Will the Battleship Ever Come Back Into Service?

This week we are answering some of our most frequently asked questions:
Will the battleship ever go back into service?
Are there any battleships left in the navy?
Why were the battleships decommissioned?

[@MajesticDemonLord]

My head says 'No' My heart says 'Battleship big guns go Boom'

[@fyzhardy]

Fanni jok 😂🤣😂😃🤣😄🤣😅😃🤣😅🤣😃😀😅😏😐🙄😶🤨😑🤨🙄😐🙄😶😐🙄🙄😐😑🤨🙄😏😄😁😃😁😄😁😃😁😄😂😄😁🤣😁😄😅😀😃😁😃😂😄😂😃😁😄😁😅😂😃😂😁

[@lucaskoring4500]

4 months later I o w a

[@BradUSMCVETrider]

Lol. Triple 16" gun turret crawl go "BRRRR"

[@lucbisaillon2609]

If a missile jamming system is developped... Maybe (wishfull thinking, I know)

[@BradUSMCVETrider]

@@lucbisaillon2609 it's called.. CWIS.

[@petertimmins6657]

While the Navy may not technically own these ships anymore, the fact that you are limited in what you can operate or modify in case they ever need them back means, in effect, that the Navy does still own them. All they did was transfer the cost of maintaining them while mothballed to someone else.

[@robertf3479]

Correct. If for some reason the museum organization can't take reasonable care of her there is a good chance the Navy would reclaim the ship as they threatened to do with the carrier Yorktown (CV 10) in Charleston. The ship became so dilapidated over time that (according to the report I read) she was in the same danger Battleship Texas is, of flooding and perhaps sinking at her pier, the Navy actually began telling these folks that if they didn't take care of the noted problems the Navy would repossess CV-10 and probably have to dispose of her by scrapping. The Navy is allowed to do that.

[@mil1330]

There is a clause in the contract that says the navy can reclaim these at any time.

[@alexcitovsky7389]

@@robertf3479 the repo clause for most s ships is more likely to prevent a ship on display, that is in bad shape or even sinking. They would rather scrap it than have a ship around that presents the Navi in a bad way and damages their recruitment efforts.

[@TheBigExclusive]

@@robertf3479 - We understand that the Navy is contractually allowed to do that. But there should be a time limit on when they can no longer reclaim the vessel. This is effectively just "renting out" the Battleships to museums. You would never see the United States Navy "recall" vessels they sell to other countries. Have you seen the condition of former United States ships now being operated by other countries? Terrible in some cases. Why are there so many restrictions put on Museums?

[@Mr_Meowingtons]

so its like owning an iPhone

[@JCT442]

I was Chief Engineer on two Navy warships, one steam powered & one gas turbine. Any steam powered ship that is deactivated MUST be preserved or "laid up" under a steam blanket for temporary deactivation or desiccant/active dehumidification of the entire steam plant internals for long term deactivation. The Iowas and any other mothballed warships deemed suitable for future service were properly deactivated and preserved for decades. Warships deemed not suitable for future use are mothballed in a "wet" condition which means they didn't put the effort in to preserve the steam propulsion plant and were intended for scrap. If the steam plant isn't properly "laid up", the steam system internals will quickly begin to rust. The boilers in particular, are extremely sensitive to any rust whatsoever. The steam plant of the New Jersey would need routine maintenance to ensure the dehumidification was in proper order. I have no information the New Jersey's propulsion plant was properly laid up either with desiccant or active dehumidification once donated. If I'm wrong, please let me know. These ships were very effective, but hugely expensive to operate. The present US Navy doesn't have the financial resources, supplies of parts, ammunition, powder bags, nor the expertise to properly man these magnificent warships. There are very few steam powered Navy ships in use, boiler technicians are in very short supply. The Navy of today is gas turbine, diesel, or nuclear to one degree or another. Time and practicality have past these ships by. They belong where they are, as tributes to America's maritime naval history and the men and women who served.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

"Time and practicality have past these ships by." You are completely right there.

[@notyou1877]

But for some reason one sailing ship is still on active duty in this here navy. Go figure!

[@somewhere6]

Boilers and other machinery can be replaced and people trained but that doesn't mean the effort would be in any way cost effective.

[@notyou1877]

@@somewhere6 the only thing this ship has in spades is prestige. You can't buy that. It is a loude statement when a battleship pulls Into a port for a courtesy visit. Nothing can replace that.

[@somewhere6]

@@notyou1877 I made a similar argument in another comment regarding the unique morale element but there are cheaper ways to spend money to get morale dividends. Also, aircraft carriers are already a very loud statement.

[@grendelthewise1971]

I would love to be recalled back to the Navy to be on a battleship again.

[@tasskani492]

Same

[@JamieSteam]

I love how the curator is a practical person, not a guy in a shirt and tie with tapping on a keyboard.

[@CRAZYHORSE19682003]

As an Iowa Veteran I will say NO, the Iowa was in HORRIBLE material condition when she was in service in the late 80's. Let them rest.

[@ubb262s]

Amen Brother

[@jmd1743]

How so?

[@mjb111]

@@jmd1743 What Theokolese said. I worked as a contractor installing computer equipment on the Iowa in the summer of 1988. The Iowa was in the Norfolk Naval Shipyard at the time. I was working in DC Central one day, and overheard some shipyard staff brief some officers in the Engineering Department on why one of the Ship's Service Turbine Generators could not be repaired. The SSTGs generate electric power for the ship. The shipyard staff gave the crew the news that not only were parts for her SSTG unavailable, but the company that made them had been out of business for decades and no manufacturing data was available! And just like that, one of Iowa's SSTGs was permanently deadlined. At that moment, I realized that the Iowa class were not going to remain in commission for very long.

[@jmd1743]

@@mjb111 How do the ship building methods of today such where they build the super carriers like legos compare to 1940s ship building methods?

[@mjb111]

@@jmd1743. That’s a question for the naval architects. The point is that a ship built in the 1940s would be ruinously expensive or completely impossible to keep running 80 years later.

