How Would We Update the Battleship for 2024? With

[@ReclinedPhysicist]

Drach is really really really really really really really really REALLY into classic warships

[@middleclassthrash]

And the internet is better for it.

[@michaelmoorrees3585]

Drach like visiting Ryan, because he's got a battleship.

[@F-Man]

Really.

[@ReclinedPhysicist]

@@F-Man No, not really

[@qetoun]

Really?

[@johnnash5118]

Replace C-turret with a giant Inspector Gadget arm and tennis racket to swat away the anti-ship missiles.

[@someopinion]

Yes, you're hired!

[@andrewbesso4257]

"Go go gadget ABM!"

[@jonathanstrong4812]

jeez! would you hah but funny-heh-heh-heh

[@willpat3040]

@@jonathanstrong4812 Ha ha ha. That was funny but OMG it's turret 3, please don't use the smelly British turret naming system. Ha ha ha

[@qetoun]

An idea so good money ceases to be an object.

[@REMIREZZ]

I work as a project manager on a navy program and I keep adding into our budget proposals that we should recommission the Iowas and people always get a kick out of it. If only they knew I wasn’t joking.

[@pahtar7189]

Better to keep the BBs as museum pieces and build a few new BBNs from scratch to avoid countless compromises needed for the old hulls.

[@papanam4267]

⁠@@pahtar7189 I am in total agreement with you on that. Let’s face it, after about 80 years of service, it’s that much more expensive to keep repairing non-stop leaking hydraulic piping, joints, systems… and the engines? We don’t have spare parts for those models anymore, let alone the mechanical skill that still resides with many retired Enginemen of that era. And what about metal fatigue? Definitely go with new battleships with mine and torpedo resistant triple bottoms as before, but with newer more efficient more powerful engines (nuclear), and the latest electronic suites of weaponry and countermeasures, but we’ll definitely need six big 16” guns if but for no other reason than intimidation and non-stop sustained firepower. One thing the Iowa class has that I’ve never seen in any other ship in any navy are the super sleek graceful lines from fore to aft of their hulls. They are works of art- the unexpected result of the best streamlining design for such massive behemoths that look so symmetrical and graceful, and yet are quietly so deadly, and so fast!

[@wiseguy3696]

Why wouldn't you be joking? That ship would be a death sentence for sailors onboard.

[@michaelclark587]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to build new ones to today's standards? Seems to me that there's too much "ancient" tech to work around.

[@REMIREZZ]

@@wiseguy3696 oh yea it’s absolutely a joke, despite what I said haha

[@chrismaverick9828]

I feel like I can listen to Drach for hours. And often do.

[@dogloversrule8476]

Same

[@therealniksongs]

What's better than a six hour Drydock as you fall asleep, and you wake up and Drach is still going....?

[@gleamingcolt]

I do the exact same thing

[@oldhifi8820]

@@therealniksongs I have had that same thing happen to me. I just go back to the last thing I remember and continue from there. Sunday night is reserved for watching Drydock..

[@Viking88Power]

I play them often when I go to sleep.

[@alviecrumpton5216]

Drach, Careful buddy. Much like me, your belt armor thickness is fast approaching treaty limits....LOL You guys rock!!

[@henrycarlson7514]

So True

[@Drachinifel]

To be fair, I'd just had a very large lunch :D

[@henrycarlson7514]

@@Drachinifel lunch is good

[@RahpaSmurf]

Haha I am going to use this phrase to describe my waist as well 😂

[@MartinAdelstein]

This made my day 😂 Treaty limits. Omg.

[@brucesheehe6305]

New ammo for the 16-inch naval guns. GPS guided and range boosted to at least 100 miles. Add 4 smaller 5-inch auto deck guns similar to what is on current destroyers. Laser weapons for drone defense with a modern gas turbine generator for the power. Add some dual bushmaster 20mm autocannons for close in defense. Please fix hole in wall.

[@crazyeyez1502]

I agree on the 5" guns. Leave one or two of the 5/38 mounts, per side,, but modify them to be twin 5" autos from the modern ships.

[@jth877]

The Navy did look into replacing the 5"/38s with mk45 mounts. It would have been a nice modification. I suspect the cost and time to replace the old 5" guns was deemed excessive. They wanted these ships recommissioned quickly.

[@Orinslayer]

The 16 inch gun system needs more automation, like robotics or hydraulics, and it needs rocket boosted shells.

[@crazyeyez1502]

@Orinslayer funny enough, I'm listening to Drach's latest drydock, and he briefly talked about that. I missed the part on which exact gun system the question was on... but, the concern (with 1940's tech) was powder bag handling. Semi-automation. The projectile could survive being shoved around by a robot, but the silk powder bag is far more fragile.

[@jth877]

@@Orinslayer The Navy had an extended range projectile program for them. Once the Iowa incident happened and the cold war ended, it was shelved. I believe it was an 11" sabot round with about 100mile range.

[@AmericanThunder]

I'm glad they take aesthetics seriously. It's not just how good you are at blowing stuff up that counts, it's how good you look doing it.

[@APRH305]

Wave Motion Gun

[@stuartwald2395]

That's included in the WMT engine refit (and making the upper decks airtight).

[@shinjiikari1021]

Space battleship New Jersey, has a nice ring to it

[@shinjiikari1021]

さらば、地球よ~....

[@PeteOtton]

@@shinjiikari1021 We will Return!

[@BrianHoff04]

Absolutely!!!

[@spudnikflyover1227]

I love how every now and then you get a tiny glance from Ryan like "Wait, you are doing WHAT with my ship???"

[@Slapdash1]

I wonder: the admirals, the captains, the engineers, the chiefs, the sailors... All throgh the years they must have thought of the ship as being THEIRS. But somehow I think, that now the ship is, figuratively of course, Ryan's. No more commotion or battle stations. There's visitors but not at all times. But Ryan... Didn't he say in one of the videos that sometimes he stays the night? Also: I wonder what the salary is for the coolest job in the world?

[@mentorofarisia371]

Two of my favorites - Ryan and Drach. Yay!

[@whatever8282828]

Guess what stays? It's probably the gearbox. Can you believe how excited Curator Ryan was when they discovered the keys to open that up!

[@RNemy509]

Dragonfire go pew pew pew. This is removed directly from the sales pamphlet bullet points.

[@ph89787]

White Lightning attack. Or Neutron blast.

[@shinjiikari1021]

@@ph89787 well, if at first you don't suceed you know what to do

[@HereticalKitsune]

You mean laser points, right? Dragonfire got no bullets after all!

[@kainhall]

@@ph89787 LIGHTNING BOLT!!! LIGHTNING BOLT!!!! LIGHTNING BOLT!!! LIGHTNING BOLT!!!! LIGHTNING BOLT!!! LIGHTNING BOLT!!!!

[@Alsadius]

I mean, the whole point of the system is to remove bullets, so removing bullet points seems fitting.

[@DK-gy7ll]

One thorny issue is the fact that modern electronics might be adversely affected by the shock and blast of the 16" main guns, limiting where you can put it. Another issue is that the New Jersey's greatest threat would be enemy submarines, and unless she has ASW escort ships she'd be a sitting duck without some ASW measures of her own.

