy who rejected his offer. Your suggestions are well thought out. During the late 1990's and early 2000's I belonged to the U.S. Naval Fire Support Association that advocated and lobbied the Navy for the return of the battleships. I had the occasion to view a detailed model of the Iowa in a renovated condition with some of the same systems you are advocating . This model of the Iowa was incredibly detailed and was used for briefing Congress on the potential program and capabilities of a modernized battleship.

Since the Sea Sparrows (four pack) and the Harpoons fit in the shorter length VLS, those dedicated launchers can be removed as well. And if we're looking for new shells for the 16", the designs for the 8" shells are still in records. Strap a rocket booster on those and after you use a full powder charge to get it started you've got serious range. And for those who don't remember, the 8" options included mushroom farming. The big improvement, if we can make it work, would be binary liquid propellent to replace the bagged powder. That could be fast enough we could remove the center gun from each turret and not see a net loss in rounds per minute but a non-negligable reduction in weight and crew. Or, and this pains me to say, three guns per turret but remove #2 for VLS tubes.

@jimreilly917

Жыл бұрын

Very feasible and well stated.

@Followme556

Жыл бұрын

Sabot 155mm Excaliburs....and marvel at the 6000fps muzzle velocity.

Wow one could daydream about this for an eternity. But that book Ryan hasn't quite finished yet sound like its just the intro getting a project like this moving.

I think the most “practical”concept for a modernized Iowa class I’ve come up with is cutting off the old superstructure/conning tower to install an uparmored Aegis compatible superstructure with a set of VLS tubes to either side of it where the bottom two 5 inch gun mounts are. Main issue with it is the electrical power (or the lack of it) for the Aegis radar sets. It preserves the 16’ battery while allowing the ship to function as a mostly modern surface combatant in most other respects. I figure it would likely still end up costing more then modifying the Zumwalts to fit a single autoloaded 16 inch gun. The Zumwalts have a lot more reserve space and buoyancy which also means that they will likely be in service a lot longer then even the most heavily modernized Iowa proposal that isn’t gutting her down to the frames and rebuilding. Pluuussss its also not destroying a priceless artifact in the process.

@AdamSmith-kq6ys

Жыл бұрын

Ehh, my main query would be around just how well AEGIS reacts to 16" gunfire in close proximity. I suspect that might be a deal-breaker...

@PhoenixT70

Жыл бұрын

@@AdamSmith-kq6ys Given that Sea Sparrows were rejected for just that reason, I think Aegis would either have to be deep within the citadel, or not added at all.

@MarkoDash

Жыл бұрын

power generation wouldn't really be a problem if you're redoing the superstructure, small powerful gas turbines can be placed just about anywhere.

@robertf3479

Жыл бұрын

@@AdamSmith-kq6ys Aegis might well be protected enough to not be bothered by the 16" unless the problem is with the SPY radars themselves. If that's the case I would say don't add it. Instead use data links between the BBG(!) and an Aegis ship in the group. Use NJ as an outlying missile magazine for the Aegis ship. NJ launches the SM2 on command from the Air Defense Commander (Aegis ship) and hand off control of the missile to the cruiser or destroyer with the best fix on the target.

@robertf3479

Жыл бұрын

@@PhoenixT70 I think the problem was that the Sea Sparrow launchers would have been placed low and fairly close to the #2 or #3 turrets and subject to blast damage from guns pointed more or less in their direction. Placing them up between the stacks gets them out of harm's way from muzzle blast damage.

How about a follow-up video about how a battleship might hold up to multiple hypersonic "Carrier Killer" missiles if it were modernized like this and brought back as a response to the new threats? Might make a fun hypothetical as an extension off what you did here on this one.

@bluemarlin8138

Жыл бұрын

Assuming that those missiles can even locate or hit a moving target, that is.

@tenchraven

Жыл бұрын

@@bluemarlin8138 Assume they can. Mid course correction via satellite, and then they go into "pick the biggest, hottest target" mode. In the 80s we could build that kind of late terminal phase target selection into an artillery shell. Thinking the Chinese can't is blind jingoism. I' wrote software to identify and track a high contrast moving object based off security cam feed, and hand it off to the next camera in line. That was almost 20 years ago. It's less than two thousand lines of code, not as big as a web browser, running on a processor less powerful than a smartphone. Where are iPhones made?

@danwick8566

Жыл бұрын

Spoiler alert: it does not end well for the battleship.

@rathael1428

Жыл бұрын

It makes me curious is AA guns would be a good method of taking out these surface skimming missiles.

@williamthehuntsman

Жыл бұрын

@@danwick8566 America and British warships have always had the best damage control systems. I'm not stupid though, and I know that if the damage control isn't fast enough, the ship will sink. I personally think that a hypersonic missile won't outright sink or destroy an Iowa class, but it would most certainly severely cripple, if not completely disable her. But with the modernizations they proposed, along with an escort fleet armed with similar if not more advanced defense systems, it would be unlikely that a carrier killer would actually hit. but the threat would still be very real.

Ryan's refit for the Iowa class would make them awesome Battlewagons that every adversary Navy in the world would fear! 👍😎 would be worth the money 👌

Updating the phalanx ciws to searam is a good idea in my opinion.