[@SirEpifire]

Our love and admiration of the Battleships I think is part of what kept them in service for so long. But their usage and armament is obsolete on a modern battlefield. To the point that the Navy would be better off (financially) building new Battleships from scratch, vs reactivating an old one. If we're in that great of a bind for ships that this is our only alternative, then sadly; we've probably already lost said war. All that being said (and having only served in merchant marine) it pains me greatly to know there's zero chance of me ever being able to serve on one. I hold no lust for war but I do love the old ships. So if these videos are the closest I get, then I cherish them very much.

[@stevensheldon9271]

I want to say again how vastly important these videos are to history. As a student of various time periods of history you would not believe some of the most trivial things that we know so little about. I often think about how fantastic it would be to have a time machine to go back and ask people who knew the answers. The time of living memory of these ships is coming quickly to a close as the last of the people who served on them in any capacity are aging. Some day, hundreds, even thousands of years from now these videos will be an important link to a piece of history that will provide an insight that cannot be had even if the artifact is still available to lay hands on. Thanks so much for making these videos. They are historical in their own right.

[@LexieAssassin]

I think you also have to consider the shift in doctrine too... Outside of the Super Carrier in a battlegroup, the general consensus seems to be that it is a bad idea to put all your eggs in one basket, as it were, like with an Iowa. The shift generally seems to be akin to that of tanks post-WWII, instead of Heavies, Mediums, Lights, and Tank Destroyers, you have just MBTs generally. Sure some lights and TDs do exist, but they're more the exception than the rule generally speaking. So too with ships. The DD, or DDG more likely, has become the sort of general purpose, do everything ship. It isn't such a huge loss in a war to lose a DDG, as compared to a BB, when by and large they can do the same thing. (Attack shore targets.)

[@grimkupid8478]

I honestly believe that it would be cheaper to build new ships from the plans for the Iowa's brought up to modern standards than it would be to refit these old ships.

[@Jesse-qy6ur]

Why would one even do that, other than for the sake of having done it? To the degree that landing 406 mm shells on people is even useful any more, the monitor concept, like the RN _Erebus_ class, would serve the shore bombardment role in a more economical package.

[@louiswright8282]

@@Jesse-qy6ur Why not

[@TheRetirednavy92]

I would make it a nuke powered ship, updated radar and sonar and hundreds of anti-air, land attack, subrocs etc.

[@grimkupid8478]

@@TheRetirednavy92 Would you start from scratch - or rework the entire ship?

[@shamrock3957]

@@Jesse-qy6ur with the rapid improvement of radar and missile defenses it is not inconceivable that large, heavily armored, warships with numbers heavy hitting guns such as railguns, gauss cannons, ETC guns, or CLG guns and bearing a lot of CIWS systems and Laser batteries will return to naval dominance in the future. Missiles will always have the range advantage but they suffer from being expensive (3.9mil per unit for the new U.S. LRASM) and can be shot down before reaching their targets. The U.S. is nearing mass production levels with their new Laser weapons systems which beats hypersonic, they just successfully shot down a test ICBM from an Arleigh-Burke. So a battlegroup with coordinated anti-missile fire could conceivably prevent anything less than a massive saturation attack of missiles from hitting their targets. No point in having a missile with inter-continental range going after a ship when they just blow it out of the sky. There's that whole argument of navy ships being smaller in the future but under a certain size and open ocean becomes...less than pleasant to say the very least. And the most effective way of moving vast amounts of supplies and troops around the world remains to transport them via ship.

[@rascal0175]

I’ve toured Iowas 2 or 3 times and would love to see them back in action. I spoke to a volunteer docent (guide) in one if the ships and he pointed out the usual why nots. Two that stick with me are the lack of 16” ammunition and the possible inability to make more. The second being that a destroyer or frigate firing missiles could do more damage and deliver more accurate fire on target. Well, maybe. But lots of us still love the fast battleships.

[@leftseat30]

I love the gesture made at about 1:40 regarding Welding pieces back into place!!

[@jacksons1010]

I've crawled all 4 of the Iowa's. Behind the areas that tourists are allowed to see they are in pretty rough condition. Then there's the issue that the boilers and the guns were all "de-militarized" by the USN before being donated to museum status; that means essential parts were removed and some holes drilled in strategic locations - intended to be irreversible. All the ammunition for the guns has been destroyed; and all the spare guns themselves have gone off to museums and are mostly now exposed to the elements and would not be useable. Two billion dollars would not be enough to reactivate even one of these ships to a usable state.

[@twilightroach4274]

So it’s really just how much it going to cost😀

[@Brot1984]

Besides money another big question might be time. Considering that many of the machines needed to manufacture replacement parts and the ammunition do not exist anymore themselves, it will probably take quite a while to build up the infrastructure again to even try to restore these ships into working order.

[@TheBigExclusive]

@@Brot1984 - My question is could it be done easier than in the past? Could we not 3D print spare parts instead of building huge factories like in the past? We could at least save money that way.

[@pizzaivlife]

@@TheBigExclusive 3D printing stuff is almost always more expensive than traditional manufacturing at least at scale so I have no doubt that is true here

[@jacqueslefave4296]

How about our Allies? The South Koreans have very modern and active shipyards, and lower labor costs, and presumably the high motivation to augment their fleet. I think that with modern robotics, the manpower needs could be dramatically reduced. I just think that the platform is so special and if combined in a carrier group, could provide a valuable asset. With those large guns, you can project tremendous firepower without risking an expensive jet and an even more valuable pilot. It isn't all about dollars and cents, either. Do you want us to be a tributary power to Chyna, and do you personally want to bow the kowtow to Emperor Xi ? 🇨🇳🛐😬

[@22steve5150]

Another issue is that the shore based maintenance and production equipment and tooling was allowed to be scrapped. To bring the BB's back, we'd also have to rebuild those facilities from scratch just to be able to do things like produce new barrel liners for the 16 inchers or even produce new ammo. I think even making armor repairs would require new versions of old machinery to be rebuilt from scratch. Just a great choice by the US Navy, all done because back in the early 90's we were supposed to be just a few years away from destroyer sized ships with 100nmi gun range to assume NGFS missions, and 30 years and 30 BILLION dollars later our end result was a grand total of 3x multi-billion dollar destroyers that don't even have functional main guns and will probably need close to a decade of upgrades before they will even have a chance to perform NGFS, and that is dependent largely on how fast we can progress on that railgun they want to replace the 2 failed AGS systems with. Also, one imagines how much of an asset that a few heavily armored gunships could provide in today's environment where naval assets have as much to fear from small air and sea drones, fast attack / missile boats, and strike fighters or missile armed helicopters (all of which would be countered quite well by BB armor) as they do from huge mach 3 to mach 6 anti-ship missiles and torpedoes. Such a great insurance policy the BBs would have made against some of these asymetrical swarm threats from terrorist groups and minor nations.