[@pyro1047]

IIRC in the 80's refits some or all of the Iowa's received Noisemaker Countermeasures, which as most of us know are deployed to spoof homing torpedos which have pretty much entirely replaced the legacy unguided torpedo. So those could be modernized for current EWS standards. In addition, I believe ASROC missiles are still in service; having been adapted for use in VLS cells; and any helicopters carried by her, and her fleet screen could easily be equipped with Sonobuoys, a dipping Sonar, and air-dropped Mk 46 torpedos for while not perfect, an *Adequate* set of ASW abilities. And of course as long as she's in a proper battle fleet, they should be handling the search and detection of any subsurface threats and an Iowa could simply use AEGIS to fire its owns mulitple ASROC VLS on contacts picked up by picket ships. As for the sensitively of modern electronics, I imagine they're still much better than the literal Vacuum tubes used when they were first build. And if they ARE still negatively effected, could be dampened/protected easier than older systems. The MASSIVE issue they dodged in this video, is basically all the Iowas Propulsion systems are COMPLETELY shot and would all need to be replaced for ANY sort of reliability. And that goes for almost EVERYTHING else too, ALL the turrets need complete overhauls as most were leaking 50+ US Gallons of hydraulic fluid PER turret A WEEK. Constantly suffered electrical shorts, EXTREMELY dangerous faults in the shell/powder rammers (Which is one of the Primary suspected causes of the 1989 Turret II explosion on USS Iowa killing 47 gun crew in that turret), and oh yeah; USS Iowa NEVER fixed Turret II and just traversed her forward to "Look normal" and only actually has 2 functioning main battery turrets as she was quickly mothballed afterwards while the USN was quickly trying to do every legal and even more illegal things possible to deny ALL responsibility, to the point they scapegoated it ALL on a dead crewman in the guncrew with 0 evidence, threw overboard all evidence inside the turret and repainted it within just days to a week or two afterwards, and EVERY SINGLE lead investigator they chose were connected to suspected reasons for the explosion so had a MASSIVE conflict of interest in covering their own ass. TO THIS DAY, the USN has rejected EVERY independent study showing just dropping the powder bags could ignite the tailings, which upon burning through to the next bags Black Powder Booster would set off the entire charge. And tests showing the bags were sensitive enough that in drop tests done to simulate an "Overram Event" in which the powder ram was too fast and compressed the charges much harder and further, with much more friction into the gun than intended (Such as the convenient rammer fault in Turret II's center gun I.E THE ONE THAT EXPLODED, where upon the rammer would occasionally, at complete random go FULL SEND at max power, speed and depth...). When these drop tests ordered by CONGRESS after the USN repeatedly refused to perform them showed an immediately dangerous like 40% CHANCE of EXPLODING the USN man in direct command immediately ordered them all stopped and concluded "They had no correlation to anything on an actual Iowa". Despite 9/10 independent investigations and studies ALL concluding an Overram event resulting in ignition and detonation of the powder charge before the breech could be closed, which detonated a further 2,000lbs of powder charges in the turret were what caused the incident. The USN has NEVER apologized to the family of the 2 crewmen they scapegoated as "Intentionally causing the explosion via first a "timed" and later claimed "Chemical" detonator placed hidden between the charges after engaging in a "Homosexual Relationship" that ended badly, resulting in the 1 Gun crewman committing a Murder/Suicide. ALL evidence claimed by the USN and NCIS was never corroborated via independent investigation, and any that was, such as the FBI's post-mortem psychological profile agreeing with the USN that the Crewman was of the state of mind to carry out the bombing, was tainted by the NCIS withholding ALL data found which refuted their evidence; such as using severe sleep deprivation and intense interrogation to force a testimony from a sailor that he received homosexual advances from the dead gunner (After he denied this for 3-4 days of what these days is LITERALLY considered torture i.e. "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" the main one being extreme Sleep deprivation and intense stress.), with the sailor recanting his testimony days later which NEVER was mentioned by the Navy, only that he'd testified to being approached; always leaving out he'd denied this, admitted it after days of torture, and recanted his testimony only days after. They purposely leaked ALL evidence claiming these men were gay and that the gunner 100% purposely caused the explosion and killed everyone (Even with the one that lived, being married to a women who herself was interrogated EXTREMELY inappropriately all based on her and her husband's sex life i.e. "How often, what positions, what acts do you two do with eachother? Etc, trying to find ways to imply he was having "Gay Sex" with his wife.) After the massive public relations backlash following the obviously EXTREMELY corrupt, downright criminal, and numerous conflicts of interest in the investigation; the USN's official and final position finally changed to "There is 0% chance the incident could've had an accidental cause (Outright ignoring EVERY independent investigation proving this was almost 100% the EXACT cause), and that "They've no evidence the incident was caused Intentionally"... So to this day according to the USN "There is no possible thing which could've accidentally caused the explosion, and no evidence it was intentional". 2 statements directly contradicting eachother, and as mentioned NO apology ever given to the families of the men accused of causing it, and NO charges against the men faking, withholding and/or destroying evidence, with the few handful of lower ranked men that received disciplinary action; having their reprimands suspended i.e. Basically canceled and not actually carried out.

[@g2rich]

You are correct about the threat BUT don't forget that the Iowas were constructed with triple bottoms specifically to prevent serious damage from the Japanese long lance torpedo which was the most powerful torpedo used during WWII and had a warhead that was larger than many of the modern torpedos used by modern navies around the world.

[@DeliveryMcGee]

@@pyro1047 Modern torpedoes aren't all that susceptible to noisemaker countermeasures AFAIK; even when BB-62 was last in active service, the Mk48 ADCAP that its submarine escorts were using was wire-guided, with onboard active sonar once the guy back on the boat stopped manually driving it.

[@DeliveryMcGee]

@@g2rich WWII torpedo defense was built against contact detonations against the side of the hull, modern torpedoes explode under the keel and break the ship's back. Probably wouldn't be as effective as the demonstration videos of one going off under the exact midpoint of a Cold War-era destroyer, but if you leave a turret/barbette hanging with no water under it and the rest of the ship floating, the ship will have a Bad Day™.

[@FrankBUILTperformance]

The other issue is, isn’t all the spare ammo / powder for these gins gone? I remember that from an earlier video. Same with spare barrels and other parts. Quite simply, the costs is waaaaayyyy too high to ever bring back in service.

[@rhekman]

Great stuff Drach. I love the idea of playing to New Jersey's strengths of the armored citadel and excellent power generation. Since Ryan asked what us commenters would change/add: 1. With removal of 5" gun crews, and the associated reduction in overall staff, consolidate & modernize berthing and crew spaces to the latest standards as much as practicable. 2. Trim the docking keels on the hull (similar to what was done on Midway) and install modern computer designed propellers to maximize speed, efficiency, and smoothness. 3. Add a bulbous bow to improve balance of bouyancy and hydrodynamics, particularly to prevent tall waves crashing over the forward deck in rough seas. 4. Take advantage of the Iowa class' reserve of bouyancy to carry extra fuel to share when travelling in a battle group. 5. Maximize Command & Control spaces and flag staff accommodations so the ship can command a battle group independent of a supercarrier (e.g. providing missile & drone defense to littoral combat ships, jeep carriers, etc.)

[@elijahwerner6130]

Pretty much the only practical modern use for an Iowa that I can see is as a well-protected and imposing command & control ship. These modifications would fit the bill nicely.

[@HENRISTARKS]

You seriously need Psychiatric Treatment. No Need for anything other than a T-AOR WITH 9600 SURFACE SHIP MUNITIONS AND 15O,000 BARRELS OF UltraLow Sulfur diesel fuel, 30,000 barrels of JP 5 aviation fuel for helicopters MV22B Firescout Drones. If you ever really LEARNED something besides being ignorant. You would be DANGEROUS!