@richardmillhousenixon

Жыл бұрын

It's still a good idea to keep enough CIWS systems to cover the entire perimeter, since the SeaRAM does have a minimum engagement range that the CIWS does not

@appa609

Жыл бұрын

Goalkeeper

@andrewcubbage1007

Жыл бұрын

I doubt there are many, if any, potential crew members with experience of operating complex 80 year old steam turbine propulsion systems, although some may have some of the required knowledge from CVN propulsion systems. So it may be worth considering replacing the boilers and turbines with modern diesels. It would then be possible to use commercial electric motors or pods. Nuclear is really a step too far, both due to cost and the need for these ships to go in harms way in littoral waters where you don’t want to risk a radiation release.

@dcviper985

Жыл бұрын

They should get the laser system they installed on Ponce into full production.

@WolfePaws

Жыл бұрын

@@andrewcubbage1007 This is really the limiting factor in reactivating/updating such an old ship. You're talking about replacing all the machinery, which means tearing up the decks to make space for new machinery. Essentially completely rebuilding the old girl just to bring those turrets to the front line. At that point, it really is cheaper and more efficient to look at building new vessels.

Crikey, that model must be something to behold! Superb.

Shipwreck was my favorite Joe, as well. I loved cartoons and cereal. And the Magic Spoon cereal reminds me of Count Chocula.

going based on you parameters which I am assuming means not trunking the funnels in to a single stack (which would be the first thing I would do if allowed). I would do what you suggested with the 5" guns and replace them with better single mounts. that deck the mounts are currently on, I would extend all the way to the edge of the ship and put a corridor running fore to aft so that the crew can get from one end to the other without having to climb ladders. it would give allow you to add crew berthing and storage in those spaces that would be put in. I would rebuild the rest of the superstructure as well, get rid of the armored conning tower if the still have it, put in the VLS that you mentioned one that would exceed what the Kirovs have. I would gut all of the electrical, water, steam, mechanical etc ducts and conduit and put in a modern suite. on the fantail I would cut out the decking and if possible put in a helicopter hanger to hold to helos. in those fantail bath tubs I would put in more of those Rolling Missile frame batteries. I would also have a satelite suite targeting system for the main guns so that if a target presents itself they can use it to direct the ships main shells in.

@jamessullivan7692

Жыл бұрын

Don't you think the armored conning tower is important? It's one of the things that make a battleship a battleship in being able to absorb and take a pounding. And still come back and kick their a**. And when I'm talking about taking a pounding. I'm talking about taking a pound in from twenty five hundred pound shells or eighteen hundred pound shells

One thing that should probably be changed during reactivation (simply because it is already a problem without firing the guns) is the plumbing. Just to make sure it won't break as easily and that repairs because of broken lines remain minimal

Curious what power plant upgrades would be required

@brettcoles6462

Жыл бұрын

As much as I love the old 600 psi steam, it would probably make more sense to swap it out for a set of gas turbines. They are more energy dense, and it would probably be less expensive to tear everything out and replace it than it would to update the stream cycle to a higher pressure (with all the hassle upgrading the high pressure tubing), install more modern turbines, refurbish or replace the boilers, and upgrade the cycle to allow regeneration or reheating. For reference, a Zumwalt uses two gas turbines that generate 35 MW (47,500 HP) each. An Iowa class powerplant produces 158 MW (212,000 HP). If you replace the boilers (8) 1:1 with those exact turbines, you get 280 MW (380,000 HP). That would be more than enough to drive the ship as well as power modern systems. Might even get a speed upgrade. However, your range would be decreased somewhat compared to the steam cycle.

@DJP-ph7yj

Жыл бұрын

@@brettcoles6462 Mr Scott........................Ring up 40 knots or we're done for

@richcruse2689

Жыл бұрын

Since I operated this ship up to decommissioning, I can say they will need many repairs, even if you wanted to get existing systems operating safely. Probably a replacement would be easier.

@Followme556

Жыл бұрын

All of them.

A major upgrade. Remove the superstructure and armored conning tower, keep stack(or rebuild the stacks as two or one) and keep the 16" guns.. All 5" guns, go. Rebuild with a new CIC/CEC. New bridge. Four 5"/62 guns, a phased array radar like on the new Constellation FFGs, new ESM/ECM(SEWIP), possibly a new smaller Aegis installation. Keep two 20mm CIWS, two RAM and add multiple 25mm chain guns. Mk 41 VLS for Tomahawk, SM-2, SM-3, SM-6 and quad pack ESSM. Keep all the 16" fire control. With the conning tower and 5" mounts gone, and a better, lighter superstructure, you will save a lot of weight. Biggest issues are powder and ammo for 16" guns and engineers for the boilers, Boiler Techs are long gone and at least grey/white haired. Need to train new kids.

@JoeCdaYT

Жыл бұрын

For your comment on the boilers, you can pull people from the trades that work on those systems already that also have oil knowledge like I do. I personally would try reducing man power as much as possible by putting in automation for boiler firing and roll up. Also automate to speed of the turbines with a tower upgrade replace by automation from the tower when they need more speed. The automation would greatly reduce man power needed and keep the engines running more efficiently and almost eliminate the smoke issue. The only issue I am debating is the oil nozzles being automated, that may end up being a re-engineering nightmare.

@robertf3479

Жыл бұрын

@@JoeCdaYT If you are going to do such a major rebuilding of the 8 boilers and 4 main and backing turbines, why not go whole hog and replace the steam plants with 8 gas turbines turning electric generators or alternators providing power to 4 Azipods with any extra propulsion power available for defensive lasers, rail guns and an ECM suite that would let you play "Space Invaders" on your opponent's electronics. If we're gonna dream ... dream BIG dreams.