[@AndrewAMartin]

These battleships were obsolete 30 years ago, regardless of the failures of the Navy's other programs since then. Every time they fired the main guns, vital hydraulic systems would spring leaks; also, you're assuming that the main guns would even be reused, as compared to modern weapons systems they are hopelessly inaccurate.

[@22steve5150]

@@AndrewAMartin News flash, hydraulic leaks are a maintenance issue, not an obsolescence issue, and the same technology we use to allow precision guided artillery shells (that can withstand muzzle velocities much higher than the mark 7 16"/50cal 16" guns) and allow artillery and naval shells to be greatly extended in range all work for the 16 gun shells, and certain range increasing technologies like rocket assisted rounds and sabot rounds are actually easier to apply to large shell designs than small ones. Basically what we COULD have had was 4 large ships that can do NFGS from over 100 miles away and without using million dollar a pop cruise missiles to do it, the ability to strike inland (80% of humans live within 60 miles of coastlines) against most nations without requiring an entire fleet to protect them, and the ability to operate with near impunity in areas where the biggest threats are small attack boat / missile boat swarms, helicopters, light attack aircraft, and drones......AND having this capability for the last 25 years would have cost us much LESS than our decades of failed attempts to replace the BB's in the NFGS role with non-working wonder weapons fitted to multi-billion dollar destroyers that can be mission killed by a swarm of dudes in speedboats armed with RPGs and AT missiles.

[@waffelreitter7231]

@@AndrewAMartin Actually Andrew the Gun aiming system's on Iowa's are renown for their accuracy and could land hits on targets a large as a destroyer up to 150 miles away.

[@AndrewAMartin]

@@22steve5150 You don't have a clue - the main guns' recoil causes damage to the ship's systems, damage that no amount of maintenance can fix. These systems are over 80 years old, replacement parts just don't exist, and proper maintenance can't always be done while underway. And they'd need to be replaced almost every deployment at an outrageous expense - the Iowa class are just no longer viable as warships. Let them have their well-earned rest.

[@AndrewAMartin]

@@waffelreitter7231 That is true, but that is simply not good enough for warfare today.

[@garyh4458]

You're doing a great job sharing facts about these ships.

[@garyh4458]

@odegaard Because he is an historian on an old battleship and wearing a belt like that was the style of the times. He's missing the onion, though, because they also wore onions on their belts... being that it was the style of the times.

[@garethfairclough8715]

As far as I know, nuclear powered ships are (technically) run on steam, so I imagine there would be at least some idea about the steam plant, even if it's a vague "principles" thing rather than actual concrete "this is how it needs to be run". Great & informative vid, btw. Well done :)

[@normanbraslow7902]

Another problem is that the barrel liners must be replaced after so many shots, and I believe the machinery and know-how to do so is lost. Without the big guns, unfortunately they are kind of useless. Too bad.

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

The knowlage is not lost. Its written down. We would not have to reinvent it just re learn it and set up the industly. Big guns are not objectively useless, they are comparetivly useless. Why have guns whos shels fly for minutes on a fixed corse if you can have rockets who fly for minutes with corse adjustement.

[@normanbraslow7902]

Baltu Lielkungs Gunārs Miezis, of course the knowledge could be revived. But, I believe the heavy machinery to do the work has been scrapped. As for the point of the shells vs missiles, even the big BB can only have so many missiles. I don't know how many of the 16 inch shells they can carry, but it's very much more. In some scenarios, that may be far more effective than missiles, as in short range targets. But, and here's a big issue, that would put them in range of shore based anti-ship missiles. Losing one of those ships would be a devastating psychological strike. Be that as it may, the Navy must consider costs and effectiveness, and I'm afraid the big BB just won't make that grade. The object is to win, not look great. As a former naval officer, I feel badly as these are beautiful ships.

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

@@normanbraslow7902 Yes the battle ships are beutiful, so are the cruisers. The new ships small and stealthy just dont have that nice look.

[@normanbraslow7902]

Baltu Lielkungs Gunārs Miezis, they all have their special beauty. No question. But the brute power of the BBs have a special beauty the others just don't have. I've seen one fire broadsides at night..... even from some 20 miles away, the impression was unforgettable.

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

@@normanbraslow7902 To my knowlage the largest ship my country has ever had is a 65 meter long, with a displacement of 1750 tones and armed with two 40 mm guns and two 12,7 mm machine guns. Not particularly impressive as you can see. The most beutiful ship currently in service worl wide I would say is Pjotr Veļikij of the Kirov class kzbin.info/www/bejne/qaDOZoBogryAisk&ab_channel=Rumoaohepta7

[@6h471]

What part of "stricken from the naval register" don't people understand?

[@johnaustin6673]

The MOE (BB63) came back from museum duty. Just wish they would return her to Bremerton Washington for her retirement.

[@ScarletGuts]

@@johnaustin6673 they placed her in Pearl Harbor to “watch over and guard” the final resting place of the USS Arizona and her over 1500 resting sailors. Sort of like a job that was given to mighty moe.

[@compmanio36]

@@johnaustin6673 That would be awesome. Have you ever toured the Turner Joy over there? It's a DD, but still an awesome ship to experience.

[@neonhomer]

Just because New Jersey has been stricken from the Naval register" doesn't mean in a critical time of need, they could go back to the museum board and say "Hey, uhhh... can we have New Jersey back for a while?" Though of course the odds of that happening are almost nil. You'd need an Android to calculate the number of zeros before the 1... Now what I think would be cool is if the Navy came in and said "Guess what? We're going to come in and completely refit New Jersey to make her as close to operational as we can without actually making her operational...

[@tenkloosterherman]

@@neonhomer But that would be almost equally expensive. I can already hear the taxpayers cry out.