[@TheDogGeneral]

@rhekman all of which proposals tamper with a historical object all the improvements that you listed would be beneficial but see then you're altering the originality and authenticity of the USS New Jersey and her siblings Other than adding side balance blisters so you could install additional weapons or other equipment given the scope and scale of the battleship I don't see any other way that's not intrusive in some capacity to alter her historical significance she's in Iowa-class Battleship and if we need something similar with all of the improvements you emphasize it's simply better to build a new one from scratch

[@rhekman]

@@TheDogGeneral Dude, it's a thought experiment. Every time activating and modernizing an Iowa comes up, it's clear that new construction would be cheaper and more efficient.

[@TheDogGeneral]

@rhekman and be that as it may it is a thoughtful commentary as to why they ought not to modernization given the technological revolutions that we've had I for one would love to see the Iowa-class battleships back in service with some moderate minimalistic improvements to them to make them simply seaworthy again and combat ready again But on that arcade if they were reactivated again and modernized again they would likely lose a lot of their historically original materials and I think we've reached the antithesis where a new battleship is necessary Whatever it looks like whatever is Armament would be certainly a ship with a main battery of Guns is not necessarily completely obsolete

[@georged9234]

Thank you both for allowing me to share first half of the Leyte Gulf symposium seated between you! I was so focused on getting a seat upon late arrival that I lost all perception of a dais for invited speakers. I tip my hat to you both. Fantastic symposium!!!

[@navylostboy]

we need a mock up please!

[@Independentthinker-d5q]

YES . At least a computer illustration

[@firefly2k7uk]

That would actually be a really interesting addition. A "what if" model of the vessel

[@manifesto52]

Back in '82 or '83, around the time of the USS New Jersey was being recommissioned, my father managed to get us a unchaperoned tour of the ship. I was 4 or 5 at the time and my head was able to fit the 16 inch guns. My dad was USAF (stationed at Hickam), born and raised in southern Jersey, and was a big WWII buff. From what I can remember, it was a fun tour. My father and I wandered the ship for hours.

[@Spaatz77]

Absolutely one of your best segments, Ryan. As always, you and Drach are great together. Now someone needs to build a 10' model of the upgraded New Jersey that you two described. Put it on display and keep updating it as new tech comes on-line. Just a fun what-if. How about upgrading the Jersey and running up and down the Red Sea or Persian Gulf. It could be a semi-permanent floating fortress with enough anti-drone systems to enable it to stay there, sporting a massive arsenal of SMs to defend shipping in the region and deal out some real pain. With the aft-end clear, you have a launch and recovery pad for F-35Bs, Apaches and other VTOL systems. Yeah, I know. But, I guy can dream sometimes.

[@zxggwrt]

That would be a very sleek looking ship. They should do it; fantasy is great entertainment.

[@Rob_F8F]

There was a episode about converting the Iowas into "battlecarriers"

[@toddr737]

Always good to see Drach on the channel.

[@charlesschneider7079]

I really enjoyed seeing Drachinifel's take on this modernization concept. As to your request for ideas for my upgrades, I am in agreement about removing the 5 in. mounts, Tomahawk/Harpoon launchers and the CIWS stations and installing the VLS systems as well as the Aegis radars that Drachinifel suggested. Instead of the British laser system, I would go with the style that was tested on the USS Portland in its place. The other thing that I would do If I had an unlimited budget would be to remove the steam turbines and go with gas turbines similar to those used on the Arleigh Burkes and Perry-class frigates enabling them to use the same fuel as the "'cans" in the escort group easing the supply chain requirements.

[@barto6577]

The steam boilers already use the same fuel as the Turbine Twisters. I sent a bit of it to OHPs and Sprue Cans in the 80s.

[@vbscript2]

The idea of shooting down small drones with the 16" guns sounds hilarious. Kind of like the battleship version of skeet shooting. *triple 16" turret spins around and guns elevate* "Pull!"

[@oscarwebb2149]

Yamato style anti aircraft shells are required!

[@kiphenry4684]

Actually, Yamato tried using those 18.1 inch AA shells on her suicide run, but they were ineffective. As I recall, they could only fire a few of them because they tore up the rifling.

[@rayjay848]

You could just powder poof a hundred hobby drones with one shot. 😂😂

[@oscarwebb2149]

@@kiphenry4684 yeah you’d hope the US navy could come up with a way to make the idea work

[@timothybarham6374]

A 16 inch buckshot or fletchet round for anti drone defense.

[@ClippyC]

i REALLY LOVE THIS TYPE OF SHOW, I WOULD LOVE A LONG VERSION IN MORE DETAIL !!

[@kncannon]

Baldrick: " I have a cunning plan!"

[@KaerkaPhillips]

I used to think a lot about this when I was active duty - the idea of how to modernize the last gen of US battleships. Here would be my wish list: - Replace the steam boilers and power plant with nuclear reactors, and maybe consider driving the propeller shafts directly with electromagnetic motors. - Replace the 16in guns with rail guns - Replace the 5in guns with either laser point/ciws systems (as you guys described), or possibly something like the gun from the new destroyer. - Add in laser close in weapon systems - Consider expanding out the phalanx systems to quad-barreled designs, and more of them - Create a local, ai-assisted (not sci-fi ai, but like modern bigdata machine learning) fire control system, which would use a combination of local radar + magnetic sensors, lidar, and cameras - to determine threats and automatically create a firing and defense plan; though a human would be required to actually execute it. - Create a more modern aegis system, but with the battleship as basically a floating datacenter, receiving sensor inputs from the rest of the fleet, and use it for processing automatic threat detection and response across the local fleet. But anyway - these are all fun to think about, but it’d be probably cheaper to build a new boat than to retrofit a current battleship to any of that.

[@w8stral]

I have as well, but it would be cheaper to just take a carrier hull design, add a bit more armor depth to it and build new and make it a BB instead of a carrier. Two islands with multi redundant RADAR, sat comms, LASERs in the center and lots and LOTS of hatches for missiles. It would be large enough could have deck cranes to carry anti torpedo broadside & stern systems which on a carrier you really can't.

[@wiseguy3696]

Just for the nuclear plant alone, you are correct, it would be cheaper and less time consuming to build a new ship. There's a reason no ship has ever been converted before.

[@HungryCats70]

It WOULD be cheaper to design and build a new ship, though the USN has not performed well in that regard lately...

[@w8stral]

@@HungryCats70 The USN isn't designing the ships is the problem. They USED to design the ships. So now the USN is completely ignorant of engineering and THEY are the ones writing the specifications. On top of that the US maritime industry has completely collapsed so they do not have engineers EITHER. Any decent engineer has gone into Aerospace or computers leaving well, the low tier engineers(those who have degrees, but no knowledge)

[@HungryCats70]

@@w8stral True. The US has seen a lot of capabilities disappear over the decades. Doesn't help that educational system isn't producing the number of skilled trades and specialists that we need, either.

[@camrontabler7543]

I think that the 5 inch guns (38's, 50's, whatever) are the solution to drone swarms. The ones on NJ were designed to take out planes that have a similar profile to the larger drones. Switching to an auto-loading system would allow the ship to put up a denser flak field and clear the swarms.

[@SentientMattress531]

What about the 5”54 Mark 42? Only one barrel so easier to maintain, more recent so more accurate.

[@manythingslefttobuild]

@@SentientMattress531 You might not need a more accurate 5" gun if you are using it to make a wall of flak.

[@Krahazik]

The problem the current CWIS cannon has is its limited ammo and then the reload time. If you could move the ammo can down below the turret, use a bigger can and come up with a system to quickly swap from an empty can to a full one quickly. That way you can then begin refilling the empty can, from within an armor section below the deck.

