"What is the current status of the USS Iowa" Topic

Is she still in mothballed limbo, or has a city finally given her a home?

She's sitting in Suisun Bay collecting seagull poo, while the project to get her berthed in a permanent maritime museum in Vallejo grinds slowly forward.

battleshipiowa.org

San Francisco tried to make a play for her, but they failed…something about how the City spurned her when she needed them for a home port, and now they want her now that they want tourism revenue. Hopefully the center at Mare Island will pan out.

I talked to some Iowa reps at the airshow in Santa Rosa, CA this past weekend. The relocation to Mare is moving forward. They stated the Iowa should be berthed somewhere within 18-24 months.

San Francisco tried to make a play for her, but they failed…something about how the City spurned her when she needed them for a home port, and now they want her now that they want tourism revenue. Hopefully the center at Mare Island will pan out.

Yeah the San Francisco Board of Supervisors flat out rejected it saying that it . That along with a bunch of other . Sorry just venting my spleen a little. Salut y'all!

Bruce the Texas Grognard

Bruce,
As angry as you sound, you hit the nail on the head and are exactly right.

Dave

Just out of curiousity…how many 'States class' battleships are STILL 'active' or in 'temp mothballs'…???

I thought the USS New Jersey and USS Missori had been refurbished and then 'mothballed' at least TWICE? since the Gulf War or something like that?

I have been on the USS Alabama (years ago) and she was berthed next to an old 'Gato?' class sub…(battleship was frickin' HUGE to a kid my age back then, not that they weren't HUGE anyways…but IMPRESSED the heck outta me!)

Those 16" guns that could throw a shell the size of a VW 'bug' over a dozen miles????? YEEPS!

So..anyway….how many are 'still serviceable'…IF they were to be 're-commissioned' or still on 'standby?' if anybody knows?

Slishfully,
Sgt DWW-btod

You would think that some port in Iowa would want their namesake.

DWW, the answer is none. All four of the Iowa's are either permanent displays or in mothballs while waiting to become displays. From what I understand, they are near the end of their serviceable lives and probably couldn't be made serviceable again. I believe it has to do with metal fatigue and problems with finding enough crew.

I know I might sound like an old grumpy fart, but I honestly believe that we should have Missouri, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Iowa still active duty.
There is NOTHING in the world that says "International Diplomacy" like a carrier group and a battleship task force sitting off the coast saying…"Go ahead…make our day"…

Yes, I know the cost of keeping them up and running, but perhaps maybe if we cut out the money on some of those wonderful congressional science studies like the one of "How Native American Flute Music affects Prairie Dogs", etc…we could keep them going…

I visited the New Jersey last month while in Philly. I highly recommend it if you have the chance.

I doubt she could be made servicable again without a hugh investment and a lot of time.

So does anyone have any idea where the Wisconsin is and the plans for her?

Good one, Waco Joe.

Maybe this will spur Iowa to campaign for "A Route to the Sea!" via Lake Michigan. Wisconsin and Illinois must give up a strip of land from Dubuque to Kenosha, or maybe to Waukegan. Is that so much to ask? Let the debate begin!

Here is a list of surviving US battleships compliments of Haze Grey & Underway link

Texas BB 35 United States 1914 Dreadnought Battleship Houston, TX Museum

North Carolina BB 55 United States 1941 WWII Battleship Wilmington, NC Museum

Massachusetts BB 59 United States 1942 WWII Battleship Fall River, MA Museum

Alabama BB 60 United States 1942 WWII Battleship Mobile, AL Museum

Iowa BB 61 United States 1943 WWII Fast Battleship Suisun Bay, CA Reserve

New Jersey BB 62 United States 1943 WWII Fast Battleship Camden, NJ Museum

Missouri BB 63 United States 1944 WWII Fast Battleship Pearl Harbor, HI Museum

Wisconsin BB 64 United States 1944 WWII Fast Battleship Norfolk, VA Museum

@Jpattern2

Iowa is on the Mississippi River. Would that work for your plan?

