Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!nuchat!steve@uunet.UU.NET
From: nuchat!steve@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Nuchia)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: USS Iowa explosion
Message-ID: <6258@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 5 May 89 00:34:53 GMT
References: <5788@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5853@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5979@cbnews.ATT.COM> <6022@cbnews.ATT.COM> <6159@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Houston Public Access
Lines: 62
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: nuchat!steve@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Nuchia)

In article <6159@cbnews.ATT.COM> willey@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU (Adm. Pavel Chekov) writes:
>     Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, one of the 
>major objections to the battleship in a modern navy is it's lack of ability
>to defend itself from air attack. Also, with the accident on the Iowa, a 

That is the reason for the battlegroup doctrine.  A carrier can't
protect itself from submarines (continuously, anyway) either, and
in the nuclear battlefield our strategists insist on planning for
you want your air pickets rather far out from the assets they protect
anyway.

>replacement 16" gun is needed and none exist.
>     Would it be feasible to remove turret #2 from the Iowa and replace it
>with a verticle launch system for SM-2 missiles to give the battleship 
>protection from aircraft. Not only would this add to the defense of the ship,
>but it would also give the Navy two 16" gun replacements.

Not only is it practicle, I expect that is what will happen.  The
verticle-launch missle battery is what, 64 tubes?  The deck area
allocated to the turret, including barrel clearance would take
at least two and probably four launcher pads.  That would not
only free up the salvagable parts of the turret, it would also
leave a whole bunch of below-deck space for new uses.  Like maybe
a missle magazine and/of fuel storage to make the battle group
less dependent on auxilliaries.

>	1 : How many SM-2's could be accomodated? (ready to fire and reloads)
>	2 : Could an anti-submarine defense be fit into this re-fit?

Sure, can the VLS handle ASROCs?  If not just stick a few ASROC launchers
on some of the extra deck space.  And don't the BBs have helos?  Not a
bad way to defend against subs, but like the carriers they are more
expensive ($/unit benefit) to operate than a picket.

Does she have a sonar?  You have to aim ASROCs...  And the new systems
would be much less well armored than the guns, so chances are they
would poop out rather early in a fight.  Developing versions of the
new systems that would be well balanced with the survivability of
the rest of the platform would be very expensive.

>	3 : Would the re-fit be worth the time and money?

There's the rub.  You would have to "edit" the armor around
the new weapons extensively, particularly the horizontal
components.  Given that we no longer have the technology
to build armored ships, how well will we be able to
do on such a major refit?

Then you have to ask if the money might be better spent
developing a replacement gun.  After all, the BBs are
superb offensive weapons -- why turn 1/3 of their weight
into defensive weapons when we already know how to defend
them with pickets?

-- 
Steve Nuchia	      South Coast Computing Services
uunet!nuchat!steve    POB 890952  Houston, Texas  77289
(713) 964 2462	      Consultation & Systems, Support for PD Software.