[@shinjiikari1021]

@@Krahazik i have a dumb idea, hive shells for the 5in (like the sanshikidan) for anti drone probably better to just be full area frag tho.

[@eddiecharles6457]

Or replace them with 2 or 3 Otobreda 127/64 LW guns with vulcano rounds each side. Free up crew berths and ammunition magazines.

[@SkywalkerWroc]

10:45 "I'd create a beehive round for the 16-inch gun" - YEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS! LET'S GOOOOOOO!!!! 🚀🚀🚀🚀💥💥💥💥

[@blusofa8814]

These two together are the best

[@qetoun]

My only suggestion is an ultra-patriotic paint job of dazzling Red, White and Blue with a giant American Eagle painted on the bow.

[@ba2724]

And Cher riding atop one of the 16” guns. Oh wait, that happened already...

[@qetoun]

@@ba2724 Stick to the paintjob son.

[@briancisco1176]

Hooray for Drach!

[@Kami-sama.isekai]

By far one of my favorite collab in YT. Glad that Drach was here.

[@ryanschweikhardt]

Me and Drach agree on the pineapple antenna!!!

[@michaelsommers2356]

So you don't want the ship to be able to use HF radio?

[@martinmarheinecke7677]

​@@michaelsommers2356There are more than enough ships where the HF antenna is mounted in a less disruptive location.

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@martinmarheinecke7677 Are those antennas as effective? And what does this antenna disrupt? The field of fire of the forward turrets? When has that ever been an issue?

[@ryanschweikhardt]

@@michaelsommers2356 correct

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@ryanschweikhardt Correct about what?

[@greendoodily]

Sounds like a solid plan, here’s my tweaks: you didn’t mention it, but you’d want to add in the biggest CIC/CEC possible (maybe buried in the new superstructure, but preferably down in the citadel), as I think her biggest value would be as the toughest fleet flagship imaginable. I would also fit a pair of 57mm in one set of the forward 5”/38 mounts, as whilst lasers can take care of aerial drones, I don’t think they have the oomph to take out water craft (whether drones or traditional fast attack craft). Oh and you definitely want to look at the ammunition for the 16”/50s; some kind of sub-calibre extended range munition with a guidance package (essentially a gun launched GLMRS round) would be very useful.

[@VigilanteAgumon]

Personally, I'd go with an Oto Melara 76mm instead. The Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates still had them in American service and still use them under foreign service.

[@Solnoric]

Or, hear me out, reconfigure the guns for launching missiles.

[@BlackEpyon]

@@Solnoric You'd have to either remove the turret completely and build afresh in it's space. I believe one of the other Iowas, they removed a turret and replaced it with a VLS cell.

[@bluefoxy6478]

​@@BlackEpyon All Iowa's have their three turrets, and I think the guy was referring to gun-launched missiles. These are a thing that the US has experimented on, and not just on the terrible 152 mm systems installed on the Sheridan and that M60 starship. Such a system was being developed for the Abrams 120 mm gun, but was cancelled, but now if memory serves it is getting dusted off and being brought back into development. So a 16 inch gun launched missile is not out of the realm of possibilities.

[@BlackEpyon]

@@bluefoxy6478 I remember that the 16" rocket-shell was a thing.

[@ΣτελιοςΠεππας]

Hey Ryan/Drach, I have a different challenge for you. You said that building a modern ship is far more practical than trying to modernize an old one. Based on that, the challenge is to make a "modern battleship," which is roughly the same size as the old one (size referring to dimensions, not displacement). I think it would make for an interesting video since the only massive warships built today in the west are carriers.

[@tidepoolclipper8657]

No need to try to make them the same size as Iowa at this point. That's too big now for modern naval crews. Something more akin to a battlecruiser ship would be more practical. As for the other stuff that would apply to even an Iowa sized ship; -bulbous bow -shorter command structure than WW1 and WW2 battleships -underwater dock for aquatic drones -air drone stations -proper internal helicopter hanger -composite and reactive armor -gas turbine or nuclear engine -two automatically loading 16" guns with guided shells at the very front -cluster of VLS missiles at the back -MK 49 or SeaRam CIWS missile containers -30mm Bushmaster 2 automatic guns -two DragonFire laser guns on the sides -two Odin disabling lasers towards the front and one at the back -four Leonidas microwave guns on the sides -Naval Decoy IDS300 -Nulka missile decoy -Ultra Electronics Ocean Systems ADC MK2 Torpedo countermeasure -strong keel protection from self-guiding torpedoes -One Rheinmetall Oerlikon Millennium 35mm Gun as last line of defense -Naval Tactical Data System -An/SLQ-32 electronic warfare suite -An/SPY-6 3D Radar

[@andrewzheng4038]

It’d probably look a lot like a Kirov. You could take advantage of the increased size and distinguish it from other ships by adding some large VLS tubes for ballistic and/or hypersonic missiles, and the rest would be typical Mk.41 VLS. Give it modern electronics like the Aegis system and that’s about it

[@JeraldDelventhal]

Now I have some ideas for a new model. Thank you.

[@xstarwolfx]

I'd love to see a concept drawing or CGI. I could imagine a modernized look would be incredible with the stealthy features with the side plates.

[@jimsn9624]

I finally built my COBI battleship New Jersey this past weekend! It’s such a detailed model!!!

[@bernarrcoletta7419]

I'm glad that you found a way to install a VLS because I wasn't going to let it go. I would: 1) Nuclear reactors. However many it would take to keep the baseline power +25% 2) Any fuel storage, after the weight and balance issues are addressed, should be dedicated to providing fuel for the escorts. 3) Remove all the 5"-38 cal. mounts and replace them with 2 - Leonardo Otobreda 127/64 Vulcano guns, 2 - Rolling Frame missile launchers, and 2 - Leonardo OTO Melara 76 mm/62 Davide/Strales guns. 4) I'm making the recommendation in #3, assuming that 4 DragomFire lasers can fit in the old 40mm gun tubs 5) Update the existing helicopter facilities to accommodate an SH-60 type helicopter 6) I agree with Drach to streamline the superstructure and install SPY-6 radars

[@carneeki]

Agree with reactors, but potentially even more power, I'd want numbers on the electrical load for two of those lasers firing simultaneously, while also generating enough heat to run the props at full steam. Potentially different prop designs if the shafts can be run at different speeds, and new bearings+gland packing on the stern, I recall Ryan mentioning the current bearing boxes aren't keeping the water out; a more modern packing material for the seal that will survive longer between service intervals. I also like the idea of fuel storage for fleet escorts.

[@MrCantStopTheRobot]

Shifting an Iowa into an ersatz mothership / fleet tender is interesting...

[@cmmuskiet6998]

Changing out from is current boiler/steam generating and propulsion systems would be impossible. These systems are deep in the ship protected by very thick armor. Ryan talks about how the ships engines are very well stored and protected because if not, the ship would be nothing but one big paper weight. Engines can not be changed out or replaced.

[@jintsuubest9331]

Im confused about why said battleship are carrying fuel if it is going nuclear. There will need to be places allocated for capicator, a lot of them, and they are going to be big. We are looking at minimum of 4 laser/microwave combine turret. Those will suck up a shit tons of juices. Im of the opinion the gun powder turret has to go. Replaced with em turret.

[@bernarrcoletta7419]

@@jintsuubest9331 We only keep the fuel if the weight and balance equations need us to keep weight. Everything we've said is all supposition and the naval engineers can't make any changes until all the weights and volumes are accounted for.