[@imbetterthanyouis]

one thing about the propulsion systems on battle ships especially during war time is they get flogged hard and other countries like the uk and france found that the engines were basically nackered after ww2 from being run so hard a similar thing was found after ww1 , so while the engines on the iowas still worked they wernt as efficient as they were when they were launched ( duh ) but after the gulf war they were really starting to show their age , with anything mechanical there comes a point where the required maintenance becomes too costly to justify running costs basically once you fix one thing you are just chasing problems after that , the iowas had a marvelous innings and they did everything we asked of them but bringing them back is now too much of an ask , i might be wrong but i did hear somewhere that even if we wanted bb63 uss Missouri back we couldnt because shes been sitting dormant for so long her engines are basically seized

[@somewhere6]

If nothing was done to deliberately cripple them to keep them inactive, then they could be brought back. (should is another question). When WW1 ships were modified in the 20s and 30s, the modifications were often very extensive including completely new boilers/powerplants, superstructures, etc. Also, many ships that were very severely damaged and technically sunk were raised and brought back into service. So, it could be done given the will to do it. The countering side is that the modifications and upgrades could easily cost more than building a new ship of comparable capabilities especially as new production lines would have to be started for things such as the gun barrels and ammunition. And let's not forget the size of the crew needed. The major asset that these ships have is their armour which is great compared to the egg shells floating around now. But even with that, the newer hypersonic missiles have such kinetic energy that they are far more powerful than any shell that armour was designed to stop. So although it is possible to do it, I don't see how it would be cost effective in the present environment. If not cost effective in combat terms, then it is throwing a lot of money at an emotional/morale thing. There has to be cheaper ways of addressing those issues.

[@briancsobor7476]

Very informative video!

[@jameshaxby5434]

Yes, they should. During the Gulf wars we found that they were the only weapons we had that could break through the hardened bunkers that the Iraqis had. One problem that really hurt the old battleships was just too many Sailors on board, which would be easy to fix by replacing most of them with advanced technology.

[@shamrock3957]

With the advent of railguns firing shots that are "cheap" compared to missiles and the ever increasing effectiveness of anti-missile defenses I think it is actually possible that eventually you will see Battleships or the next evolution of them return to dominance in the future. Existing BB's are best off resting in their well earned peace as monuments and national treasures.

[@dam1041960]

Let's please stop dreaming. These ladies did there job. Now just injoy them as is. They would be no match for modern weapons and ships. With much love ladies thank you. For you will live in my heart BB'S

[@bw4t]

How wonderful to hear the correct pronunciation of "Missouri"! My paternal grandmother was born there (Appleton City) and she made darn sure I knew how to pronounce her state's name correctly. You made my day!

[@jeffbeck8993]

Less educated = Missourah. Not an insult, just reality of common usage among descendants of slaves and working class whites. Many language errors still exist, like being "Axed" a question, and a few other common ones.

[@nx014]

I understand the point of a future crew to be trained on loading the main 16 inch naval rifles ( as one the main reasons why none of the Iowa class battleships would even put back in active service) of not having previous crew members to help with the training, but one day on You Tube when i was not evening actively looking, I stumbled on a old US Navy training film that was on You Tube on the operation of the Mark 7 16-inch 50 caliber naval rifles. It literally shows in great detail on how to operate each part /level of the three main Mark 7 16-inch 50 caliber gun turrets on the New Jersey, the Wisconsin, the Missouri, and the Iowa. Bet the US Navy could find in its archive of training films one of the fire control systems for both the Mark 7 16-inch 50 caliber naval rifles as for the Mark-38 5-inch guns. Of course of having another human being showing someone how to do this training would be more ideal-because there will be a literal " human-bond"/ "passing the torch" to the generation which the former crew members of passing their knowledge that would be created

[@robertf3479]

You bring up a good point about the video archives that are available not only on line but also held by the Navy. The issue is, all these videos do is give you a 'bare bones' indoctrination into the operation of the equipment. There is no way to pose questions to the video on things that might not have been adequately answered. Ryan is correct, these ships are literal museum pieces with almost no chance at all of any of them coming back into service. It would cost over $1 billion and take more than a year of heavy overhaul simply to get one back into seaworthy condition and another year or two plus $ billions more to make one combat capable.

[@LTPottenger]

I agree it's kind of silly. How did the first gun crew train? lol

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

First time they fired the 16in in practice, somebody died in a gun pit. So experience really helps.

[@dodgeplow]

The question isn't could they come back, because there's plenty of information available about their design and operation. The question is what purpose would they serve? Who's shores need bombarding that we can't do with other methods? They just aren't needed.

[@compmanio36]

In an age of aircraft and helicopters, shore bombardment is kinda silly anyways. You use air cover to support your landing troops or if you're not occupying a country, just fly over the beach to whatever target you're assaulting. Get in, get out, shoot a couple tomahawks or use your helos or F-35s to provide ground attack support and then get out with no casualties. The fact is, modern warfare is hugely biased towards whomever has the best tech. Most of our engagements at this point end up with no or very few US casualties and the enemy wiped out, because we have the satellites and the technological superiority to ensure that. The old days of slugging it out with giant armored guns that float is over, and so are the days of expecting to just take hits to your ship and survive. The point now is to not be where the enemy expects you to be when they shoot at you, so you don't have to take the hit at all. And the sailors onboard these ships probably are all for it.

[@Elthenar]

Another reason they won't be reactivated is that there are absolutely no spare parts for them. If we needed anything it would have to be custom made, which would be incredibly expensive and time consuming. Honestly, it would be more cost effective to build new battleships than reactive an Iowa.

[@edl617]

Back in the 1980’s there were people that wanted 12 Naval gun fire support ships built. By using a single three gun 16 inch turret from each of the Iowa class battleships. The warship was to come in around 20,000 tons, dual helicopter hangers, 2 CWIZ, AAA guns 76 mm, couple MK 13 Sam launchers. Each with a magazine of 40 missiles

[@GrasshopperKelly]

This is a very apt question today....

[@exexpat11]

A ship more potent than a Zuwalt not being used is sad. I remember during Reagan there was a design floating around for a Modern Double Hulled Battleship complete with Hello Hangars and VLS along with Big Guns. Looked like something out of Manga and was actually considered. Alas BB's are too expensive to run.