There's a group out of Long Beach, CA making a play at getting the Iowa as well. Long Beach was the Iowa's home port at one time as well as being the location where the class was modernized (I attended the New Jersey's ceremony). The Liberty ship, SS Lane Victory is berthed there, and I believe they're trying to get a FFG and, perhaps, another smaller warship too.

It looks like Stockton tried to get the Iowa in 2005 link

It seems that she is destined to wind up in California – somewhere.

Wyatt

I went by the Wisconsin a couple of weeks ago. She's looking quite good and assuming Iowa gets the berth at Mare, the US will have preserved 7 of the last 10 BB's built by the USN.

Murphy – The Navy is pretty happy not having to man and maintain the BBG groups as the cost and crew needs of those beasts was more than their budget could handle. You could crew about 20+ LCS for the manpower cost of a single BB and the savings in fuel would be even larger and all the NCS Funding together wouldn't run a full BBG SAG for 6 months.

The Wisconsin is at the Nauticus Museum in Norfolk… visited there a few years back.

The investment in upgrading and maintaining the ships came to be prohibitive under the drive for a more 'agile' navy. Also, I believe the armament plants that produced the 16" shells and propellant had been shut down years ago and the stockpile could not be replenished.

However, I do agree, to an extent, about the usefullness of so-called gun-boat diplomacy. I would love to see a battleship design take advantage of the technology developed over the last 70 years. Not only in weaponry and detection, but armor and survivability as well. Plus, a shell would be a more cost effective crater-maker than a TLAM or whatever they have these days…

But, others might just see a bigger target, oh well…..

Iowa is on the Mississippi River. Would that work for your plan?

I know, Barsoom, I have relatives in Iowa (the poor dears), but berthing the USS Iowa on a river, even one as grand and storied as the Mississippi, just doesn't feel *right* to me. Ideally she should be berthed in an ocean port(she should feel the salt water on her hull), but I figured one of the Great Lakes was the next-best-thing.

:)

McKinstry
"assuming Iowa gets the berth at Mare, the US will have preserved 7 of the last 10 BB's built by the USN."

Which is great, but it's disgusting that we couldn't save a couple of examples of those that came before Texas. I know there was an effort to save Pennsylvania, but don't know why it failed.

They'd have an extremely limited value as warships now, especially given the enormous cost that refitting them and manning them would incur. How many potential enemies that a Battleship could be of value against do you think the US has? Using 16" guns against insurgents in Afghanistan or Grenada wouldn't be much use!

I have a lot of target for 16" salvos and despite what the pundits are saying around the world the era of the big gun can start again… look at this trend… the new Daring class has moved vromthe old 114mm standard gun of "post war" Royal Navy to a 6" one and "people who knows" have said to me that the RN is thinkering with 8"… the problem is that guns are becoming much more useful and cost effective than missiles (and the LCS seems a wast of money much more than an Iowa… they are essentially hyped corvettes to expensive to be put in the littoral environment… talk of wonder weapons…)

Arrigo

Can't recall where I read it, but about 5 years ago I read an article in which the authors proposed turning Iowa into a nuclear powered Sea Control Ship.

1. Diesel engines/Powerplant replaced with a nuclear reactor

2. Remove the rear turret and replace it with a Vertical Launch System with SM-block AA missiles and ASROC-type ASW missiles.

3. Rear superstructure would be modified to accommodate ASW helicopters.

4. Remove old 5" gun mounts and replace with modern rapid-fire 5" mounts and SSM launchers to beef up the number of Harpoons and Tomahawks.

5.Add two more Phalanx systems

6. Add phased array radar system and modern sonar, additional Predator/targeting drones

7. Upgrade 16" guns with an automatic reload system, and manufacture new upgraded shells with laser & remote guided RAP rounds, and eventually in future upgrades plan to replace the main guns in the two forward turrets with rail guns.

8. Other changes to automate ship functions, reduce crew levels and increase survivability.

At a cost of about $1.5 USD billion, this would have resulted in one seriously bad-ass warship!!

