Nope. The Iowas were in mothballs from 58-68, New Jersey alone brought back into service in 1967-69 (no major refit, still WW2 minus all the 20mm and 40mm AA guns, added some fresh EW equipment), and then heavily refitted in the 1980s.
The only sense of the US "having them" between 1958 and 1982 or so was that they hadn't been sold for scrap yet.
I think that constitutes “having them”!
The premise here is to scope something whereby the UK also “has” BBs.
The Iowas had 4 separate Aegis refits proposed, and rejected, on the grounds that sensitive electronics would not survive being within 200ft of the muzzle blast.
Quite. As I keep saying, big guns and missile systems dont mix. If the US didnt do it then it seems unwise for the RN to try with even earlier electronics.
I'm kinda confused why you think a battleship is going to have a "point big guns at ships" mission. That literally hasn't happened since 1944.
Because the RN did justify Vanguard on that reason upto the late 50s. Because at a push, if you lack lots of carriers, they might be. Especially up North Altantic with its weather.
There was a credible outcome in 82 that would have seen ships trading gunfire.
Because we are trying to find a reason to keep the ships, and the fundamental thing that defines them is their guns. Unlike the US which still seems to dream of refighting the SWP again, NGS hasnt been a driver for the UK (ironically perhaps as we’ve done quite a lot of it, far more than we’ve done shooting missiles at stuff), and ASV has been a major UK theme ?anti Sverdlov, Exocet fitments having lost carriers, counter marking etc.).
This is "stop fighter-sized Soviet antiship missiles from blowing my ship in half" armament.
Hence why one of my “requirements” was to divert attention from the really important ship - the carrier. Soaking up incoming AShMs if it comes to that.
Effectively, these are no longer the core of the fleet, they are escorts with a focussed purpose.
Yes, all 10 turrets were manned through the 1968 reactivation of New Jersey. In the 1980s, they were down to 6 turrets, Marine Detachment manned one, Navy manned 5.
They did get updated gun directors in the 1980s refit, IIRC the 5" still had some AA capabilities because the USN didn't mount a Mk11 or Mk13 in place of one of the 5" on either side. (Would need to be in the middle 5" location, which is the aftmost remaining 5" turret with the 1980s refit.)
Interesting. Although the US had the advantage of decent guns and directors already. The RN’s war and post war issues with that are legion. The 5.25” are a dead calibre.
No 3", the US didn't use a lot of the 3"/70s. We figured out Tartar and used it on just about every ship that could mount one. Plus, the 1980s refits added 4x Phalanx CIWS.
Then your battleship will have ZERO AA.
So be it. So do RFAs. So practically do our carriers (and especially our commando carriers), in fact given most of the missiles dont work, we dont have much AA at all. In fact pre “get well” and arguably still into the 70s neither did the USN.
The RN struggled against A4s in 82 with the second generation missiles.
I'd like to be a fly on the wall when you tell an Admiral that his personal flagship will have no onboard defense against kamikazes or antiship missiles. I'll probably learn some new profanity.
If the Admiral wants a battleship, this is what he accepts. They’ve taken far worse!
Either figure out how to mount some SAMs on a battleship or keep some 5"/5.25" turrets.
The 5"/5.25" guns also have a shore bombardment role in the USN, that's why the MARDET manned one turret on the Iowas.
Well the US does love to have a 100 ways to kill something. Me, I’d leave that to the 15” and given our ships had major habitation issues due to crew required - do something about that.
Noting these would be the only 5.25” ships in the fleet aside from a slack handful of Didos which wont last as long anyway. Arguably thats a good reason to 3”/4.5” them.
Sea Cat is a freaking glorified ATGM. Subsonic, 5km short range.
The RN literally replaced Sea Cat mounts with Bofors 40mm guns again.
And, its the SR system of the era that the UK fitted to everything. So it’d fit them to retained BBs. As I said before, the more we fit, the higher the chance one might one day hit something!
Because Talos kinda suck for general bombardment work.
In which case you want guns. You aren’t having both in one ship. Sorry!
In the 1980s you'd have Sea Dart which isn't bad but does have a minimum range. Buy some RAM launchers and/or Goalkeeper/Phalanx CIWS to cover that minimum range area.
We only bought CIWS post falklands when they couldn’t pretend all the other systems worked fine / exposed they didn’t work fine. Quite happy to throw those on if the BB is surviving through the 80s.
If you can't keep someone from hitting it with a missile the size of a fighter, you have no business keeping one.
Why? And what does ripping chunks of its main armament out at vast cost and time for missiles that frankly dont stop that, do?
The Iowas had nothing to stop missiles hitting them until Phalanx (their 5” being largely irrelevent) and even then its questionable as it didnt help in 91.
I dont get the controversy tbh - the aim is to ape the US and have a BB (as in big gun armoured ship) in the fleet somewhere into the 80s. The US did that without putting any T series or SM systems on it, or even a SR system until the 80s and Phalanx. Why wouldn’t the RN in this AH be able to do likewise?
The RN kind of did do this actually with some of the better condition 6” cruisers, they didnt get 3” or missiles, but served into the 70s as flagships with big guns. Very much a poor man’s battleship (ok, a middle class man, poor man doesnt really have a navy!).
The cruisers it tried to modernise (Tiger CCHs) are pretty universally derided as hugely expensive and time consuming for little benefit. They were far less ambitious modernisations than fitting LR SAM systems.