@johnjensen2217

Жыл бұрын

It would probably be possible to replace the steam turbines with gas turbines and still retain the reduction gears and shafting as that is all still required in gas turbine powered vessels. You could remove the boilers and all associated equipment and would likely need to add some gas turbine generators for all the new weapon systems and electronics that Ryan wants to add. You could realize a significant reduction in the crew size of the engineering department going to gas power from steam. Thinking about it you would also lose all the steam piping all over the ship and replace with electric heaters which could save some weight but would increase the electrical load.

@naidanac1

Жыл бұрын

@@JoeCdaYT As another commentator noted, the largest hole through all the armor is about 6X6, and that might not be all vertical, which would complicate things, if you intended to do large scale engineering changes, like automation. If you felt like adding Diesel engines would be worthwhile, I suppose you could gut the after engineering spaces through the funnels, and rebuild the armor plating after you are done, but such a project is approaching a Billion dollars

@JoeCdaYT

Жыл бұрын

@@naidanac1 my initial idea is to modify the existing systems with valves, sensors and actuators of the sort for automation. The biggest item that you would have to bring down is the racks that would be used to house the computers. The biggest mod is the oil injectors to the boilers that pose a problem since the design has spinning disks in them to atomize the oil into the air stream and require periodically changing. Changing that around would help increase efficiency and reduce the amount of swapping of the oil injectors during running. This I would think could reduce the normal man power on a boiler down to three or two. Can't completely eliminate the human factor since if you have at least one person in a space like this you need a buddy to help you stay safe and make sure the periodic maintenance is done.

Watch out, don't let that Tribble on your collar loose on the ship!

*Your upgrade ideas sound feasible and necessary! Carry on Sir!*

As this video starts, before you even said so. I thought, remove the 5"38's. And remove the tomahawk box launchers. And replace those with vertical missile launch system. I like replacing the lower 5" mounts with more modern 5" cannons. But I would add small VLS systems where the upper mounts are. I think your ideas for the radar systems are spot on. This has to be one of my favorite ideas to bring the old girl back. But at the same time, as you said, she is 80 years old. Let's build a modern battleship, and leave our Iowa class as the amazing musiems that they are.

16" Ramjet-propelled shells may be possible. The Army is currently developing a 155mm howitzer ramjet shell, so the potential to see if it's viable is there. Though it may hamper the ole Gal's speed slightly, a proper torpedo defense may be possible on her side, even if it exceeds her current beam. The new Panama locks are 180ft wide. Along with the defense, they could install the Mk-57 Peripheral Vertical Launch System. With as much length as the Iowas have, that's A Lot of tubes. Speaking of a lot of tubes, might the possibility of removing turret 3 be on the cards? If so, the number of VLS goes beyond crazy, plus it would make room for an actual hanger deck. Another benefit of that turret's removal would eliminate the conclusive restrictions back aft, which could mean room for even more point defense everything.

I really like the crowd service your channel gives us. Thank You for your efforts.

Ryan, your acting during the Magic Spoon segment was wonderful. Do you have an acting agent/coach? Are you going to star in the Battleship movie prequel? You missed the key modernization. How can the ship be modernized to fly into space and shoot a plasma ray from its hawser, like Space battleship Yamato.

13:54 This is the moment I've been waiting the whole video for!😎

30 knots is still the standard speed of fleets today, 30 knots is also more than some of those missile boats can do. Most naval simulations show that once all the missiles are expended, they always either go back home, or it turns into a gun fight with their puny little peashooters. If a Gerald Ford aircraft carrier is escorted by an Iowa battleship, it's like insurance, if all the missiles are expended and the Chinese Navy rushes at the aircraft carrier with all they got, the Iowa will blow them out of the water.

Ryan, thank you for indulging us. Silly fantasy or not, many of us are going to keep imagining what a modernized Iowa-class battleship would/could/should be like, and your take on it was fantastic in my opinion.

Battleship New Jersey can you link the document for reactivation so we can study it

How about this? Recommission all 4 of the Iowas. Remove from each one the #2 16" turret along with all the related infrasructure below it, and preserve all of it. In its place install the biggest VLS cluster that will fit into the space. Re-engine the ships with modern gas turbine or turbine/electric power plants. Add several of the modern automatic 5" gun mounts in place of the 5"38s. Add all of the additional antiaircraft/antimissile/anti-small boat weaponry mentioned in the video, along with the most capable command/control/sensor suite available, using some kind of modular system that would allow easy upgrades as new technology emerges-almost a plug-and-play arrangement. Now, after all that, you have left four complete 16" gun turrets with all their supporting infrastructure. Use them to build two new battleships, nuclear powered, with a full Aegis installation and every other upgrade that can't, as a practical matter, be incorporated into the Iowas. Now you have six of the most powerful surface combatants ever to sail the seas.

You mentioned keeping the Harpoons, but it's my understanding the Harpoons are being retired along with the TASM as obsolete. Getting rid of both Harpoon and TASM frees up some more resources.

@robertf3479

Жыл бұрын

Harpoon in its latest version has about double the range of the earlier versions in service when the BBs were brought back in the early '80s and can still be stored on deck and fired from just about anything submerged, afloat or flying. I don't think it's going away anytime soon. TASM went away with the Cold War but there is a new anti-ship missile now in service that can be launched from VLS and aircraft with no problem.

Ryan, I think you cold approach Dockers to sponsor your videos. You can wear Dockers and have a whole collection of them have several new Dockers belts and sweaters too.

How about upgrading anti-submarine detection and protection and adding more power generation capability for all the new systems.

@jessicaregina1956

Жыл бұрын

How about no?

@joselucca2728

Жыл бұрын

@@jessicaregina1956 F.U troll.

