# How might you build an "updated" Iowa class battleship, today? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 31, 2015, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-might-you-build-an-updated-iowa-class-battleship-today/736252 "2015-10-31T12:16:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-might-you-build-an-updated-iowa-class-battleship-today/736252/81 "2015-11-03T18:06:11Z")
> [@bump](#): > > After all, battleship HE shells weighed a LOT more than 750 lbs and were going at least as fast as a Sunburn anti-ship missile, but weren’t lethal to battleships. They also had something like 50 lbs of explosives in them. 900 pounds is a lot more than 50. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-might-you-build-an-updated-iowa-class-battleship-today/736252/82 "2015-11-03T20:16:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > They also had something like 50 lbs of explosives in them. 900 pounds is a lot more than 50. You’re thinking of the AP shells. The HC (high capacity) were more like 200 lbs. But HE is pretty much worthless vs. armor, so the HC shells were probably as effective or even more so than an anti-ship missile, as they had a lot more non-HE mass. In fact, the closest thing we have to a historical equivalent, kamikaze attacks, were virtually worthless vs. US battleships, due to a combination of high volumes of AA fire and the armor rendering the ones that did it, ineffective. ---
**Author:** ![Regallag\_The\_Axe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/regallag_the_axe/32/445_2.png) [@Regallag\_The\_Axe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Regallag_The_Axe)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-might-you-build-an-updated-iowa-class-battleship-today/736252/83 "2015-11-05T05:11:15Z")
When I first started reading this thread my mind immediately went to the idea of multiple hulled warships. I dropped the idea after a few minutes of thought because a catamaran design offers little advantage over that of a traditional battleship. Then someone brought up the idea of a submersible battleship. But anything shaped like a battleship would be a terrible submersible and vice versa. Then it hit me: a dual-hulled submersible battleship! Something shaped like two submarines joined together by a rigid structure would be able to slice through the water under the waves AND be stable enough to handle recoil from big guns firing. Just imagine it: What looks like two submarines burst out form under the surface, then you notice that it’s a single ship. The top of each hull slide away to reveal the main armament, two turrets on each hull, each turret sporting a massive railgun. The smaller directed energy weapons light up, vaporizing all threats in the ships line-of-sight, while the railgun deliver hypersonic death to any enemy inside of 2000 kilomers. As soon as enemy aircraft and satellites get a fix on the location of the death dealing leviathan it’s returned to the deep. None but it’s crew know where or when it shall reappear and once again wreak havok! Granted I can’t think why any nation would _need_ a ship like that, but you’ve got to admit that it would the most awesome vessel to ply the seas. ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-might-you-build-an-updated-iowa-class-battleship-today/736252/84 "2015-11-05T11:04:42Z")
> [@Regallag\_The\_Axe](#): > > Granted I can’t think why any nation would _need_ a ship like that, but you’ve got to admit that it would the most awesome vessel to ply the seas. No nation. I do however have a buyer. Ernst Stavro Blofeld I think was the name. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-might-you-build-an-updated-iowa-class-battleship-today/736252/85 "2015-11-05T14:20:54Z")
> [@Regallag\_The\_Axe](#): > > When I first started reading this thread my mind immediately went to the idea of multiple hulled warships. I dropped the idea after a few minutes of thought because a catamaran design offers little advantage over that of a traditional battleship. Then someone brought up the idea of a submersible battleship. But anything shaped like a battleship would be a terrible submersible and vice versa. Then it hit me: a dual-hulled submersible battleship! Something shaped like two submarines joined together by a rigid structure would be able to slice through the water under the waves AND be stable enough to handle recoil from big guns firing. > > Just imagine it: What looks like two submarines burst out form under the surface, then you notice that it’s a single ship. The top of each hull slide away to reveal the main armament, two turrets on each hull, each turret sporting a massive railgun. The smaller directed energy weapons light up, vaporizing all threats in the ships line-of-sight, while the railgun deliver hypersonic death to any enemy inside of 2000 kilomers. As soon as enemy aircraft and satellites get a fix on the location of the death dealing leviathan it’s returned to the deep. None but it’s crew know where or when it shall reappear and once again wreak havok! > > Granted I can’t think why any nation would _need_ a ship like that, but you’ve got to admit that it would the most awesome vessel to ply the seas. It also need to be able to fire barrages of torpedoes, and anti-torpedo torpedoes. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-might-you-build-an-updated-iowa-class-battleship-today/736252/86 "2015-11-05T15:24:51Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > How well will the battleship fight if the armor prevents missiles from penetrating the hull but the battleship loses all radar dishes and radio antennas? A ship with it’s sensors and communications crippled is not an effective combatant, and you can’t put those under armor. Also, a lot of missiles will hit on top armor instead of neatly on the armor belt or specificly armored parts like the barbettes; IIRC it’s quite possible to gut the ship by coming in from above without really hurting heavy armor. > > Finally, most antiship missiles aren’t armor piercing because people no one sails heavily armored ships, not because of some fundamental limitation. No one has any reason to field missiles designed to quickly take down a battleship when there are no battleships around, but if you start a big, expensive program to make battleships then someone will start a small, inexpensive program to update anti-ship missiles against them. By ‘armor against modern cruiser weapons’, I don’t mean just the current inventory, but the stuff you could easily develop and deploy on a cruiser with current technology in less time than it would take to design and build the battleships. I’d like to see those old mechanical gun direction computers rebuilt. They weighed a ton, and maintaining them was almost impossible ---
**Author:** ![lazybratsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@lazybratsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lazybratsche)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-might-you-build-an-updated-iowa-class-battleship-today/736252/87 "2015-11-05T15:48:05Z")
> [@bump](#): > > You’re thinking of the AP shells. The HC (high capacity) were more like 200 lbs. > > But HE is pretty much worthless vs. armor, so the HC shells were probably as effective or even more so than an anti-ship missile, as they had a lot more non-HE mass. > > In fact, the closest thing we have to a historical equivalent, kamikaze attacks, were virtually worthless vs. US battleships, due to a combination of high volumes of AA fire and the armor rendering the ones that did it, ineffective. There are plenty of bombs and missiles designed to penetrate “hardened targets”. Some are simple masses of steel packed with explosive, while others use the tandem shaped charge that I described previously. How would 12+ inches of hardened steel fare against warheads designed to penetrate several meters of reinforced concrete before exploding? I’m guessing that if there’s a newly developed ship with heavy armor, it might be temporarily immune to many anti-ship missiles but opponents will quickly develop and deploy effective anti-armor warheads ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-might-you-build-an-updated-iowa-class-battleship-today/736252/88 "2015-12-23T00:23:15Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > I’d like to see the OP come back and tell us more of what he’s thinking about. Other than just salivating over military violence pron. Man, you say that like it’s a BAD thing… Anyway, 'apologies, all, as I actually kept meaning to get back to this a lot sooner, but work’s been swamping me, lately. I just hope it’s not too late to dust this one off. But back to the OP; apologies again, as I’d actually just hoped to head off the greater (quite valid) debate over the utility of an _Iowa_-class as a modern warship by sidelining the question of armament at the start—and I actually _did_ have some ideas about how their weapons might be effectively used or developed, FWIW, but thought that’d be a whole topic in and of itself. Probably a clear as mud, boneheaded idea on my part. So, to puke out a better…um, “OP statement”? The more prosaic but still important aspects of warship design that might be updated were what was interesting me, more than anything else. Posters above mentioned that it would be possible to design a hull form with less drag, or than the fire suppression system might be improved, for example. A few people suggested simply putting a nuclear reactor as a power plant. No argument from me, but I’m also wondering if any other conventional power plant arrangement be overall better than the boilers and steam turbines used on the Iowas? Or at least, offer improvements in one area (consume less fuel, produce more power, be easier to maintain, etc) enough to make up for shortfalls in another? Would there be any ability (or need) to improve crew accommodations? Better heating/air conditioning? Improved fresh water production? Cushier toilet seats? What kind of safety improvements might be made, over how the Iowas were when they were first launched, or when they were last in service? Less Lead paint and asbestos, I presume, at least. I…realize this is increasingly sounding like a request to boil down seventy years of advancements in naval architecture down to a message board reply, which isn’t really reasonable or sane. But some of the major bullet points (er, “shell points”?), at least, as could apply to this class of ship in particular, would be enlightening. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-might-you-build-an-updated-iowa-class-battleship-today/736252/89 "2015-12-23T13:12:27Z")
There probably isn’t anything in advancements for “this class of ship in particular” for hull, mechanical, and electrical improvements that aren’t equally applicable to other ships. Just a few examples: the Navy is now replacing steam fittings used on the DDG-51 destroyers (which run all sorts of stuff) with electrical components. That’s a huge weight, safety, and efficiency improvement. New reverse osmosis water purifiers make huge amounts of water, meaning sailors can have full showers. In terms of crew space, the DDG-1000 is a very big ship with a fairly small crew, so everyone gets their own staterooms. As far as propulsion, I’m pretty sure any technology today would be a vast improvement over the boilers used on an Iowa. Large amphibious ships today use either big diesels or gas turbines. Finally, for hull form, the DDG-1000 uses a tumblehome hull. It’s a controversial design, but you can look up the pros and cons in Wikipedia. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-might-you-build-an-updated-iowa-class-battleship-today/736252.md?page=4)