[@christianjohnson9190]

I always think of a newer battle ship with one main gun (of big caliber) and one or two secondary (5 in on the Burke’s) and (probably/recommended) 2 CIWS on either side of the super structure (fore and aft or port and starboard) with helicopters as well.

[@TAllyn-qr3io]

I had a division friend, a GMG that re-upped for the Iowa. He was in the turret explosion unfortunately.

[@traveller4790]

NO WAY will any of the Iowa class battleships ever be brought back into active service, for all of the reasons stated in this video and lots more. They're too expensive to operate, replacement parts don't exist, 16 inch shells and powder bags don't exist (and haven't been manufactured since 1946), there's really no operational need for them, and you can pack the same amount of firepower in a present day guided missile cruiser as any of the Iowas ever had. But let's get back to the "too expensive to operate" part - no way in hell will the Navy ever spend $1 billion to refurbish a 75 year old Iowa when they can build a brand-new, modern ship for just about the same amount. Not gonna happen, ever.

[@newhope33]

There's plenty of 16 inch shells left there's around 16000 in the crane ammunition depot although I think they intend to scrap them soon, and powder bags aren't that hard to manufacture. But as you say there's no need for them, you would get better results with missile cruisers or aircraft.

[@jwadaow]

I'm not so sure the navy could build a ship for merely a billion now. If that's genuinely all it cost to reactivate then I could see the argument going the other way.

[@jwadaow]

@@newhope33 Powder bags are literally silk bags of ordinary propellant and manufacturing them is trivial. Shells would need a new line of tools but in principle are the same as the type still used in artillery. I think the real problem is everything else on the ships such as the plant and the maintenance they require. For such large ships that is extremely challenging and the museum is to be commended. If it is going to happen I would imagine it would happen in the next few years based on escalation in the Pacific.

[@omegaman6770]

Can’t see how money could be an issue considering we give away billions upon billions of Tax Payer money to other countries ! Charity begins at home I always say ! 🤔

[@dougwebb704]

And really, and honestly, ask yourself, since the Iowas have been retired has there ever been a single instance in combat where you said, "boy, it's too bad we don't have a couple of the Iowas available to use right now in this fight, that would have made a huge difference" I can't think of a single instance where anything would have turned on the presence of an Iowa class battleship. They are fascinating pieces of machinery and great as museums, but they really aren't required in the navy any more.

[@cmikles1]

How cool it must have been to be on the ship in the 80’s and get to learn gunnery from the OG’s.

[@garyh4458]

Most of the nuke sailors know about steam propulsion. They aren't familiar with boilers or superheated steam but they are fully capable of operating a steam powered engine room.

[@traveleraz8269]

Here I am watrching a three year old video and seeing how stiff Ryan is compared to today. He has progressed in his comfort in front of the camera.

[@Justthatguy420]

So your saying there's a chance!!!!!!!!!!!

[@Vile-Flesh]

Yeeeeaaaah!

[@marklivingstone3710]

Unlikely. Modern weapon systems have rendered them obsolete. They were beautiful in their day and served their purpose but are now no longer required. Sad but that’s the way it is

[@mmkucharczyk81]

evry ship these days are run by computers the battleship is run by steam , an emp would shut the whole navy to a stand still

[@compmanio36]

@@mmkucharczyk81 Battle systems are usually EMP hardened for just that reason.

[@SweetBearCub]

"They were beautiful in their day".. I think they're still beautiful. They should be left as museums, but all should have more funding, so that we don't lose them due to expensive emergency repairs vs. cheaper and more regular routine maintenance.

[@dieselrotor]

I would venture to guess in a worst case need scenario, the budget would be better for a refit than a basic bones even new battleship build. What a beautiful sight to see one of these classic outlines cutting the water even if the big guns were replaced with launchers.

[@GregsWorkshopOregon]

Random question: Are the guns still operable and if so are they registered with the ATF under the NFA?

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

The 16in guns are not operable. The 5in and 40mm are outside regulations to have to registered but we do have an excellent relationship with the Navy, local Coast Guard Base, and local Police and they are not just aware we have them but get a call every time we fire them

[@remington351]

@@BattleshipNewJersey Every time you fire them? Please explain. My kids and I did the full tour in the summer of 2018 and I don't recall a gun demonstration being mentioned.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

If were doing a few rounds at a time (overnights are usually a few) we call them all in at once and are like 'hey, expect 5 rounds around 10pm' but yeah, we call every time. We don't fire the guns every day, we dont have an exact schedule for it, it just depends. Most Saturdays right now we do it, otherwise it's mostly special occasions.

[@remington351]

@@BattleshipNewJersey Awesome. A friendly suggestion. Seeing as there are 9 billion KZbin vidoes of guys firing small arms, civilian guns, if you could somehow create a schedule or just post some high quality videos of the 40mm and 5 inch guns firing, I think you have millions of views in no time. Plus I think lots of us in the mid Atlantic would gladly line up shipside to witness an event like that. I know me and my kids would make the drive from Baltimore for sure.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

We do it every Saturday, for $50 you can pull the 40mm saluting gun trigger.

[@kevincrile2457]

If the navy decided to build a new modern battlship or battlecruiser, what kind of tonnage, propulsion, armorment, and sensor fit would you like to see? Not like the zumwalts, more like the kirovs?

[@militaryhistoryandsurvival5880]

Love it

[@terenfro1975]

If we ever saw a large armored guided missiles battle ship, they would build it off an existing design from scratch. It would take too long to strip and overhaul an Iowa unless it was a major war. The large guns would never be used again. Too expensive. They would also have to put in a gas turbine plant so you can see how expensive this kind of overhaul would be.

[@J-1410]

To be fair, on the expense part, when has the government cared about expense in a war?

[@davidc4379]

They reactivated the Missouri in under an hour to fight Aliens off the coast of Hawaii. Of course it can be done. However, you need to dramatically smash the claw game blocking the door to the ship while listening to Thunderstruck. ;-)

[@KoishiVibin]

lmao

[@jamespollock2500]

You forgot to mention the Desert Storm Crews. There is still an inactive training pipeline at Great Lakes naval station that all materials remain in place to train operators for steam. The carriers still use steam just a different heat source so cross-decking them to a different deck type is still an option. Weapons systems all though outdated; is still possible doing the same thing as what happened in the 1980"s. Recall a select number of former crew to active duty. The written procedures should still exist unless you ditched the EOSS, CSOSS and other written operational procedures that were used by Sailors.