@jessicaregina1956

Жыл бұрын

Good, and battleships bave had anti sub defenses when?

I agree with upgrading to the modern 5" guns. I would agree with other comments on replacing the superstructure and eliminating the conning tower. Removing the conning tower alone would be plenty of weight reduction topside for fitting the newer systems that were mentioned. Though not easily or cheaply done a switch to CODOG propulsion system. I would Imagine you could put two of the drive motor units per engine room space. That would allow equalized prop shaft length per pair of props, freeing up some space in that part of the ship, less crew required to maintain operation.

I noted in the binder you showed, a major chunk was devoted to the propulsion plant. I'm highly curious about what they had in mind. This is another area where a HUGE chunk of the crew would be eliminated if the propulsion plant went away from steam. I also wonder if the Navy wants to retain the speed? For shore bombardment only, the speed strictly really needed. I could foresee either a mixed diesel electric and gas turbine like the latest amphibious ships, a all turbine electric design, or a gas turbine with variable pitch propellers.

If it were up to me I would use the ideas and redesign a new class to take advantage of the bigger cannal sizes and build the new systems in from scratch and perhaps even use more modern technologies to improve the main guns and armoured protection. You could then just reuse the old names as is customarily done and the larger capacity of the He new ship would mean less compromises on what to include.

Man.....that magic spoon ad is almost as good as Simons

Propulsion System; One of the things I would want to upgrade would be the propulsion system. Maybe not to Nuclear, but perhaps to diesel, but, the catch, is I would want to have the new engines pretty much built in-place to minimize the size of the access we would need. With parts being brought in via the funnel maybe, or brought in through the aft superstructure after it has been gutted and before new structures put in. Maybe going with a diesel electric propulsion system, where the props are driven by electric motors, and a grouping of diesel generators provide power for the ship and props. Main Guns; The other thing I would set engineers on is reviewing the mechanics of the 16 in guns, and seeing where improvements could be made in there and if an automation system could be built in there for ammo handling. Especially if we are also looking at new types of shells and new propellants for the shells. If a round handling system could be built into the turrets, that would do a lot toward reducing crew requirements. Body; Probably would involve the gutting of most internal spaces, in part to facilitate inspections and repairs as necessary, but also to facilitate reallocation of spaces and instillation of new components to upgrade those spaces. Probably would involve a great deal of stripping out the old cabling and instillation of new cable runs, hoses and other plumbing, including the instillation of new fiber optic cables to facilitate an internal LAN network. While I would install a new high speed internal communications system for the whole ship, I would retain the old sound powered phones as a backup. I like most of Ryan's ideas for secondary and guns and defenses though I think I would still want to keep 4 phalanx cannons, though their positions might change in addition to adding the rams. As to the 5 in guns, I like the idea of replacing them with modern equivalents, but I till like the idea of dual mounts, and I would still want 4 mounts per side.

Quick and easy Iowa modernization: Replace each ABL twin box launcher with a standard quad harpoon launcher (64 total harpoons including the Iowa's existing16 harpoons) Replace each Phalanx with a Block 1B armed with 11 cell SEARAM missiles, for 44 ready missiles Remove the 5"/32 twin guns and replace with single 5"/62 mounts (3 per side) Field DARPA EX-148 13" sabot rounds for the Mk7 16" guns Explore the possibility of saboting existing 155mm Excalibur GPS guided artillery shells for the Mk7 16" guns

Since you will probably need to pull the turbines and most of the boiler equipment, you could retrofit more modern, higher temperature and pressure steam systems that would add a lot of power to your ship letting it go further and faster on the same amount of fuel.

@leftyo9589

Жыл бұрын

gut the entire steam system, and go gas turbines.

I think adding in a couple of those laser defense turrets might be a good idea. Still in testing, but useful nonetheless.

@panachevitz

Жыл бұрын

There is no way that the Iowas can generate that kind of electricity, they might be hard pressed to power a lot of the other modern weapon systems. Those engines and boilers are the achilles heel that just can't be overcome since they are inside the armored citadel and IIRC there is only a couple of large (maybe 6'x6' or larger) hatches to pass machinery through. Those engines are from 1940. I can't imagine that they can keep up with current electricty demands or even reliability.

@AdmiralKakarot

Жыл бұрын

@@panachevitz Ain't you the pessimistic one.

@panachevitz

Жыл бұрын

@@AdmiralKakarot He mentioned it in one of his earlier videos, possibly about the hoist that runs down Broadway or another one about the engineering spaces. I think it may have been in regards to a question about reequipping the ship with a nuclear reactor or at least a modern engine. There is a ton of armor to cut through to create a hole big enough to move large machinery in and out and you're not going to bring everything in or out in a 6 foot section.

@richardjosephus6802

Жыл бұрын

@@panachevitz I was on the USS America while in drydock in 80. They had to cut a large hole to replace one of the generators, and that was only (lol) a 2" thick armored deck, well more then one. And easier to do on a carrier. I would gut the engineering spaces of the boilers and turbines. Replace with electric motors, with new variable pitched props, Install many gas turbines to produce the electricity. Should be plenty of room, and a lot less people to run then the 600psi steam plant.

@blockstacker5614

Жыл бұрын

@@richardjosephus6802 the boilers are pretty much the biggest things in the machinery spaces, IMO it would be better to keep them and just replace the turbines with modern turbogenerators.

I think the armor scheme is one of the best things about the ship. It allows her to get relatively close to shore and be well protected against typical artillery (think Wisconsin vs N. Korea). Any modification that would compromise that protection is ill-advised for a ship primarily suited for shore bombardment and (let’s be honest) port intimidation.