[@Tclans]

Would be very interested to see an artists drawing of Drach’s ‘modern’ vision of a BB. Just to see how it looks.

[@Miller-i6m]

I think y’all should build a model with every up grade that was mentioned. It would be cool to see.

[@sheepFP5]

I think power generation may legitimately be an issue. The nameplate generation capacity of the Iowa class is often quoted around 10MW(e), a flight 3 Arleigh Burke pushes out 12MW(e) and they're already running out of power for next generation systems. New Jersey has something like 6 times the tonnage of an Arleigh Burke so from those rough numbers I doubt you'd get away with modernising radar and fire control without a power upgrade let alone directed energy weapons. Also, I believe there was a proposal to mount a SPY-1 during the very last refit which was canned because the panels on the forward superstructure would be too close to the turrets to withstand the blast pressure. I believe the safe distance for exposed electronics was something like 200ft from the muzzle...

[@wiseguy3696]

Our hull mounted sonar malfunctions when the 5" goes off on an Arleigh Burke, I can't imagine the havoc a 16" gun would have on modern electronics.

[@redman2989]

The moment Drach mentioned dragon fire I immediately thought, "how are they going to power that?" There's a reason the Navy is going with a larger hull and the integrated power systems of the Zumwalt class for the DDG(X), and that's the power constraints associated with the Burke's.

[@SonOfAB_tch2ndClass]

12:24 Roar forth DRAGON FIRE! -Honey Bunny

[@michaelnaven213]

Drach is such an encyclopedia of knowledge. A different must at your dinner party.👍

[@NeedlessPedantics]

Drach and Ryan Szimanski in the same video!!? WORLDS COLLIDE!

[@chrisdechristophe]

OK here is my recipe : 1 Remove all three main turrets and replace with rail guns front and rear, also add many vls front and rear. These turrets balance each other out so you only have to deal with excess buoyancy not trim. 2 Remove all secondary and tertiary guns aa etc. Replace with lasers and rapid fire modern guns 3 remove most of superstructure and replace with hangars for large drones and more vls (this gives her near aircraft carrier levels of power projection) 4 chop up engine in situ into chunks that can be ground up and removed via existing access. Use the aft turret tub to house a nuclear reactor designed to put out huge excess of power. Perhaps you can squeeze several micro nuclear reactors in the old engine space instead via existing access. 5 replace propellers and shafts with water jet thrusters and fit bow thrusters as well. Also fit forward bulge for hydro dynamics and housing a forward sonar 6 fit modern towed sonar and asw equipment, torpedo launchers or anti sub missiles. 7 fit modern fixed radar panels and directed energy (microwave) capability 8 I'm against her acting as a fuel carrier, that conflicts too much with defensive and offensive operations and adds fire risk. If there's still too much buoyancy after adding the rail guns and nuclear reactors just use water ballast in torpedo bulges. 9 make whole ship emp resistant by ensuring good earthing all round and hardening all electronics Bring back the battleships!

[@drronin112]

At that point you might as well just build a whole new ship from the ground up, Like Drach mentioned. The New Jersey Class Super battleship.

[@bobwitkowski6410]

One of the main things I would do is to automate the 16/50 thus increasing the rate of fire by cutting on the human factor. Also, get rid of their petrochemical propulsion system with that of nuclear with an increase in shaft horse power for an increased speed. The feul storage holds can be used for ammunition storage because the 16/50s would have that increase in their rate of fire and extra ammunition will be needed for them. With going nuclear the funnels won't be needed so IBM systems can replace them. All the 5/30s can be replaced with a variety of anti missile systems and medium range missile launchers. The Iowa class battleships would be true hotrods with a sting.

[@davidfuller581]

Even if you stuck with a combustion based system, just changing to gas turbines would massively cut down on space taken up by the power plant. The most modern variant of the LM2500 does 45,000 shp or so.

[@Colonel_Overkill]

The Dutch have a 30mm phalanx system that may be a good option for this rebuild as well, to be clear they put it together but its an American phalanx radar and control system on the American GAU-8 rotary cannon

[@ShanesGettingHandy]

Guided projectiles and rocket assisted projectiles for the 16" guns would give them an incredible modernization boost plus massively improved accuracy and range. ...Basically the same stuff artillery uses today but MUCH bigger.

[@Wannes_]

Considering how well that went for the Zumwalts ... There'd be room aplenty for the Navy's hypersonic missiles, like the USN is now mounting on the Zumwalts They're quite long, so you need a deep hull

[@dgthe3]

I bet that you could make a sabot to kinda canister shot 155mm army rounds. Eight 155s per round seems easily doable. A dozen might be possible, not sure. The barrel of a 16" 50 is more than twice as long as any 155mm gun I'm aware of, which would yield a descent range increase on its own. Each shell nominally takes a max of 33lbs, iirc. 8 shells would need 264. Then you've got the weight of the sabot as well. About 300 to 350 lb of charge feels the max you could get away with -which is around half of what a full charge for the 16s would have consisted of. Lastly, there is the sabot itself. If it had a timed release, where it falls away at the apex or even on the downward fall, you might get even more range. All those 155s have a much larger area than the bunch of them stuffed inside a bigger shell would have. All told, I bet a 20% range increase over what a 155 normally maxes out at is possible. And you get that for a relatively small investment compared to developing new advanced ammo for the 16s. Added bonus: a full broadside would consist of 72 155mm rounds dropping all at once. I believe an entire US Army division has 72 15mm guns, for comparison.

[@rossreed9974]

Great what-ifs, someone from the Navy will be visiting shortly to take her away...(lol) congrats on talking yourself out of a job Ryan! :) Thank you and love the work that all of you do.

[@HuGenitals]

Such a great colab. Drach such a wealth of info and always makes solid arguments based on the most random nuance. For sure if any ship is ever brought out of mothball, Drach will be a very highly paid and saught after consultant.

[@ABrit-bt6ce]

Yay, Drach on the channel. Nice Ideas now someone model them.

[@scottjackson5173]

Dragon fire is an interesting idea. Assuming that you can radically boost the ship's electrical generating capacity. Lol! I think that my previous comments have been read. But I love the video anyway.

[@TheOneTrueDragonKing]