[@alimtimm7355]

Yes, they will. If a Missouri/Iowa class could serve in 1999 then they are definitely useful in 2022.

[@ryankane7177]

There was talk about reactivating a couple of them for Suez escort for CVs a few years ago. While this take gives the most realistic answer, I still wish I could see USS Missouri steaming again.

[@complexgrafix]

THANK U

[@richb.4374]

Trying to put a ship like this in battle against missiles and modern jet fighters would be like going to war with muskets again. Let her rest, she did her duty.

[@curiousentertainment3008]

If they could refit with better torpedo protection and if they were to put modern aa weapons in the old positions the missile/ jet protection would be pretty effective. A full modernization would unfortunately need to be done to these ships that includes removing the boilers and replacing them with new marine diesels and taking the main turrets out and replacing/ updating the gun laying mechanisms and adding computers. The secondary guns would also need to be replaced and presumably with the modern 5” quick firing gun on the current destroyers. Doing all of this would take minimum 2-3 years and probably cost $10 billion or more. Not to mention everything taken off the ships would have to be housed in a museum or warehouse.

[@IshijimaKairo]

Oh I sure do hope so.

[@charlesjohnson6777]

I don't know if you have shown it already or not but can you do the CIC.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Expect something new on CIC on thursday

[@stradplayer90]

I do not know what ships they are but the boilers from at least 1 of the 2 scheduled Iowas are in a Navy ship that was active at least more recently than the Iowas'. So the propulsion stuff may not be the biggest issue.

[@scruffya4017]

with much modernization I'd say yes but probably no unless the USA gets itself in dire trouble....but great ship tour

[@tomsmith3045]

Great video! Could we reactive them? If we ever had a crazy enough budget for it. They got a Wright Flyer to fly again, and everybody that knew how that worked was long gone. Would it be practical? No, sadly. But...would it be fun to start on the project, just to watch the two navies we worry about spend a billion dollars to develop brand new heavyweight torpedoes and 3000 lb supersonic cruise missiles, then explain we were just kidding? I think so!

[@russell5078084]

I would be interesting to see the designs for a modern battleship.

[@tyreekgonzales3337]

The "new" design would look exactly like a modern aircraft carrier

[@johnsmith2249]

It would look a whole lot like an attack sub.

[@ArmoredNeko]

It looks exactly like a modern destroyer only has a rail gun attached in front instead of a rapid firing 120mm. Perfect for shore bombardment and occasional anti-surface, except we don't have a working rail gun yet.

[@DouglasEdward84]

@@tyreekgonzales3337 It would probably be something more akin to the Russian Kirov class, a massive missile platform really. That's the only active ship in the world to resemble anything like a Battleship.

[@maxcaysey2844]

While I totally see and understand your very good points, I still really hope that someday they will return to their former glory! These are too beautiful and too magnificent ships to just sit around as museums!

[@tenkloosterherman]

Simple solution: find someone who shares your dream and has a huge surplus of cash to pay for a re-activation. Even Jeff Bezos hasn't called so far.

[@maxcaysey2844]

@@tenkloosterherman Yeah I know right... It would be cool tho. Not even sure the $2.000.000.000 per ship would register on his bank account...

[@MrBook123456]

good video

[@Adam-ln4og]

As a navel history buff I admire the battleship and what they were, and what they can do. However my inner accountant says it would be cheaper in both materials and training of navy personnel to build new ships of this class with the abilities of the old ones. I.e thick armour, nuclear power vs steam, prebuilt shells vs assembly of them to fire it.

[@compmanio36]

Prebuilt shells would fix a lot of the issues relating to safety when it comes to these ships, too.

[@Ryanisthere]

i want to know about new battleships though any potential for newer updated ones

[@nofrackingzone2.057]

It is completely not cost effective to operate the Iowa class battleships.

[@ProperLogicalDebate]

I saw something on KZbin about the first battleship, Nelson's Victory but believe that there are other previous battleships before that one. What is a battleship? Firepower, protection, speed and range. Willing and able to go in harm's way toe to toe. It doesn't need to be guns but they aren't standoffish.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

A battleship, as opposed to a war ship, has very specific requirements for it to be called that. So Victory, being a ship of the line isn't technically a battleship. We think of ships of (battle) line as being the pre-cursor to battleships but they aren't exactly battleships.

[@bradjames6748]

You should do a piece on the HMCS HURON which was sunk by it's own gun off VANCOUVER ISLAND IN 2008

[@mickaleneduczech8373]

Beyond the cost of refitting them with modern equipment, they require a huge crew to operate. The US Navy just doesn't doesn't have enough manpower.

[@boyanrushkov1755]

Bruv they literally wasted 30bil on 3 useless ships.

[@louiswright8282]

@@boyanrushkov1755 Society

[@rikk319]

A new, modern battleship would have more mechanized and computerized systems, so it's likely you wouldn't need as many crew...but it would still require a hell of a lot of men.

[@SimpleMechanic931]

After seeing the antiquated equipment aboard the ship both in person and through these videos, I’ve finally given up on my dreams of the Navy calling an Iowa back into service. I can’t imagine the ridiculously expensive cost to reactivate just one of these ships, let alone maintain and crew it effectively. Thousands of small parts, easily manufactured in the industrial heyday are obsolete and mechanical systems that require expertise from guys who are not fit to do the job anymore. At this point, I’d say the navy would be better off starting from scratch if they really needed the big guns again.

[@TheRealGraylocke]

Doubtful they'd ever be recalled unless the Navy had plans for major overhauls and upgrades in mind. All the electronics would need to be replaced/updated; I would guess the Navy would have to look at the status of the existing engines, compare them to modern power plants and then look into replacing them. Finally, there are the main guns; who or what companies could make the powder charges and shells for them? Aren't that many firms around, if any, that could make them these days.

[@BlackEpyon]

Probably the biggest reason these battleships won't be recalled into service is the same reason why there will be no new battleships going forward. Those main guns, as impressive as they are, have been superseded by cruise missiles, which have longer range, heavier warheads, and are much more accurate. Why get close enough that they can see you, and fire at you, when you could shoot them from over the horizon in complete safety?