OMG, this is exactly why I like this KZread network so much. What a great idea. I love "what if" studies of USN ships, such as using the Cleveland Class cruiser hull for an Atlanta-like AA cruiser in 1942. Amazing what else you can fit into that, and amazing what you can build into a rebuilt New Jersey-class battlewagon.

Unstoppable brutes! I have my resignation letter ready and waiting for my current engineering job... will immediately apply to the company who gets this Refurbishment Project. I would look at increasing the Non-emergency Power Generation capability up to something near the capability of a Zumwalt DDG or Nimitz Class maybe in the Range of 50-75MWatts. This could be done by modernizing/upgrading the 8 Turbo-generators and/or by adding additional back-up Diesel Generators. Room for growth into future advanced Laser Weapons or KEW Weapons.

Reminds me of the Arsenal Ship project which was a good idea; a very large SSGN version would be very desirable.

@meepfanmeepster8620

Жыл бұрын

effectivly thats what some of our Ohio class submarines are these days. In accordance with one treaty or another the USN removed the ballistic missiles from four of the boats and replaced them with tomahawk cruise missiles. Instead of 22 ballistic missiles these boat are now armed with 154 cruise missiles

Scrap off the entire super structure. Three dual 5"/62 turrets each side, at deck level. New superstructure has super-redundant SPY-6 radar systems, and overhangs turrets 2 and 3. Above the 5" mounts, alternate CIWS 20mm guns and Evolved Sea Sparrow mounts. Centerline superstructure, Mark 57 VLS cells. Aft of Turret 3, carve out the hull and make a hangar for drones, helicopters and ship's boats, just square it off. Dangle the AVgas cells at the aft corners.

Thank you sir! Very interesting and logical. Love your redesign! I'll check out the Magic spoon cereal! GOD bless you and thank you for ALL you do!

Ot would be awesome to be able to see a 3d render of so of your ideas Ryan .. but I would gut through the aft of turret 3 if you have a small crew and put in launch tunes or put in a retractable door for a hanger for drone launchers .. so you can operate large UAV from CEC/CIC . Also from the same area can operate swarms of drones that can protect the ship from small hostile craft . I love the launch tubes bring mounted Aft of the 2nd funnel. .. scrap all 5" guns for automatic turrets

@zeedub8560

Жыл бұрын

I vaguely remember that was being proposed in the 80s, to remove turret #3 in favor of either more aviation capacity or a VLS. I probably read it in Popular Mechanics.

The ships cost $100 million estimated to build originally, which is $2,090,392,857 today. I think it'd be easier and faster to just build a 2023 version of the Montana class

@michaelbridges1370

Жыл бұрын

For the. Money. They may as well. Build a new ship from. Strach with the. Modern. Tech. Would be a more efficient. Ship and. Cost. Less to operate smaller. Crew. And. Supply etc And. Be. More. Deadly. Ship. That the. New Jersey.

@jessicaregina1956

Жыл бұрын

Yes,im sure you wouldn't have to build the necessary tooling and whatever back from scratch because they just stuffed all of that into mothballs.

@cDog8766

Жыл бұрын

@@jessicaregina1956 You live for drama. Don't you. There is a lathe not far from where I live that can handle the 16" gun barrel parts, to name just 1 thing. In other words, we still have the vast majority of whats needed for the larger parts.

@jessicaregina1956

Жыл бұрын

@@michaelbridges1370 🤣 why dont u stop dreaming! Just equipped the Iowa with 3 x 20 5 inch mounts!

Primary reason to reuse the Iowas is to use the hulls. Long, built for speed, 32 knots as built in WW2, Admiral Spruance deliberately allowing the Nowaki go so her crew can report to the rest of the Japanese Navy that we have full sized battleships that can keep up with a zig zagging destroyer! That was a psy-op. Ditch the steam cycle, put in HUGE oil burning turbines that can generate the horsepower to propel 50,000 tons at 60 knots or more. Second reason to reuse the hull is the 3 barbettes. Each could carry 3 16 inch cannons, or perhaps 2 larger diameter cannons, or even a single cannon of immense size. Extended range shells for perhaps 200 mile or more range. With modern up to date fire control and missile guidance, covered by a nearby carrier's CAP, as part of a task force, China might want to try to sweet talk Taiwan into joining with the mainland or just continue to be two different jurisdictions!

Another great video from the battleship. Keep it going

Battleships were essentially obsolete in 1944, It's great fantasy, but there's no point.

🇺🇲🚢 I love your ship and your KZread channel. I wish the other three battleships would do a show like yours. Thank you for doing what you do. God bless the USA🚢🇺🇲

This is one of the channels where I am confident in hitting "like" before I finish the video

Rocket assisted sub munitions would probably give you 200-300 miles of range out of those guns. I'd gladly pay taxes to see a modern battleship built.

I complaint I've heard about modernizing the Iowas was, the turbo generators didn't provide enough power to accommodate all the tech navy wanted. Any thoughts on how this 21st century modernization would handle that? @Battleship New Jersey

@Mercnotforhire

Жыл бұрын

Honestly, replacing it with nuclear power would be the best bet. Pricey, but the tech is and has been there for a while, spooling up engine crew wouldn't be much trouble, main thing is getting the old gear out and getting the new stuff in. Maybe pull the back turret out and pull off the back deck?

@Battleship009

Жыл бұрын

@@Mercnotforhire Do you want to cut through all that armor and/or decks?

