New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Colin Parkinson]

ideas for mixing aviation with the Iowa class battleships

Over the years I considered writing on this, but did not as there are other commentaries on the topic already. However some of them “mix things up” as to when and why these proposals we…

wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com

It's a great read, Ryan from BB New Jersey covers it on his YT channel. To be honest a modernized Iowa Class BB would have been very useful addition for the Task Force dealing with the Houthi, with a magazine depth of around 1200 16" rounds, that gives you a lot of opportunity to service shore targets, particularly if that modernization included guidance kits for those 16" rounds and likely some form of sabot round for extended range use.

At this point you would have to rip out the machinery and replace all of the piping to all of the spaces, so a modern hull adopting likely a blend of the best armour plans from previous BB ships fixing some of the known issues in the Iowa Class. Use the two forward turrets with some modernization/automation where possible, keeping in mind the volume and speed of firing will less than a ship of the line. Completely different superstructure. A significant secondary armament mix of all modern guns and AD missile systems, making it a useful AD shield for the CV's and can protect itself and it's escorts when going close inshore on bombardment and deterrent missions and be able to shrug off a significant amount of hits. Coupled with modern sensors. I would envision a class of 4 ships, with generally two active and two in refit/training.

A bombardment range of 10-15nm inland and likley much further with other types of munitions puts a lot of important coastal infrastructure at risk. It also forces a lot of opponents into expending a lot of resources to attempt to counter these ships. I see these being most valuable in smaller conflicts, but still playing a role in a larger conflict. The modern machinery and reduction of one main gun turret will significantly reduce the manpower requirements over a Iowa Class BB.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I think Seaspan should acquire another Careen sized drydock to be stationed permanently in Esquimalt.

Is there room in that harbour for such a monster?

 

[Halifax Tar]

It's a great read, Ryan from BB New Jersey covers it on his YT channel. To be honest a modernized Iowa Class BB would have been very useful addition for the Task Force dealing with the Houthi, with a magazine depth of around 1200 16" rounds, that gives you a lot of opportunity to service shore targets, particularly if that modernization included guidance kits for those 16" rounds and likely some form of sabot round for extended range use.

At this point you would have to rip out the machinery and replace all of the piping to all of the spaces, so a modern hull adopting likely a blend of the best armour plans from previous BB ships fixing some of the known issues in the Iowa Class. Use the two forward turrets with some modernization/automation where possible, keeping in mind the volume and speed of firing will less than a ship of the line. Completely different superstructure. A significant secondary armament mix of all modern guns and AD missile systems, making it a useful AD shield for the CV's and can protect itself and it's escorts when going close inshore on bombardment and deterrent missions and be able to shrug off a significant amount of hits. Coupled with modern sensors. I would envision a class of 4 ships, with generally two active and two in refit/training.

A bombardment range of 10-15nm inland and likley much further with other types of munitions puts a lot of important coastal infrastructure at risk. It also forces a lot of opponents into expending a lot of resources to attempt to counter these ships. I see these being most valuable in smaller conflicts, but still playing a role in a larger conflict. The modern machinery and reduction of one main gun turret will significantly reduce the manpower requirements over a Iowa Class BB.

I just thought it was a neat read. And that site has some interesting articles.

I have visited Wisconsin a few times. And now that you can get below decks its that much better. I would love visit them all. Ryan Szymanski does a great job on his channel.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Is there room in that harbour for such a monster?

It goes there on a regular basis to lift and float the subs, it's their mid sized drydock, they just bought a newer smaller one and they have the Panamax which is their big one. Seaspan proposing to build two additional drydocks next to Lonsdale's Shipyards district | Urbanized

 

[Czech_pivo]

It goes there on a regular basis to lift and float the subs, it's their mid sized drydock, they just bought a newer smaller one and they have the Panamax which is their big one. Seaspan proposing to build two additional drydocks next to Lonsdale's Shipyards district | Urbanized

At 100m those drydocks will be too small for the Rivers, the AOPS and most likely the CDC's, as well as the JSS's. Outside of maybe the future subs, they won't add to any future military needs.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

At 100m those drydocks will be too small for the Rivers, the AOPS and most likely the CDC's, as well as the JSS's. Outside of maybe the future subs, they won't add to any future military needs.

Subs and CDC will fit, they also have graving dock as well. With 6 subs on the West coast, they would be busy.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Subs and CDC will fit, they also have graving dock as well. With 6 subs on the West coast, they would be busy.

CDC is a ? for the time being.

 

[Stoker]

It's a great read, Ryan from BB New Jersey covers it on his YT channel. To be honest a modernized Iowa Class BB would have been very useful addition for the Task Force dealing with the Houthi, with a magazine depth of around 1200 16" rounds, that gives you a lot of opportunity to service shore targets, particularly if that modernization included guidance kits for those 16" rounds and likely some form of sabot round for extended range use.