[@ronalddunn291]

We all know you never say never.👍

[@yepme6484]

They should do instructional videos so that our knowledge doesn't get lost and how to make the ammo

[@bluewave2536]

Darn it! Why did you just say that?! My dream got crushed, I am off to the corner to weep now.

[@Battleship009]

Maybe not a full-fledged BB but maybe a something smaller ALA Deutschland might, or we could build something like an modified Alaska or Des Moines class cruisers, failing that, a monitor.

[@nikpat6006]

I could see a new 24k ton missile boat with a single twin 12" mark 50 turret.

[@shamrock3957]

Problem with a missile boat is the fact that anti-missile defenses are advancing rapidly. The U.S. navy has its Phalanx CIWS, Aegis System, and they're closing in on mass producing Lasers for defense. Soon you'll have to fire saturation attacks of dozens if not more missiles only for a couple if any to actually get through the defenses, the coordinated defensive fire from a battlegroup would likely take out every missile before they reach their targets. Take into account that the Navy's LRASM costs $3.9million per missile. Rail Guns and Lasers will be the future of surface warfare. Which means you need heavy armor with sufficient structural strength to withstand the tremendous shock of a project fired at railgun speeds, coupled with a powerful enough powerplant to meet the demands of the ship and its weapons systems. Also keep in mind that the Army and Navy are working on new projectiles with built in ramjets that have hundreds of miles of range with the goal of a thousand miles. A volley of smaller, faster, guided projectiles have a much better chance of breaking through defenses than a volley of large, subsonic/supersonic/hypersonic (lasers beat hypersonic) missiles. IMO in the next hundred years or so you will see the return of large heavily armored gun carrying warships with missiles primarily for long range land attack.

[@thekiatty6953]

@@shamrock3957 i agree to a point. I think you are bag on about saturation attacks and how cost prohibitive that may be. The only problem is that lasers and railguns fire in straight arcs that cannot lob over the horizon which actually makes their range shorter. I think hypersonic missile and drone tech will be the future with large flak batteries intended to put up a wall of shrapnel rather than CIWS taking out 1 at a time. This means ships need to get bigger to mount more VLS systems, drone hangars and runways and flak batteries. I wonder if big guns may return because it is very difficult to knock a 14"-16" projectile off course let alone destroy it compared to super expensive missiles. Modern radar and fire control could make those weapons very accurate I think carriers may be the new battleships in terms of obsolesence in the near future. Just thinking out loud really

[@shamrock3957]

@@thekiatty6953 I almost completely agree. Something to keep in mind and think about the U.S. Army is currently testing a ramjet enhanced artillery round that is guided. with a range of several hundred miles with the ultimate goal of a thousand mile range (dunno if that'll happen but its cool and terrifying to think about).. If they can get that working then its a relatively simple matter to adapt the tech to fight a larger round for naval warfare. The lasers are more for close range air defense and attacking fast attack boats. A large bank of laser missile defenses set up on turreted mounts that rotated fast enough and hypersonic missiles and drones get blasted down with relative ease. Hypersonic loses to lightspeed after all. As for the range issue, IMO, if you can make it so long range weapons like missiles are too cost prohibitive to bring to bear then long range becomes a mute point. If the lasers for missile defense mature and other missile/air defense techs mature the easiest way to make missiles effective is to get close enough so that the enemy defenses have as little time to react as possible. I think that big guns, likely between 12 and 18 inches will eventually make a return if not in railguns then in CLG cannons which use rocket fuel as propellent, which of course presents its own issues, but they do have a range and projectile velocity much greater than even railguns. Of course then the cost issue comes back into play. It'll be interesting to see which way things go.

[@johnsmith2249]

@@thekiatty6953 Rail guns (and any thing else physical that's not fired in space) are subject to gravity like any other gun. The INSTANT that the projectile leaves the barrel, the shell IMMEDIATELY start slowing down, and IMMEDIATELY start dropping. The projectiles, like everything else on earth, are subjected to a downward acceleration directly at the earth's core at a rate of 32 meters/second, every second. Rail gun projectiles have an arching flight path just like any other ballistic projectile, they're just traveling 3x faster at a minimum than your standard shell, so by the time they've fallen a foot, they've gone half a mile.

[@invadegreece9281]

@@shamrock3957 hold on do you think that when missiles get to the point of being useles bc missiles do u think the big guns will appear again

[@HacksignKT]

Plus, a Guided-missile destroyer could simply own any battleship hurts any chance of them making a comeback.

[@robertnichols4833]

Fascinating ships and the apex of the related technologies. But back into service? Nope. Not happening. Others below have fully addressed the reasons.

[@albertmcmichael9110]

JMHO the Navy could develop a new class of Battleship. Using nuclear power and current computer technology with automation. Would most likely be less expensive than trying to reactivate the older Battleships.

[@cadelgent1617]

in my opinion the dreadnought type battleships have seen there day but i think we still need more modern battleships like the Russian Kirov i know she's technically a heavy cruiser but she treads that line between heavy cruiser and battleship very thinly i think we just need a ship that can take a beating and dish it back out. but i'm not a navy man so we may have this covered i don't know

[@supesonictuna7541]

what is mothballed? I have hear you mention it several times in different video's but never gotten any sort of explanation/indication to what it is.

[@exexpat11]

Stored and preserved.

[@SobaBTW]

I mean the USS Texas was already an old ship going into WW2 so I don't see a problem with old ships being reactivated. But it would take something crazy to happen for that to occur.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Texas was 30 years old by WWII, the Iowas are in their late 70s.

[@ronsmith7739]

One major problem is the main turrets are death traps as the sailors have go all the way down to the bottom of the barbets to enter the gun tubes. Anyone hits the turrets and sinks the sailors are gone.

[@terrydouglas5008]

The US tried with the Zumwalts, twin large guns with extended range. Unfortunately so far the extended range ammunition was too expensive, one million dollars a round.

[@BudgetValkyrie]

Well they can just make new ones with of course the guns and modern stuff to give them a chance when fight ship

[@eliasthienpont6330]

Well, yeah, they could. But it would not be the same at all. You would not recognize it as a battle ship. You might mistake it for an oil tanker or something, but not a battle ship. But it will have weapons and speed that older ships wopuld never have dreamed of.!