@barto6577

Жыл бұрын

@@Mercnotforhire Replacing the boilers with small reactors would be the route. All work could be done through the uptake spaces. Remove the boilers with a torch if necessary (would cry to see it happen). The Main Turbines don't know and don't care what generates their steam.

I would think LED lighting, stainless plumbing, and better flooring would be my recommendations. That way once retired again there's less headaches for the museum. Another possibility would be to replace the 1980s ac systems with mini splits to reduce the ducting and free up space

love it !!!! go for it

Why not remove the AFT 16'' gun. In it's place add a VLS Cell launcher like in the Burke DDG's and Tico CG's. Also add a hanger for 1 or 2 ASW/ASurfW Helo's. Arm the helo's with either Torpedo's or Penguin ASM's depending on mission requirements. Do that in addition to all the electronics and sensor upgrades Ryan mentioned. The Point Defense could be handled by Sea Sparrow launchers, RAM launchers and Phalanx CIWS also, for close-in/pirate boat defense add 4-25mm Bushmaster cannons, the Burke DDG's have these, and mount them 2 per side.

@Mkelm444

Жыл бұрын

That was my thought as well…. Six 16inchers still makes it the king of the gun ships in the world and the aft becomes the missile deck. It also should delete a boatload of crew

@B52Stratofortress1

Жыл бұрын

While the ships would look silly, it would be a very sensible and practical thing to do. Any electronics that are sensitive to the muzzle blasts of the guns could also be located on the aft side.

Well, obviously you have to replace the engines outright as the boilers and turbines are at the end of their lives I remember on HMS Hood, her Yarrow Small-Tube boilers were at the end of their lives while the Curtis-Brown Geared Steam Turbines she had were considered able to last until 1950 with new turbine blades if she had survived her fight with Bismarck, it's probable that 1 or 2 sets of her Curtis-Brown Geared Steam Turbines might have to be ripped out and replaced due to damage

14:56 "like they were trying to develop for the Zumwalts, which were supposed to replace these ships..."

Can you do this but with Yamato? And the opposite, Balls to the wall, max tech that is available today or 10 years from nowish. And see what overbloated ship that the IJN would come up with. And if it has enough freeboard?

This episode is: What if USNFSA had succeeded and saved the battleships.

@phillipbouchard4197

Жыл бұрын

Read my comment above.

Remove 16" Turret 2 and the conning tower. That should take care of topside wt. Or, turret 3 and put VLS there

@christianweagle6253

Жыл бұрын

As soon as Ryan said 'vertical launch', I thought the same thing. This 'New World' battleship is not going to be in a max-firing-rate slugfest. The upgraded propellant has already extended barrel life, I'd imagine that there's more gains still to be had. You're also going to need somewhere low down to put the 5MW gas turbogenerator that will be powering all this new stuff.

Back around the 80's I recall reading a proposal to put sabot sub munitions into the 16 inch guns with a ring of squibs for mid course correction. The goal was to get "100+" mile range. Even assuming 75 miles, that would be very significant shore bombardment.

The thing that I wish for the most is to just one day see these relics of wars past moving on their own power once again, but if not that at least ready for if we ever must call them back into service

I'm kind of wondering what the vertical launch tubes would do to the armoring?

@andyhines9070

Жыл бұрын

the modifications Ryan mentioned were up in the superstructure. The armored citadel is below the deck, so there would be no impact on the armor.

@fsj197811

Жыл бұрын

@@andyhines9070 Maybe I misunderstood but I thought he said it would go below deck? I'll have to watch again. :)

@fsj197811

Жыл бұрын

@@andyhines9070 You were absolutely right, he was talking superstructure only. Good catch and thanks for pointing it out. 🙂

Even extensive automation can't fix the labor burden. Ships obsolete engines would need diesels. Guns auto loaders

@karlchilders5420

Жыл бұрын

the labor burden is worth it in terms of using the 16" guns as designed. You have to remember - much of that isolation and labor is by design. It keeps safety high and optimizes combat readiness. The more you centralize and automate, the more that can go wrong with those things. Missiles are slightly different, but rounds, powder bags, all that, no, that works perfectly fine the way it was designed. There isn't a lot to improve on it from that standpoint. In terms of OTHER areas on the ship however, a modern powerplant, modern radar systems and guidance/navigation systems, countermeasures and electronic warfare devices would all make the ship much more resilient than she was when retired.

@spikedpsycho2383

Жыл бұрын

@@karlchilders5420 16 inch guns have range of 24 miles

@karlchilders5420

Жыл бұрын

@@spikedpsycho2383 uh, yes, I am aware.

@spikedpsycho2383

Жыл бұрын

@@karlchilders5420 you don't seem to understand. 24 miles is nothing. Even a mile off shore. Vulnerable. The sinking of the moskva revealed that. Large warships are obsolete. For little money you could arm VLS systems in barges or ferry catamarans. I predict... the era of the conventional warship is over. US navy should divest from carrier battle groups. Put more assets into submarines with surface to air missiles. Stop building Burkes at billion a piece and consolidate Aegis equipped frigates and arm land installations with mobile missile platforms or "unsinkable concrete barges". The naval hierarchy of carrier- battleship- cruiser-destroyer-frigate-corvette is done. It's an obsolete technical format from WWII. It's Frigates, corvette, submarine. Accessory vessel.

@karlchilders5420

Жыл бұрын

@@spikedpsycho2383 Do you have some sort of comprehension challenge? It was about MODERNIZING THE BATTELSHIP. I already said the era of capital ships was over. I also said, make a missile barge out of it. Did you see those words? Do you know what they mean?? My comment on THIS part of the thread was about the fact that if you are going to maintain the guns, the labor and the way it is thought out is already a good design. Fuck with that design at your peril. I swear to god.. the stupid is STRONG with some people...