You would think that some port in Iowa would want their namesake.

They got the submarine Batfish on display in Muskogee, Oklahoma (and quite an engineering feat it was), so it's not impossible. But I suspect they'd have to cut down her superstructure and masts to get under a few Mississippi river bridges. Is the river deep enough in Iowa to take a ship that big?

The day of the battleship is over; they're just too manpower-intensive in these cost-cutting days. But there is still a role for a large naval gun, at least in the US Navy. Our Marines, in particular, have a great fondness for a fire support platform that can loiter indefinitely and plaster the enemy with the equivalent of nine 2700-lb bombs every thirty seconds, from 20 miles away. PGM's have their uses, but some problems are better solved with a sledgehammer than a scalpel.

How wierd!! I just posted that and it showed up TWICE under Virtualscratchbuilder and my name! I just deleted my post. very odd.

Yeah… and my long, detailed 3-hrs to write missive that was going to change the world is gone.

What I was going to say was it would have been cost prohibitive to put Pennsylvania back into floating condition and tow her around to the east coast. She was patched up, leaking, and only capable of about 3 kts by the time they selected her for target duty.

One of the problems with reactivating the Iowa's is lack of 16" barrels. Said guns have a limited barrel life, there are no replacements as far as I know, and no means to manufacture more without adding billions to the cost.

In fact, I think it was in the '50s they were getting ready to retire the ships because the barrels on all four were worn out and there were no replacements – until a forgotten stash was found in a storage depot in Washington – I think it was.

They'd have an extremely limited value as warships now, especially given the enormous cost that refitting them and manning them would incur. How many potential enemies that a Battleship could be of value against do you think the US has? Using 16" guns against insurgents in Afghanistan or Grenada wouldn't be much use!

Well, considering that in situations like Grenada, an Iowa could deliver up to 9 tons of explosives to any given square inch of the island in less than a minute, that would be pretty useful.

Its not only the number of crew that is a problem. I was a guest of New Jersey during her last commission. The crew had to be hand picked…not just to be smart enough to run such a complicated ship….but also for their small size. It was explained to me that since she was designed in 1939-40 the average height of men has increased. Despite their size the ships are remarkably crowded. Their internal doors and hatches are small. In the accomodation areas it was found that tall men had great difficulty in finding head room, but were also too long when laying in the bunks.
During the initial reactivation of the ships….prior to crew being assigned, there were apparently quite a lot of people who suffered head injuries through not being familiar with their low head room.
I must say that at 6.4"tall, I certainly found the New Jersey very deadly to get around in and bumped my head several times.

Mal, I'll agree about the size issue. I toured the WWII sub here on the Wisconsin coast a few years ago and at 6'5" I nearly did not make it through the ship. Every hatch and 'door' was way too small for tall men. I could not lift my legs high enough and lower my head enough to move very fast.

Reminded me of when I was at Ft. Knox during ROTC training years ago in the 1970s and they offered us a chance to climb in a Pz V they had at the museum…I was a skinny rail of a kid at 20, but I could not fit in the turret hatch.

Want to really find out the size difference, visit the air museum that the FAA has here in Wisconsin and try to get into and go through some of the WWII aircraft. They must have picked midgets to crew the B-17 I decided not to attempt (smile).

I've toured the USS Wisconsin in Norfolk and was impressed, but it would take more years and money than it would be worth to remodel/rebuild it into a modern warship. We'd be better off building new and starting from the keel up. With the shrinking size of the navy (the cost is the people nowadays), I don't see any use for such.

Dan

"At a cost of about $1.5 USD USD billion, this would have resulted in one seriously bad-ass warship!!"

And it would still be just as vulnerable to a modern, submarine-launched torpedo as any container ship. In the final analysis, the submariners are right – there are only two kinds of ships in the ocean, submarines and targets.

And still the submariners weren't able to stop the atlantic convoys… as once Andrew Lambert pointed out the bright submarine skipper never engage escorts.