Those are some seriously good suggestions. I have nothing against what you guys just said on the exterior - except maybe a couple. For one exterior change, the US Navy does have an operational laser CIWS in its' arsenal which you could add to the ship, however it's only on the USS Ponce currently. They call it the rather-unimaginative LaWS or Laser Weapons System. Not sure how LaWS stacks up against the British Dragonfire laser CIWS system, but during testing it did prove itself capable of shooting down everything from small boats to maneuvering target drones to missiles and artillery shells, so you could use that instead if you wanted an all-American ship rather than needing an import. For the second, I'd update the drone system to be able to launch a navalized version of the MQ-9 Reaper UCAV for target spotting, surface and air search, datalink for New Jersey's missiles and those of her battlegroup, and even some integrated fixed-wing airstrike capabilities with onboard missiles. Basically, it's the capabilities from the old WW2 spotter floatplane but upgraded to the 21st century. Theoretically, if you you could also change out some of the aft decks, replacing a large chunk behind C turret with a silo-esque vertical hangar and elevator with a topside blast door to cover it, which would be an enclosed maintenance space for an embarked helicopter rather than having it exposed on the main deck as you did in the 60s for 'nam. As for the interior, I'd overhaul it completely. Gut the entire interior space and completely redo it. Update the bridge, CIC, etcetera with all-new modern systems. Switch out the 16-inch main battery guns' loading system with an autoloader similar to that on the 8-inch guns of USS Salem and her sisters. This will result in additional berthing being eliminated. Move the analog fire control computer to a shore-based museum somewhere and fit newer, smaller, lighter, more compact, robust and versatile digital designs. Keep the 16-inch main guns but update the system to link their elevation and traverse, along with firing, to a digital signal from CIC and the fire-control computer, and/or perhaps so that they can be cued for remote firing by the drone if need be. Other people in this comments section had good suggestions as well, such as retrofitting an electromagnetic rail system to the 16-inch gun housing instead of using the powder-propelled projectiles, but you run into the same problem as Drach said would result from removing Turret C, in that you'd be riding ridiculously high in the water due to the reduction in weight from removing the powder magazines. Then you add on the fact that the US Navy just can't solve the problems with the much smaller railgun that was supposed to be going on the Zumwalts and it becomes a good theoretical suggestion, albeit one that is entirely impractical to implement, if not impossible to implement. Someone else also had a suggestion to replace the big diesel engines with nuclear reactors, enough to fire two of the lasers simultaneously plus run the ship's propellers at full steam. That was a solid idea, and if it works, it will result in the elimination of additional berthing as naval nuclear reactors on subs and carriers practically run themselves. It would also free up additional fuel bunker space for the spotter plane, the embarked helicopter if you end up having one, and for resupplying a surrounding battlegroup or surface action group as they did with the Iowas in the 90s.

[@MandolinMagi]

Biggest issue, I think, with autoloading 16" guns is that the propellent is so long you can't just have a single brass case. You'd need to somehow have a middle casing, and make sure middle and rear propellent cases are in the right order. Or just have a laser ignitor

[@TheOneTrueDragonKing]

@@MandolinMagi You could set it up so that the propellant casings, when in the tray, lock together to form a single oversized casing. That would solve both issues.

[@stevekirk8546]

Fascinating and insightful discussion. Thank you both.

[@Morosoph_deLore]

If the US Navy decided to upgrade and reactivate the USS New Jersey (or any other Battleship), I would (first) hire Drachinifel‬'s consultation services.

[@rifleman2c997]

Great video! I have to go with Drach in that reactivating would be an insane cost, it would be in all likelihood easier to build a new Nuclear powered Aircraft carrying cruiser mounting an insane amount of VLS as well as F-35s.

[@pedenharley6266]

Next we need Drach’s ideas for a theoretical modernization of BB-16!

[@PeteOtton]

LOL

[@thomasmcgraw6629]

Fear the pre-dreadnaught!!

[@shinjiikari1021]

nah, the USS constitution modernisation

[@Phos9]

Might actually be easier had it not been destroyed, less armor to cut through to replace the propulsion. I also wonder if pre dreadnought armor layouts might actually be preferable against anti ship missiles, the more spread out armor might mean a ship could simply shrug them off to the point of not even being mission compromised.

[@PeteOtton]

@@Phos9 The armor was probably too thin and not particularly face harden and tough enough inside.

[@sirboomsalot4902]

It was awesome seeing you two at the symposium, and I’m glad to see the new content with you two is as epic as I hoped lol. As for what I’d do, I’d pretty much do what Drach did *but* I would also look into maybe removing Turret 2, as I would imagine that it wouldn’t mess up the balance as much as removing turret 3 would, it gives you more VLS space, and it would make Iowa’s conversion a bit easier

[@jetdriver]

I’m basically totally in line with what Drach has said. That being said at this point I’m not familiar enough with Dragonfly and its plusses and minuses to go all in. Hence I’m Looking at more guns to take on the cheap drones. I’d like to See a variant of Phalanx with a MUCH larger below deck magazine perhaps dual drum feed so you could be reloading one while the other was firing. I’d also like to see some rapid fire 57mm or 76mm weapons which one would be depends upon ammunition availability. Because in addition to old school VT rounds I want something that can handle a guided round of some kind to enhance its lethality. I would also consider placing some point defense weapons in some of the classic WWII positions and accepting restrictions on the firing arcs of the 16” guns as a result. I would also be willing to sacrifice the after main battery optical director if needed to get more mounting positions for point defense weapons. With the number of AA weapons we are talking about here (not including the missiles in the VLS tubes) an angry New Jersey under attack by a drone swarm would be putting out enough boom boom make even the WW2 sailors stand up and salute. Re the 16” guns I’d restart the programs for smaller ultra long range guided sabot rounds that were killed off in the 90’s. If you can double or more the range of those guns with a large guided round you can really hurt some people.

[@wiseguy3696]

The problem with CIWS (and lasers for that matter) is not necessarily ammo capacity, but rather the barrels getting too hot. For lasers, the area around the beam is superheated and it refracts the light, basically making it a very expensive flashlight.

[@catflomps]

I bet you could keep the 16" guns relevant-ish if you made all the modifications to allow them to fire rocket assisted smart rounds and you just slap a really dense armored cap on the end to help with defeating proactive defensive measures. Because there are conventional artillery guns that have come out fairly recently that by using smart rounds with GPS tracking can be insanely accurate and reach out deceptively far, not as far as a missile but still relatively far. And for the rest, just do all the changes drac said they'd do. They're all insanely reasonable, even if the prospect of reactivating an Iowa class isn't.

[@wesleyshirley326]

I would take the 5' 51 guns from a modern DD and make a twin mount. Then stick 1 or 2 on each side. It would give you good fire power with less weight and crew.

[@kentbarnes1955]

I love these collaborations!

[@jaycooper2812]

I like Drach's idea except that I would go one step further and replace the remaining 5 inch 38s with 5 inch mk 45 guns in their places. The modern 5 inch turrets only require a crew of 6 to maintain the flow of ammunition where the old 5 inch turrets require a crew of over a dozen. The newer 5 inch 54 caliber gun has a range of 13 to 20 miles where the old 5 inch 38 has a range of less than 10 miles. You could also probably get 120 VLS cells amid ship if not more. The increase in firepower would be astronomical compared to the 1980s armaments. Also modifying the forward superstructure to mount the Aegis weapons system and the SPY radars is very necessary. Preferably the SPY-6 radar.

[@MBBurchette]

The modern 5-inch mount has a lower hoist that extends down 4 decks, but even with it, you would actually save quite a bit of weight. 5"/38 Mark 12 Gun, Mark 28 Mod 2 Twin Mount: 77,399 kg (170,635 lbs) 5"/54 Mark 18 Gun, Mark 42 Mount: 66,193 kg 5"/54 Mark 19 Gun, Mark 45 Mount: 24,108 kg (54,150 lbs) Of course, I doubt the Mk.45 mount has an inch and a half thick steel shield.

[@HENRISTARKS]

Sounds completely IGNORANT! IF THE SECONDARY BATTERY IS BE REPLACED THEN 6 INCH 350 POUND SHELLS FIRED FROM 3 BARREL MOUNTS ARE THE ANSWER. USING KEVLAR AND COMPOSITE ARMOR. MK26 MOD 5 LAUNCHERS WITH A 48 ROUND DRIM MAGAZINE UNDER EACH RAIL AND A ANOTHER 48 ROUND UNDERNEATH THE STRIKEDOWN MODULE. TOWED array sonar and 6 round torpedo launcher for CRAW and MK48 ADCAP torpedoes for self defense weaponry against Undersea Drone Attack 😢GAS I AM GM & FC. I KNOW ABOUT WHAT I TYPE! BEEN THERE DONE THAT.