I still like the idea I saw once of replacing the aft 16" turret with a VLS field.

@yournamehere9928

Жыл бұрын

I agree. 6x16" guns is still more than enough for shore bombardment and surface warfare, and with all the room saved with deleting the rear turret, you could fit a hell of a lot of VLS there. I don't know what the length and width of a Mark 41 8-cell module is, but I feel like you could fit at least a 64-cell module in the space where the turret sits. There's still also a ton of room between the turret and the helicopter landing pad, which should be able to fit another 64-cell module for a total of 128 missiles. This gives you 6 more missiles than a Ticonderoga, giving the Iowas plenty of anti-air, long range strike, and ASW armament while still retaining a ton of firepower for shore bombardment. I actually think I might lowballing the amount of cells an Iowa's rear deck space can hold, because a 64-cell Mark 41 module honestly doesn't look like it occupies as much space as the 16" turret, so in addition to the two 64-cell modules envisioned, I think it's possible to squeeze some 32-cell modules here and there.

maybe its gonna be like battlestar galactica. They put her on dispplay as a museum, when all of a sudden, uh-oh.

It would sure be easier to leave these as amazing museums for the future and build a modern shipnwith all the accommodations and new electronics and weapons systems than to retrofit this beast. Only problem is they don't make em like they used to 😉

@tyree9055

Жыл бұрын

"...they don't make them like they used to." I agree, but that's also a choice too. We used to believe in toughness and durability, something that I'd attribute to our heritage (Civil War veterans, Cowboys, etc.). Now, who knows what Americans believe in because that entire philosophy has all but died out in the majority of the populace. I believe it's still present in our construction industry, our military, but it's definitely not present in our technology sector or computer design manufacturers. It's a choice. 🤔

@jamesb4789

Жыл бұрын

The real issue iw getting past congress and the inability of the Pentagon to actually build something new. Based on the Ford, do you believe the politics would actually let a good ship get through? They hide the Ford's true cost but it is north of $20 BILLION. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we have the ability to build new ships with heavy armor. The former Bethlehem forge is still inbusiness and there is still far more industrial infrastructure that has survived. That is not the issue. The Pentagon is. If you gave them a blank check today for a new ship it would take them 10 years to get her in the water and 5 years to make her work. Structurally, none of the Iowa's saw more than half of their designed structural life. With a complete overhaul that clock could be reset at 50 years again.

Actually, Ryan, the Sparrows were intended to be mounted in the the 80's but it was found that they could not withstand the concussion of the 16 inch guns. They also did try a sub caliber round. An 11 inch I believe that ranged out at around 70 miles. You can read this in Paul Stillwells book about the New Jersey published by the Naval Institute Press.

@BigUnitBeef

Жыл бұрын

@@davowsp I did...twive. I must have missed that part. Thanks for being rude.....

@jamesb4789

Жыл бұрын

@@davowsp Ryan is an historian. The problem is unless you have a document trail historians usually have little understanding of what might have actually happened in such a modernization effort. In my world of heavy engineering there is a great dal of infor that floated around about things being considered for the Iowas that is not well documented.

@jamesb4789

Жыл бұрын

they were developing a 14" sabo with ranges out to 70/80 miles with a booster. This is the sabot that almost made it to the ships. The 11" sabot was a longer term study to get out to 150/180 plus miles. The ability to reach that far was easy to develop, the problem was control and accurate targeting. The USN was also developing GPS guidance systems for the rounds as well as possible external guidance. Excalibur is a direct descendant of that work. There was also work being considered as to how far they could really reach out and "touch someone". I know of an individual who claimed they in theory could reach 800 miles by getting the shells outside the atmosphere ala the Paris Gun. Remember the DARPA high altitude gun research? The 80 mile and 180 mil reach was specifically to allow the Iowas to plug gaps in a war such as the Persion Gulf, the gaps around Iceland etc. that the Russians had to get through to fight on open seas.

@BigUnitBeef

Жыл бұрын

@@jamesb4789 awesome information!

@BigUnitBeef

Жыл бұрын

@@davowsp says the pot to the kettle. Keyboard commando......

Nice work on that. You've done your research.

I'm going to say this,in the 80s all 4 we're probably useless in the modern world.but all 4 got a 100% A-1 job restoration at the cost of the tax payers that I'm not complaining about,that they really needed to survive the next 100 year's,this is the reason we have the best examples of battleships in the world bar none.thank you AMERICA FOR THIS THUE BLESSING!!!

I was stationed on her in the 80's I loved this Vidéo ( to the point of my head waiting to explode * both bad and good lol* She's à beautiful beast. And if à man can love a ship ( I do ) like the loss of the heavy 5" mounts . Maybe adding 2 more aft of flight deck where the old mounts were w11. As I recall only the ships library loss. And geedunk store. ( love the firepower. ) So many, many, many things. However, and you know this more than I.( environnemental issues galore, I was in engineering .She was old she leaked oil, ect. I remember à diesel shower or 2 ( hard to cover up with colonge) For à night out at the base clubs. And I met my wife there. And still have her after 35 or so years as à sovineer lol...as for making her Female and mâle créw logical. Don't see it. I'm sorry, I'm from à différent âge The money, politics , trouble , all that is disruptive to the main mission. No disrespect. But mission is first.

I can't imagine a worse idea than mixed-gender crews.