Again despite patrick robinson novels engaging a properly deployed task group is anything but a simple task.

Ahhh yes the superiority of the short man.. ;) At 5'6 walking around HMS Victory was easy!!!
I remember we got taken around HMS Victory as youngsters on a school trip--one of the sailors on board was at least 6'4 and was bent double…We asked if he enjoyed working on the Victory--No was his answer,
We asked if he volunteered--No was his answer…

I always wonder what he did wrong to get put there…Obviously some " Creative" punishment by a sadistic Petty Officer!!!

"And still the submariners weren't able to stop the atlantic convoys…"

Of course, submarine technology had advanced a lot more than ASW technology since WW2, so this comparison is moot.

My brother used to ride subs. He says that surface ASW exercises consisted of having the submarine stay within a 1 mile square box until it was found. It was inevitably found only when the sub commander got bored and let himself be found.

This does not bode well for a future re-play of the Battle of the Atlantic.

archstanton –

You should try USS Constitution (in Boston) some time. Compared to the Victory its huge and quite roomy.

But I still wouldn't want to trying getting around below decks if I was 6'4"!

So who ratted out Texas Grognard??

Well IF they keep them 'serviceable' for floating museums…then in 500 years time….

STAR BLAZERS MKII: Space Cruisers Texas, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Alabama, Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, Wisconsin!

That'll save us looking for the rusted out, sunken hulk of the Yamato/Yammato and refurbishing it into the 'Argo'….

Just put some 'wave motion engines/bow gun' for offense and star drive, some fusion reactor cores and space fighters and we won't have to worry about those Gamilons, Comet Empire or anyone else 'out there' for a long, long time! The 16 inch guns can be converted to 'force cannons' and laser turrents for the 50cal machine guns!

NOW that would be TRUE 'naval power!'

(and the Navy get's to use it's high-tech playtoys while still using/re-using the BB's!!!! Everybody wins!)

Slishfully,
Sgt DWW-btod and 'only 6' 1" tall'…

Would there be enough room on Blue Fez to fit her in?

Yee-dawgie, Danceswithwords, now you're talkin'! Of course there's always the classic "Ayes of Texas" in which the Soviets have ordered a weakened America to surrender, and the president agrees. But not them Texans!! They tell the Russkies to pound sand, so the Russkies decide to invade Texas. And it would have worked too, if a brilliant millionaire hadn't secretly renovated the USS Texas with particle beam cannons and magnetic forcefields and kicked the tar out of the Russian invasion fleet!!

link

A fun read. If you like Texan-centric scifi, Daniel Da Cruz's Texas Trilogy is a fun series. Book 1, new Texan independence. Book 2, Texas "On the Rocks" in which Texas stands firm against a hostile world, and Book 3 "Texas Triumphant" in which Texas, well, triumphs!

I've visited the BB55 North Carolina. Most impressive a lot more roomy than the HMS Belfast in London, but at a mere 6'1" I still bumped my head a couple of times.

Both have a considerable headroom advantage over HMS Victory.

"Well, considering that in situations like Grenada, an Iowa could deliver up to 9 tons of explosives to any given square inch of the island in less than a minute, that would be pretty useful."
My point was, the US may once have taken n the military might of Grenada, but is it likely in this current climate? What is the likelihood of the need for a Battleship now?
You'll have noted, I'm sure, my reference to Afghanistan. How much of the country (or Iran) is in range?

One of the problems with reactivating the Iowa's is lack of 16" barrels. Said guns have a limited barrel life, there are no replacements as far as I know, and no means to manufacture more without adding billions to the cost.

Virtualscratchbuilder – I know where there are about 10 or 12 spare 16" barrels – Hawthorne Army Depot in Nevada!

We had an Army Reserve Annual Training event based out of there a few years back. I was hanging out with my guys as we were getting a HMMWV back from maintenance and I saw a pile of what I thought were quite peculiar telephone poles. I took a look at them and realized what they were – 16" barrels stamped manufactured in 1944!