[@ret7army]

Appreciate the collaboration. I had thought of removing turret 3, but had not considered the massive weight involved. Glad to be corrected. If the rail gun is going to be a thing, I thought to put a couple in the forward 5" mounts, one port, one starboard.

[@tidepoolclipper8657]

You could remove one of the front turrets as well.

[@phillipdavis3316]

I would install a wave motion gun.😂 It is from a tv show that I enjoyed as a child in the early 80s. They turned the battleship Yamato into a spaceship to save the earth, and the wave motion gun became its primary weapon.

[@flamingrubys11]

i remember reading that air craft carriers are so expensive now making a battle ship would be cheaper or even essex sized "light carriers

[@anthonykodaski6161]

I actually have a concept design for a 2025 Montana class battleship. Here is her arsenal- 9 x 16 inch guns 6/12 x 5 inch guns(12 if you want to use the classic duels or six if you want to use modern 5 inch guns) 200 x vertical launch cells(133 x SM 6, 34 x SM 2, 33 x SM 3) 18 x harpoon 18 x tomahawk 2 x directed energy 4 x C ram box launcher 30 x phalanx CWIS 20 x prototype phalanx 50 mm flakgun(Not a Thing Yet) I believe this would be a respectable armament for a 2025 battleship. And you can actually fit 200 vertical launch cells inside the barbette of one of the old is 16 inch guns

[@tidepoolclipper8657]

Having 9 16" guns these days seems excessive. You can get away with just having three. You forgot about the naval Bushmaster mk2 30mm for anti boat and drone warfare. A gun to potentially consider for last defense is the Rheinmetall Oerlikon Millennium 35mm Gun.

[@benerval7]

Great to see the other youtube Navy related content creators working with you.

[@bsktblmasta31]

Good suggestions, let's make it happen.

[@HENRISTARKS]

IDIOTIC TALK FROM A FUCKING IGNORAMUS!

[@bholdr----0]

I dig listening to Drach in modern systems almost as much as his channel's normal WW2 and earlier content... More, please?

[@g2rich]

I have said this many times, yes, I know the cost to reconstitute and modernize the Iowas and even the two remaining South Dakotas would be exorbitant and a new ship with also the same modern systems could be built at probably less cost BUT, the Iowas bring something to the fight that not a single other modern surface combatant does. That "something" is the ability to absorb hits from enemy missiles and ordinance. I like the idea of removing all of the 5" guns, the old ABLs and Harpoon tubes in order to install many VLS cells, which in themselves are also armored, but there should at least be one or two 57mm auto cannons on each side to deal with the threat of small boat swarms. Besides the British Dragon Fire laser system the US Navy is currently working on a 5 megawatt laser that would be capable of downing incoming hypersonic missiles along with swarms of small drones. However, the biggest problem with returning such old warships to service is simply their propulsion plants and due to their location within the armor protected center of the ship there is no realistic way to upgrade those boiler systems to a more efficient gas turbine system. It would be intersting to see though what the cost would be to build from the keel up an Iowa class battleship with all the necessary upgrades to weapons systems AND maintain the amount of armor the ships carried. One last thing, while removing turret 3 would remove too much weight from the rear of the ship, removing turret 2 would still be fairly central to the ship as far as bow to stern weight balance goes and then that area could be filled with something like the Virginia Payload Modules, each of which could be equipped with 6 Tomahawk ship to ship attack missiles or the future hyperonic glide body missiles currently under development.

[@gregblount6640]

I’ve got one ready to go BB 60 USS Alabama just visitor saw her three months ago. What a tight and mentally tested but defensively strong platform for another fast attacked ELS system with what you proposed as well. Needs an updated machinery. She’s with stood typhoons and hurricanes in the Mobile Bay, she would serve into the 5 inch turret and got into the access of a 16. The ship would serve well.

[@MandolinMagi]

No, Iowas can't actually take a hit. Belt armor means nothing when the missile does a pop-up, and really big missiles will either punch through (shaped charge plus follow-on) or just be big enough for it not to matter (P-700) Also, a hit or two will trash the radars and then you're blind and deaf, unable to do anything

[@ClayinSWVA]

30mm bushmaster remote operated weapon stations on some of the 5in mounts locations. They have a naval rated drop-in version now.

[@benjaminshropshire2900]

In a swarm attack, $/kill is king. You don't want to end up in a situation where the enemy can literally throw more crap munitions at you than you can afford to shoot down.

[@MandolinMagi]

At some point the enemy is going to run into the issue of actually launching them all, and the cheaper it is the worse it works. Basic ECM should mess most of them up.

[@benjaminshropshire2900]

@MandolinMagi in a swarm attack, "good enough" only requires that the attacker be indistinguishable from something that is less expensive to shoot down than to allow to hit. That can even mean that 90% of the stuff in the air isn't even a threat to a cargo container they can't even locate if the defences can't identify the other 10%. Same thing for launchers. A bunch of 2x4s pointing in the right direction with painter's plastic covering _something_ would be damn cheap to leave sitting around until the other side gives up shooting at them.

[@nnoddy8161]

Drach has increased his Deep Displacement....awesome, thanks for posting!

[@michaelcooper4918]

Drach knows so much more about modern naval weapons than he's ever shown. But its been obvious, just well hid from us.

[@JimmyCricket93]

The Bilge Pumps podcast he did/does with Alex and Jamie shows this pretty well too, I'd recommend

[@aureaphilos]

What a great collab!! In addition to the Drachinifel suggestions, I would add 4 Electronic Warfare drone launchers (2 aft port, 2 aft starboard), each with a 'magazine' containing 4 additional EW drones (for replacement/redundancy). I would also deploy anti-torpedo stations (perhaps the high-rate C-RAM systems with depleted Uranium (to penetrate water) and explosive (to explode underwater) munitions. Next, I'd deploy a team of 4-6 'wingman' drone ships that would house additional offensive & defensive drones. Finally, how about a direct-to-satellite link for up-to-the-moment Space Force satellite imagery??+

[@F-Man]

Drach!!!!!

[@mikechristopherson6035]

Thanks for the fascinating discussion! 👍

[@bobkay2827]

One word: Wave Motion Gun

[@patrickdegenaar9495]

You beat me to it!!! 😂

[@tankythemagnorite9855]

That's three words.

[@novanastalga]

I know it would cost more than just building a whole new ship but I want to know if we can make a nuclear powered battleship. It would provide all the power she could ever need for directed energy CIWS, virtually eliminate any range or fueling issues. And it could potentially replace aft turret as a counterweight while opening up more room for launch cells. Also potentially a designated drone warfare center.

[@talis84]

I might have missed it. what do you think a net new contemporary battleship would look like? Navy wants a ship of that size with large conventional guns for < insert random reason here > what other things do you think would they build in?

[@LafayetteCCurtis]

They probably wouldn't. Large guns would go on monitor-type ships with no more than two or three guns each to minimise the risk of all of them being taken out in one hit. A new contemporary battleship would probably be built around an armament of ballistic and cruise missiles, probably as an arsenal ship linked to smaller ships operating further forward to feed it targeting information. It might even be minimally crewed, with the crew being there largely for maintenance and damage control.

[@Gentleman...Driver]

Yes, "Arsenal ship" is the right answer. With as many as 500 VLS. 🙂 Maybe even in the form of a very large submarine (SSGN - something like the soviet Typhoon class).

[@pegzounet]

6:45 ooooooooh yeah baby, with that kind of real estate for AESA panels, you can start cooking seagul mid flight a fair distance out.

[@samthemultimediaman]

it should have at least two 5-inch/54-caliber guns 1 port and 1 starboard just to have an extra option on the table.