Add more anti air and anti missile defense ! When we reactivate a battleship, all of our adversaries will do whatever it takes to sink it in the time of war . It’s essentially a steel punching bag. It needs more defense. Multiple RAM missile launches and keep the 4 phalanx systems. Add multiple 35mm revolver cannons . That way 2-3 guns can triangulate on any one missile for faster missile kills. For protection against the over pressure from the 16” guns . Use launch pads on landings over the edge of the ship similar to how carriers deploy these systems. This aids in using the missiles while crew are on deck

Strip out the boilers for 4 Nukes, main gun turrets become twin rail guns. New top deck house to accommodate Aegis Spy 7, at least 12 of the CWIS mounts, secondary batteries 5" and JCD 105mm full auto mounts. Remove forward most turret and put in 2-4 VLS launchers with ballistic capable. Four more VLS launchers aft of the rear turret, the helo deck needs to have a catapult for unmanned attack aircraft. Four GE 1.5 megawatt main propulsion with controllable props in case she needs to go on an git, those big heavy evaps become RO units, almost every system will be upgraded but she would be a force to be reckoned with.

Fantastic video, great to hear your ideas (even the ad was good - smoooooth intro!). Question, if we're in the realms where they're needing to bring back the Iowa's, are we still in the world of an all volunteer navy? If not, does that cut out of the habitability upgrade considerations? One of the bigger challenges is probably the life expiry of all the existing electrical and pipework equipment - massive workload there. And then there's training a modern workforce to operate and maintain the ancient steam plant - does the navy even still have the knowledge to do that?!

I have written about the possible modernizations from a practical engineering stand point and I would like to put the main points up for comment again. 1. Reduce the manpower requirements. NJ 's old steam plant requires 650 men to operate. Strip it out and put high speed industrial electric motors in place of the steam turbines and utilize the existing reduction gears. Existing gearing lets you use smaller lighter electric motors. Power the motors with two 64 mW or 72 mW gas turbines in the aft boiler rooms. Modern controls and systems reduce engineering to 80 +/- men. Hold speed at 32 knots. This was proposed in the 80's and two 64 nW gas turbines were bought but never used. Empties forward boiler rooms and eliminates forward stack. $250 million. 2. strip out superstructure from the aft stack to the forward turrets , especially the conning tower, and drop huge tonnage. Install a modified Arleigh Burke superstructure and Aegis system. That would be easy to do and makes the ship's command and control modern. Also far cheaper than trying to resurrect old tech and fit into the old structure. Provides a new layout and allows a modern AA and secondary armament. $100 million superstructure and $250 million for systems. 3. I agree with using four 5" guns from the Burkes. Cheap and compatible. $50 million. 4. Where the forward boiler rooms were is now the perfect place to put in vertical launchers with a magazine below to allow fast reload capability. Reload minimizes the deck space for launchers which would also have to be protected. $500 million. 5. US Navy in the 80's did design and get approved a sabot round with a rumored 70-80 mile range. Manufacturing contracts were being bid when cut. They were also well into development of rocket boosted versions with ranges out to 180 miles as well as a GPS guidance system for those long range rounds. Programs started getting cut in '89. Bethlehem Steel also did a design study (including a functional model) of an automated turret that dropped the middle barrel based on the Salem auto 8" guns. That would be another major reduction in crew. Issues with magazines stalled that. 6. These moves would have resulted in a ship with a crew around 500-650 men making existing crew facilities much better and much cheaper to operate and crew. 7. Adding Burke anti sub systems would have created a vessel that could forward deploy into major choke points. A single BB could command the South China Sea, the Persian Gulf or the eastern Med. In the cold war, they would have bottled up the Russian surface fleet at choke points without putting the carriers at higher risk. Same for China today.

I hate to say it but my idea is sacrifice turret #3. Removing the turret and installing a VLS cell into the barbette would provide phenomonal strike ability that is fairly armored against attack from the sides and top (maybe an armored lid?), it may be possible to pack 70-80 cells into that space or possibly the larger hypersonic missiles that don't fit in convetional cells. It would also remove the need for hundreds of sailors for the guns and powder/shell handling. The powder magazines are already spacious, buried in the armor and cooled, great spot for electronics. Removing the guns from the aft of the ship removes the concerns about concussion damaging antennas or defensive missile systems, they can then be put there with relative ease, something that couldn't be done by putting VLS in place of one of the forward turrets. We lose 1/3rd of the big guns but gain so much more versatility and reduced crew requirement.

The one thing you overlooked was that you're going to need a lot more electrical power for all those systems you want to add. You could add some more steam powered generators, but that means less steam for the main engines. It would mean a trade off between speed and electrical power, but that doesn't seem unreasonable. Thing is, modifications this extensive would probably be as expensive as buying a new Zumwalt destroyer.

Keep up the good work man

Yes, there is something important: The Iowa class burns bunker oil in its boilers, which the the Navy no longer supports. The contemporary Navy uses jet fueled gas turbines. The propulsion plant of the Iowas would have to be replaced with gas turbines or would have to be converted to burn jet fuel. Either is really tough to do because the engineering spaces are below the solid armored main deck.

With modern 16" GPS guided shells, there's no need for 9 guns. The Zumwalt's only have two guns. One turret is more than enough for shore bombardment. Removing two turrets will give room for the vertical launchers and the rear of the ship can be converted to hanger facilities for helicopters and drones. Most importantly of all, it reduces the number of crew on the ship.

The whip will also be a combat effective tanker for the smaller accompanying ships. You could also add torpedoes for anti-sub-warefare both on the ship and the heoos .