Should the USS Wisconsin and the USS Iowa be Modernized for today's Navy or be put into a Museum?

Question

The USS Iowa and the USS Wisconsin served thier efforts very well into the persian gulf war. They could be remodified for today's Navy. Though we will have to Upgrade thier: radar, Anti-Aircraft, Anti Ship, and etc. but if we do make the upgrade there will have to be a goal that it must be able to perform. it must be able to shoot within a 63 nautical mile radius. the current it ca shoot is within a 24 mile nautical mile radius. we would have to make a great upgrader to thier mark 7 main guns for the weapon to shoot that far. and if it were capable of this, the whole concept of Battleship Vs. Airforce will be greatly looked at with that we have tested her sea worthess back when Tyhpon Cobra hit them, when Typhon cobra hit them, they lost 3 destroyers, planes in the aircrafts hangers fell out into the ocean, and the USS Wisconsin only reported two injuries on her deck. and rest of the fleet there suffered 790 casualties total, and 80 injured.So I think she's seaworthy/strong enough.

Answer 1

I think they should be modernized and put back into service. I can't imagine a more dramatic projection of power to be had.

Answer 2

I actually think that the battleship might make a comeback. Now as the Iowa class but a new class. Technology is now coming around that rail guns and other 'futuristic' weapons are becoming a reality. Some of these weapons can ranges of 200 nautical miles(about 230 miles, or 370 km). The rounds would cost less and take up less space on board a ship. I think as such weapons evolve we'll see a new equivalent of the battleship emerge, a sleek, stealthy gun platform armed with missiles as well. *edit* Actually a battleship in the armed forces can be better than another carrier. Almost 80% of targets in Vietnam that were attacked by aircraft were within reach of the Iowa's 16" main guns. And MG, I have to disagree with you, during WW2, battleships were there to provide support because they could give support faster, longer and better than an air strike. Unlike the carrier the battleship could continue firing all day long given supplies. A plane must head back to its carrier to refuel and rearm. New technologies (rail gun) means that it can fire a projectile 200 nautical miles, with a effective rate of fire of 6-12 rounds per minute per gun with the projective traveling at almost 6X the speed of sound. That means one gun could fire off sixty or more rounds on a target. And more importantly with no risk to a pilot. What's a pilots life worth? How many pilots were lost in Vietnam because people thought battleships were outdated when a few 16" rounds would have done the job without risk to a pilot? There is still a job for a battleship even though it’s no longer the supreme weapon of the seas it doesn't mean it’s obsolete.

Answer 3

I think the Navy is doing exactly the right thing with them. The four battleships were retired for the last time for all the right reasons - they were enormously expensive to operate, they ran on fossil fuel, it would be too costly to upgrade them to nuclear, their effectiveness was reduced due to improvements in missile systems, and the ships were nearly 50 years old when they were retired. As good as battleships were, their time is passed and will never return.

At present, the USS MISSOURI is on permanent display next to the USS ARIZONA in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; the USS NEW JERSEY was sold to the state of New Jersey and is now a floating museum in Camden; the USS WISCONSIN is on display at the Nauticus Maritime Museum in Norfolk, Va, and the USS IOWA is in storage in the shipyard in Bremerton, Washington. The WISCONSIN and the IOWA are still on the roles of inactive ships, and both are sealed so they can be brought back into service again if needed. People who visit the WISCONSIN can walk on the decks, but they can't get inside the ship itself.

Don't count on these ships ever being recalled to active duty. It's just not effective in any way, shape, or form.

Answer 4

None of that matters now!!!! Modern cruise missiles could cut those big Battleships into two with a good hit in the powder magazines. Those guns are obsolete. Ships could avoid the shells simply using radar and computers and steering the ships which are faster today. Don't forget that Phalanx radar guided Guns could take the high-arcing shells out too. Also, sure you could remodify the ships, put them back into service (theyre either all in museums now or are in mothballs) but you'd be wasting money to man the ships with large crews (you could build 3 modern destroyers and man them for the price of the Battleship). Less eficient engines - all around horrible idea!!! Cost of repairing them would be high too most likely.

Answer 5

I vote for museum status. There are two reasons for my reasoning. First, the upgrades you mention would be astronomical. Secondly, battleships aren't as effective as some of the more modern types of ships.

As was demonstrated in WWII aircraft carriers are the way to go. A carrier has an arsenal of 80 aircraft that fly a myriad of missions, and can do so non-stop if needed. Additionally, because a carrier can use its aircraft, the carrier can operate from greater distances, a battleship, would have to operate closer to shore.

I served on two carriers, the USS Constellation (CV-64) and the USS Nimitz, and have seen fist hand the firepower that they can unleash. Don't get me wrong you make a compelling argument, but I personally prefer a carrier.

Answer 6

The USS Iowa is not in Bremerton, Washington. It is in the mothball fleet in Suisun Bay, California. The plan is for her to be a museum ship at the former Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo, California. Check out:

http://www.battleshipiowa.org/index.html

Answer 7

Cold war Relics. They saw their last Hooray in Desert storm. Iowa class Battelships were and still are the Greatest fighting ships ever built. However, Today's world takes stealth. Preditor Drones, Laser guided missles and other more mobile technology. Tomahawks can be fired from subs. Those battleships are too expensive to upkeep for their use now days.Our current enemy is fought with stealth and diplomacy for countries where they reside. We have to let go of our cold War tactics and move forward to the 21st century military. I say let them retire with dignity and the last great success in desert Storm. They served us well.

Answer 8

As much as I would like to see those ladies sail again, the cost would be to much. Let them retire in a place where our children can see what once was a great Ship. Carriers are overrated and Destroyers are to small but they are doing the job for now.

Answer 9

No. It's not just that those particular ships are obsolete, the very concept of a battleship is obsolete. Billy Mitchell proved that over 80 years ago. Battleships are too many eggs in one basket, too much to lose in one target compared to their potential combat contributions.

Answer 10

Battleships are obsolete. Nuclear subs aren't affected by typhoons and can deliver missiles from beneath the surface that can travel far beyond the range of a battleship's main guns and do far more damage.

Answer 11

Whilst there are pros and con on this subject they are old girls now, 60+ so I am wondering how good they are in the hull and general structure.
I think it is better that they be maintained as museum so people can see just how grand they are.