Iowa-Class Modernization

>>32996116
yes, melt them down and forge katana

No one alive could service the fire control computers. I''d be easier to just build the montana class.

>>32996150
Not the ones installed in the 1980s. Plus, new ones would be fairly simple to install

File: t3_5t9li4.jpg (2MB, 5659x4569px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5659x4569px

>>32996116
stuffed and mounted. it is not uncommon to fill the bilge of a museum ship with concrete. not sure if they did that to any of the iowa class.

modernizing them would be a complete boondoggle since they were obsolete when built.

you battleship faggots should be spooging all over the montana class. build a modern one of those.

but its more about being a drooling mouth-breather, isn't it.

>>32996116

>Would it be feasible to modernize the four existing Iowa-class Battleships and return them to active service

Absolutely not.

>Would it be nuclear powered?

Impossible.

>What missions would it fulfill?

Wasting time and money.

File: 016720.jpg (108KB, 1000x331px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1000x331px

they were actually going to widen the panama canal for it

File: t3_5t61nb.jpg (424KB, 1600x1097px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 1600x1097px

by the end of the war it was obvious to everyone except window lickers like yourself that the aircraft carrier was a better hole in the water to pour money down

>>32996216
No they weren't.

>>32996216
To my knowledge that picture is not to scale.

>>32996208
Absolutely. those boats are 70 years obsolete, and naval warfare has changed so much that it doesn't have a mission to fulfill. You'd have wasted 2bn on a pretty barge to serve as a giant target for an antiship missile. Big=/= safe

File: Japanese_battleship_Nagato_and_USS_Missouri_BB63_at_Yokosuka_1945.jpg (72KB, 863x414px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 863x414px

>>32996216
Thinking about doing it does not equal an actual decision.

>>32996251
It's one of the study plans for the Montana, not the final chosen design.

>>32996116
>Would it be feasible to modernize the four existing Iowa-class Battleships and return them to active service?

That depends on what your definition of 'feasible' is. Is it technically possible? Yes. Is it a wise use of a limited USN budget? No.

File: 1359069951140.jpg (2MB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x1500px

>>32996676
I'd rather that money be invested in new Burkes, attack subs and a Tico replacement.

>>32996116
With lasers! You have to say with laser DEW anti-antishipmissile systems.

Because then you will get to watch the beauty unfold of a complete mouth frothing cave hermit pseudo educated melt down.

P.S. I love BB threads.

South Dakota... you beauty. Gone long before your time!

File: Missouri-flyover.jpg (1MB, 2777x2243px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2777x2243px

>>32996116
>modernizing a historical landmark (Missouri)
Plus haven't all of them been filled with cement

File: 9X19AGg.jpg (2MB, 5700x3558px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5700x3558px

cage masts make me moist

File: iowa fags BTFO.jpg (2MB, 3000x2123px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2123px

>>32996116
>Would it be feasible to modernize the four existing Iowa-class Battleships and return them to active service
No.

A modern battleship wouldn't be a battleship, it would be a giant VLS container ship. I think there was an arsenal ship concept floating around.

>>32996116
Generally the newer shit is all guided missile centric. That being said, I think the idea of a railgunship could be interesting.

Would cost a hell of a lot less to launch 100 tungsten telephone poles into some 3rd world shithole than it would be to launch 100 cruise missiles.

Still probably a waste of money, though.

>>32998663

>I think the idea of a railgunship could be interesting.

You don't need a dedicated ship for a railgun. They'll be implemented on destroyers as soon as it becomes a viable option, replacing the standard 5" guns already in service.

>>32998764
Right but 9 tungsten telephone poles hitting the ground at the same time would be pretty rad.

File: HMSMarshalNeyUnderwayPortsideView1915.jpg (44KB, 760x530px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 760x530px

>>32996116
>Would it be feasible to modernize the four existing Iowa-class Battleships and return them to active service?

The Iowa class ships are over 70 years old. Even if you discounted the exorbitant costs and lack of military necessity of modernization, the hulls themselves would likely compromised and could not be safely be taken out to open sea.

>Would it be nuclear powered?

Installing nuclear reactors on the Iowa class would necessitate taking most of the ship apart. You might as well just build a new ship from scratch.

>What missions would it fulfill?

Fire support on account that ship to ship combat is mostly handled by missiles and aircraft now.

If you really want the big ole' 16 inch guns to make a comeback, it would be more advisable to look into bringing back the concept of the Royal Navy's Monitors, ships the size of a Frigate, but stripped down and fitted with 1-2 oversized 15 inch turrets as their primary weaponry.

I'm not even a battleship hater like some people here. In fact, I think at least one of the Iowa class should have never been decommissioned and instead kept as the permanent flagship of the US Navy (much as the Russian navy retains the Pyotr Velikiy as their official flagship). But the age of these monstrosities as the main power on the high seas is over.

>>32996116
>Would it be feasible to modernize the four existing Iowa-class Battleships and return them to active service?
No.

>Would it be nuclear powered?
No.

>What missions would it fulfill?
No.

>Discuss
Why do you make these every day? What's wrong with you? Let's discuss that.

The best way to modernize them is to scrap them and use the metal from it to make a carrier.

>>32996116
>Feasible
No.
>Fucking awesome?
Yes

>>33000587
>Why do you make these every day? What's wrong with you? Let's discuss that.
Guaranteed replies of course.

sage and hide bbfag

>>32996116
>not stealth both in radar and heat emmision.