[@MrPhoenixpro]

You could develop a GPS guided/IR tracking rocket assisted Shell for the 16" guns. The GPS gets the shell to the rough location of the enemy and the IR homing brings the shell down their funnel

[@jakeaurod]

I would add nuclear reactors to power the ship and extend the range. I know it'd be nearly impossible to add, but I think it might be important for future warfighting. Since the deck armor is so thick, maybe go in through the hull while in dry dock. That makes me wonder if azimuth thrusters could be used to increase the maneuverability. Drachinifel talked about cleaning the lines, but I think that might go further and remove most of the external decks, railings, etc to stealth-ify the ship. A nuclear reactor might mean that the funnels could be removed to reduce radar cross section and infrared, unless there are reasons to keep the funnels for auxiliary ICE power systems. I'd do something with the main guns to extend the range, by using newer ammunition with base-bleed or rocket-assist at minimum and possibly glide-wings and Precision Guidance as well. Maybe one of the main turrets could be updated for an electromagnetic launching system such as a rail gun or coil gun or quench gun, or maybe a fuel-air Ram Accelerator with barrel extensions. I'd try to get a few hundred kilometers range at minimum. I'd consider adding a few SLBMs, but leaving it ambiguous what types of warheads are loaded. This could increase the ship's strategic utility. I'd add a hangar somewhere near the rear, if a nuclear reactor allows for engineering space to be freed up. I'd also keep and use trans-media vehicles there, that can use ground effect to "skim" the waves faster and farther than an auxiliary boat, but can have longer duration loiter time than a helicopter or F-35 and might be able to carry heavier armament due to it's better fuel economy. Such trans-media vehicles might serve as sensor and defensive pickets for anti-ship, anti-sub, anti-mine, air defence, and anti-ballistic missile defense. I hope that makes sense.

[@castlekingside76]

Your ideas are amazing. I truly hope the US uses this as a true fleet defense ship.

[@Ganiscol]

NASAMS launchers and plenty of it. Develop a 16" version of the M982 Excalibur - maybe even rocket assisted for more range.

[@timothydeyoung9689]

Love seeing you both together

[@hisaddle]

Wow. I have never seen or heard of this guy, he is great.

[@cavalierliberty6838]

He's a total ship nerd, his channel is great if you love the stuff Ryan talks about but wanna know more about other ships. He's also got some tours of various museum ships.

[@holysirsalad]

He appeared previously on this channel when the ship was in dry dock, talking about vibrations at speed. A really good watch!

[@terrycarter1137]

I agree with just about everything, yes upgrade the electronic fire control system and move it deeper into the ship, seasparrow system, new updated 16" barrels, powder bags, new updated shells something like Excalibur round, upgrade the steam pipes and boiler (to the best you can), spall lining in engineering, yes new laser systems.

[@rogergoodman8665]

The president's morning briefing: Mr. President, we have a problem, we need to build a battleship a.s.a.p.! The volunteers at the Battleship New Jersey museum have done the unthinkable, they have somehow managed to fully retrofit the "Black Dragon" with modern state of the art weaponry. Intell informs us they have also assembled a crew and are about to take her out on a shakedown cruise. They are also blaring AC/ DC's "Back in Black" at extremely loud volume at all hours... We have to prevent her from leaving the Delaware River and making her way to the Atlantic....but we don't currently have anything that can stop her....your orders sir...

[@scottcooper4391]

Well - nothing short of a Nuc or the 30,000 pound MOP bomb.... maybe the QuickSink bomb...

[@Slapdash1]

These colabs, man. Best thing since the Avengers movies. BUT: Drach's been to the USA a few times now. We need, NEED I say, to see our favourite curator on board the Victory or the Belfast.

[@Norbrookc]

Replace the first two turrets with VLS cells, install Aegis systems, restore/add secondary batteries for anti-drone capability, and leave the rear turret with the 16" guns as a "remove that direction" option.

[@foundersrule3496]

Looks like a fine list.

[@charlesmaurer6214]

Good start but replace the rear one with a hanger for 4-6 VSTOL or helicopter craft. You would be close to what I think should be built new. New design ad a small aft well deck for special operations that would otherwise need a landing assault carrier, better used for larger operations. Add back fore and aft a set of energy or railgun mounts powered from the reactor on the new build. Energy would likely be Maser rather than Laser but also could consider Grasers or Xasers range.

[@testerjs]

If we removed the turrets she will roll over.

[@DevonRomero-s1b]

As Ryan pointed out in an earlier video, with all the maintenance headaches the battleships had throughout their service in the 80s & early 90s, it makes no sense to reactivate the ships without their 16” guns and replace them with missiles. The only reason you’d reactivate them is because you need their guns. If you don’t need the guns, save yourself alot of maintenance trouble and build a new ship.

[@johngregory4801]

​@@testerjsBasic stability equations will ɓack that up.

[@chuckkline2970]

LOVE this team up!

[@anthonywalker4108]

Obviously you load the cutlery onto the 16 inch to take out the drones when you run out of ammo.

[@VunderGuy]

Silverware.

[@johnmooers5594]

Pull all the 5" mounts. Install 10 60 cell VLS launchers. Replace the boilers with two nuclear reactors - set up like the CVNs. Add more CRAM launchers. Keep the bunker fuel tanks to allow UNREP for it's battle group. Add 8 laser system mounts for anti-drone systems. modify the docking keels aft to improve water flow and reduce vibration issues. Change the ammo out for ER munition rounds to get up to 100 mile range.

[@vincentbrown4926]

Pull out the propulsion spaces and the stacks and replace with two A4W Nuclear reactors (1 fore and 1 aft) for propulsion and ships power (4 steam turbines to go with the 4 shafts) and also install one S9G Nuclear plant for rail guns (could support 4), laser defenses (think 30 Dragonfires), recharging electric Under Water Autonomous Vehicles and other future power needs.

[@richardthomas5362]

I suppose if it generated enough power it could go on hydrofoils :)

[@PeteOtton]

IS there a warship version of the Blue Ribbon?

[@vincentbrown4926]

@@richardthomas5362 As you know; Speed is life. I know you are being facetious but I was on the Carl Vinson back in '94. We could leave the entire carrier battle group behind if we went to full steam. (no other vessels could keep up).

[@OmarGreeneotraPedroVerde]

Drach never ceases to amaze and delight. No reading, no script, awesome! No offense, Ryan.

[@TheDogGeneral]

In the end, you can only truly make so many costs. Effective improvements to where to get the most Bang out of your buck. You simply need to start from scratch and build a completely brand new battleship that meets or exceeds your desired specifications, and while the iowas even in retention and modernization. There's only so much you can do before. It's simply a better option to build a brand new ship. I've seen some really far out.Really on the edge kind of redesigns, and at that point, you don't have a historically preserved shipping anymorethough there's onlyI've seen some really far out. Really on the edge, kind of redesigns, and at that point, you don't have a historically preserved ship anymorethough there's only. There is so much you can do via molegation.

[@TheEvertw]

Awesome that you mentioned Goalkeeper. That is one excellent system.

[@emilkarpo]

Sounds like you end up with a larger, non-nuclear Kirov type ship but without the very heavy supersonic long range anti ship missiles and somewhat less effective anti-air defenses. Yes you get shore bombardment capabilities, but, who thinks there will ever be a shore landing against peer or nonpeer advisories with modern anti ship defenses and probably not complete air supremacy. Both types are in reality vulnerable in a world of hypersonic missiles with 2,000lb + warheads.