At this point you would have to rip out the machinery and replace all of the piping to all of the spaces, so a modern hull adopting likely a blend of the best armour plans from previous BB ships fixing some of the known issues in the Iowa Class. Use the two forward turrets with some modernization/automation where possible, keeping in mind the volume and speed of firing will less than a ship of the line. Completely different superstructure. A significant secondary armament mix of all modern guns and AD missile systems, making it a useful AD shield for the CV's and can protect itself and it's escorts when going close inshore on bombardment and deterrent missions and be able to shrug off a significant amount of hits. Coupled with modern sensors. I would envision a class of 4 ships, with generally two active and two in refit/training.

A bombardment range of 10-15nm inland and likley much further with other types of munitions puts a lot of important coastal infrastructure at risk. It also forces a lot of opponents into expending a lot of resources to attempt to counter these ships. I see these being most valuable in smaller conflicts, but still playing a role in a larger conflict. The modern machinery and reduction of one main gun turret will significantly reduce the manpower requirements over a Iowa Class BB.

Too bad they demilled all those spare gun barrels and shells.

 

[NavyShooter]

While the Iowa class is impressive (I've visited a couple of them now) and the North Carolina is similarly impressive, and the Texas was neat, none of them would be truly practical to re-activate and put back in service.

Especially when they'd literally have to build the industry that manufactured the ammunition again from scratch after (as @Stoker points out) they've disposed of all of them.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Just my own 0.02, but a large number of smaller more nimble ships that each can send a load of missiles with the same punch as a battleship salvo, further and with far greater accuracy, is better.

 

[MilEME09]

Just my own 0.02, but a large number of smaller more nimble ships that each can send a load of missiles with the same punch as a battleship salvo, further and with far greater accuracy, is better.

With how powerful missiles are, and nukes, it woukd take one missile or torpedo to wreck your fleets firepower. A larger quantity of smaller ships would be better. Id sooner want 36 corvette than 12 destroys.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

With how powerful missiles are, and nukes, it woukd take one missile or torpedo to wreck your fleets firepower. A larger quantity of smaller ships would be better. Id sooner want 36 corvette than 12 destroys.

Keep in mind that BB were built to take hits from 2 ton AP projectiles travelling at roughly Mach 2 and to keep fighting, that encompasses the majority of the Anti-ship missiles out there.

 

[dapaterson]

Keep in mind that BB were built to take hits from 2 ton AP projectiles travelling at roughly Mach 2 and to keep fighting, that encompasses the majority of the Anti-ship missiles out there.

Modern torpedoes are orders of magnitude more deadly.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Modern torpedoes are orders of magnitude more deadly.

True, but that applies equally to CV and Destroyers, yet we keep building them.

 

[Furniture]

With how powerful missiles are, and nukes, it woukd take one missile or torpedo to wreck your fleets firepower. A larger quantity of smaller ships would be better. Id sooner want 36 corvette than 12 destroys.

That ignores some realities of operating at sea.

Destroyers are larger, but also more capable because of the sensors and weapons carried. Naval weapons and sensors are big, and they need big platforms to carry them.

There is also the problem of weather. Wind doesn't make the ground move, but it definitely makes the water move. Bigger ships handle bad weather better than small ones. Unless you're operating in protected waters, you need size.

Lastly, a corvette isnt going to be that much harder to hit than a destroyer. Both are big ships on a mostly flat surface...

The best solution is a mix of ship types to fill different roles and maximize the value of money spent.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Keep in mind that BB were built to take hits from 2 ton AP projectiles travelling at roughly Mach 2 and to keep fighting, that encompasses the majority of the Anti-ship missiles out there.

Even older generation anti-ship missiles/bombs can have the physical size, warhead size and penetrative effects to make any historical battleship gun weep, alongside making any armour ever put to see effectively dead weight protection wise.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Even older generation anti-ship missiles/bombs can have the physical size, warhead size and penetrative effects to make any historical battleship gun weep, alongside making any armour ever put to see effectively dead weight protection wise.

Any public docs on test results of Anti-ship missile on BB style armour?

 

[NavyShooter]

Yamato turret armour - shot with a 16" projectile.

It's 26 inches of hardened (Face hardened I think?) Steel.

Theoretically, a modern RPG-7 Tandem Charge warhead could penetrate this.

Javelin (open source) says it could penetrate as well.

AT-4 could not, nor can the M-72.

 

[Maxman1]

While the Iowa class is impressive (I've visited a couple of them now) and the North Carolina is similarly impressive, and the Texas was neat

I've visited USS Massachusetts in Battleship Cove and it's impressive, too. And has the distinction of firing the first and last 16" shells of any American battleship in the war, and had zero casualties.