I started asking some of the old-timers at the depot about the barrels and they confirmed that they were spare 16" barrels. I also got a cool story for my trouble – a few years back someone decided to move one of the barrels. They put it on a flatbed semi-trailer which promptly collapsed on the edge of town. The barrel was too heavy to try and recover so the depot got a bulldozer, dug a trench, and rolled the barrel in! Yeah – I wouldn't buy any real estate near that depot. We heard all kind of stories about unexploded ordnance.

link

I visited USS Wisconsin in May, while in Norfolk for the
Military Tattoo.

The ship is closed, that is, only the weather decks are
accessible to visitors. I asked a (serving) First Class
why that was, and he explained that the ship was part
of the reserve, and the interior spaces could not be
opened to visitors for 'security' reasons.

A retired Chief overheard the conversation, caught me
up as I was looking at the Harpoon mounts, and
told me that she'd been open at one point, but there were
too many bumps and bruises among the visitors for
comfort, so the Museum decided to close her.

I asked the same question of a docent in USS North
Carolina a month or so back. He said he didn't know
of any 'alarming' number of accidents, bumps, etc.

The Chief also explained that there is a tradition
in the Norfolk Navy Yard for newly raised Chiefs to
lead a working party chipping Wisconsin's rust so she
can be repainted periodically !

Don't know if that's true, but it is what he said.

I know I might sound like an old grumpy fart, but I honestly believe that we should have Missouri, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Iowa still active duty.

The Navy felt the same way for years, but eventually the cost and crew demands, incredibly high in both departments, finally convinced them to retire the ships.

The Iowa-class ships were refitted and recomissioned for about the price of a frigate each. Precision-guided missiles now make them really big targets that require protection equivalent to that given to carriers – and the USN doesn't have enough ships/men to make that work any more. Reagan visualized a 500-ship fleet, and even at the zenith of military spending, the US didn't quite reach that number.

There was a problem supplying the rifled linings when the Iowas were being resurrected. They found some overlooked ones in storage (presumably the same ones Ted saw), but the rail track leading to the where they were stored had been torn up some time in the 1970s so new lines had to be laid to get them down to Long Beach.

During the reconstruction, there was talk of removing the rear turret and turning it into a flight deck for Harriers. That got as far as the design stage before it was realized that the biggest asset WAS the 16-inchers and that the Harriers were better suited to the Tarawa-class assault carriers. I have the blue prints to the ship as well as the design studies for a few configurations around here somewhere.

Wyatt

News about the Missouri.

USS Missouri to get Pearl Harbor shipyard makeover

By AUDREY McAVOY, Associated Press Writer
– 2 hrs 9 mins ago
PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii – The "Mighty Mo," the World War II battleship best known for hosting the formal surrender of Japan in 1945, is heading to the shipyard for repairs.

The USS Missouri, now a decommissioned vessel called the Battleship Missouri Memorial, will leave its historic spot at Battleship Row at Pearl Harbor in October.

"The 65-year-old ship is in good shape, but it still needs to go to Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard for repairs because rust is protruding from peeling paint in areas and the teak wood deck is warped and bent in others.

The warship's exterior is due to be sanded down and repainted in a $15 USD million overhaul paid for by memorial reserve funds and a Department of Defense grant."

link

Robert

archstanton –

You should try USS Constitution (in Boston) some time. Compared to the Victory its huge and quite roomy.

But I still wouldn't want to trying getting around below decks if I was 6'4"

I thought the USS Constitution was a frigate. Is it really 'much' bigger than the Victory?

Well I've been on both the Constitution and Victory. . . and I have to say at 6'2" and 32 years old I didn't feel at all cramped on the Constitution. Just had to bend over a little on the lower decks as I recall.

However as a 6 year old kid, the Victory seemed really small to me and while I didn't have to bend over below decks, it still didn't feel very spacious.

So yeah, I'd say Constitution was more roomy. I think it probably has to do with not trying to squeeze every last possible gun onto the Constitution the way they did with Victory.