[@davidgray8191]

Give that most every thing is OTH( over the horizon). We can flash an objective in less time and with more, accurate, concentrated fire power, then ever before. Today we don't guess...we don't miss.

[@tenkloosterherman]

Are you sure about the "don't miss" part?

[@MichaelHradek]

Give me a few days, a case of beer, and my friends and we'll figure out how to run a turret.

[@huibertlandzaat1889]

A battleship is a concentration of heavy guns and other heavy weapon systems A battleship provides combat power, speed and armor and is on site, aircraft have to refuel. First we must answer the question: What should a battleship be able to do? a) showing the flag? b) fire support for smaller ships? c) is the battleship intended as a standalone offensive weapon? d) for what we use the big guns? (bombing land targets or sea targets?) e) is upgraiding passible with future weapon systems, except the guns? (railgun, emp gun, lasergun, etc) f) do we need heavy armor when navigating through canals?

[@TheRetirednavy92]

When I was still on active duty, I thought it would be cool to make a new BB but instead of the 16 inch guns, put on a ton of vertical launch missiles.

[@shamrock3957]

too many effective anti-missile systems out there now. Both soft and hard kill methods. I actually think we'll see big gun type ships returning to dominance in the future with much more powerful guns such as railguns, etc cannons, or CLG cannons with heavy missiles defenses and armor. Missiles are becoming way too expensive and too easily countered. A saturation attack of missiles like the Navy's new LRASM costs around 3-4million per missile, economically unfeasible to launch numerous saturation attacks to overwhelm a hostile's defenses especially when the current railgun projectile cost per slug is around 50k-400k (those are the two ends of the spectrum I've found). Range become irrelevant when whatever you're lobbing missiles at can shoot them all out of the sky long before they reach their target.

[@jerryofswords3502]

What if there a dieaster like some sort of power outage like an emp is there an exception then.I mean the thing is a basiclly a self contained town.

[@Leoluvesadmira]

Also finding parts

[@gustavoarzaga1679]

I think people mean the battleship class not the retired one but could it be possible to make new and improved version we have a lot of technology to automate a lot of functions like loading, aiming, and other things

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Could they make another class of battleship? Absolutely. Will they? We don't think so. There is no reason to build a ship with big guns or with the amount of armor necessary to be considered a battleship.

[@averagewikipediaenthusiast3088]

3:45 Cries in Indonesian

[@benquinney2]

Yes!

[@alancoepman5210]

I am sorry, but in the United States Force has Technical Orders and Illustrated Parts Brake Down. So, if they want to recall anything that the military recalls back to active duty, that is not a problem. There is a lot of information that can be in the Library.

[@jasonbirch1182]

Not to mention that there's no need for shore bombardment in modern warfare. They would send drones or aircraft with smart bombs. Now, if we had a EMP situation where electronic tech is dead then these ships would be very valuable again.

[@stevensheldon9271]

I imagine due to the structure of the ship it is impossible for visitors to get a cellular signal while inside the tourable parts of the ship. Is it feasible to set up the ship for wifi access in the visitor-accessible parts of the ship? This would enable the possibility of putting QR codes on items that you can point your phone at which will take you to a web site (could use Wikipedia in a pinch, or your own site) that describes the item in more detail than a placard could. In addition, such a web site could have an easy-to-use donation link to allow visitors to instantly venmo or paypal a donation.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Cell service is spotty throughout the ship but I've seen someone get a phone call from the bottom of the turret. We have wifi in some places but it doesn't move through the steel walls well. We have long debated expanding the wifi for QR codes or an app but isn't feasible for now.

[@compmanio36]

@@BattleshipNewJersey With all the wiring and steel, you're pretty much in a floating Faraday cage. You'd have to put access points inside every compartment pretty much to get it to work. Not impossible but it would cost some money and time. Cheaper and easier just to have a sign or placard to read. Plus, it comes with the added bonus of people not staring at their phones on Facebook or Twitter while they take a tour of the ship!

[@ashleyhamman]

"No adequate replacement." seems like a potential issue, I assume it's not because of how much naval doctrine has changed? I'd imagine a replacement would look significantly different, but I'm curious as to how they might work. Considering the last such vessel was built in the 1940s, the gun and armor systems in place would have to be largely relearned, with artillery and tanks being the most similar technology that continues to modern times, which even those work on dramatically different scales. Autoloaders with guided shells I could imagine would be relatively simple to scale up, though caliber might present a need for re-learning.

[@johnsarab4500]

It all depends on how those ships are retrofitted. They might be used as missile platform

[@LoveandLightJason]

I will put it this way!! There’s a reason why the ships are still kept in pristine condition!!!

[@SuperMig1970]

Necessity and money can make anything happen.

[@TheBigExclusive]

I don't know if you looked into this, but is it possible to use modern metal 3D printing techniques to help save on costs of reactivation or preservation? Could we not scan the parts we need, and then 3D print them (instead of building a huge factory like they did in the 1940s to make spare parts). We can already 3D print metal handguns, and assault rifles. In fact, Space X is already 3D printing metal rockets that they use to go to space. Im wondering if we could use that same 3D printing technology on Battleship parts, or at the very least help with preservation costs. Missing a gear? BAM 3D print it. Missing a handle? BAM! 3D print it. Need a new custom panel? 3D print it.

[@milesprower7357]

these big majestic beasts dont need reactivation. as much as i want to see them run. these girls are retired and probably dont want to go back to war

[@SweetBearCub]

"these girls are retired and probably dont want to go back to war" Yep, their place is to retire in safety and comfort, and teach the younger generations. They have so much to teach if you listen. "Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

[@Spiggy769]

Though I have personally been in the same Battlegroup as the Missouri and partook in many operations with it and stared at in many of times across the water while in port in Long Beach....I can honestly say that no matter how impressive they are in terms of power I would absolutely in no way want to see them reactivated or even thought about being reactivated. Reasoning is simple...if they were even thought about being reactivated that would mean one thing and one thing only....the S**t hit the fan....hard. And I personally would not want to see a situation which would even warrant that discussion