Again partisans are calling for reactivation of the two Iowa-class battleships still owned by the Navy. Their latest ploy is to propose the two Iowas as alternatives to new-construction DD(X) destroyers. Within the Navy there is no advocate for reactivating the Iowa (BB-61) and Wisconsin (BB-64) in this period of austere funding.
The DD(X) is being designed for combat in the 21st century. The Iowa-class battleships were built in the 1940s for ship-to-ship combat, although they found limited use as gunfire support ships into the early 1990s. To return the battleships to active service would be expensive and would provide virtually no useful military capability.
Manning: Each Iowa requires about 1,500 men and women. This compares to some 335 for an Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) missile destroyer or 125 to 175 for the DD(X). Thus, the people—the most expensive item in the Navy's budget—needed for one battleship could man about ten DD(X)S.
Training: There are no active duty U.S. Navy personnel trained in the 600-pound steam plant and the weapons and fire control systems of a battleship. The Navy's school system would have to be expanded at great cost in people and facilities to train two crews.
Guns: A battleship's 16-inch guns have a maximum range of about 27 miles. Assuming only a ten-mile standoff distance for the battleship (to ensure deep water for maneuvering and some avoidance of shallow-water mines), the guns could reach inland at most some 17 miles. Current Marine Corps and Special Forces doctrines call for operations much farther inland. Thus, the battleship's 16-inch guns would be useless to support most operations ashore. The 155-mm guns of the DD(X) will shoot much farther, with more accurate projectiles, and at a much faster rate than the 16-inch guns.
Missiles: The battleships were each armed with 32 Tomahawk land-attack missiles. The Navy's 62 Burke-class destroyers built and under construction each carry 90 missiles. Even with half of their missile cells devoted to the anti-air/anti-missile role, each ship could still carry 45 Tomahawks-a total of almost 2,800. In addition, the Navy's 22 Aegis missile cruisers and all 55 attack submarines can carry Tomahawks, and four ex-Trident submarines now being converted to SSGNs can each carry up to 154 missiles. There is no need for the battleships in this role.
Mission: The battleship is a singlemission ship with no viable antiair or antisubmarine capability. Thus, when a battleship is deployed it must be escorted/protected by missile destroyers and cruisers—adding to the cost of its operations.
Protection: The battleship is the most heavily armored warship afloat and can survive hits from conventional projectiles. However, armor-penetrating warheads are a widely known technology; the cost and time to develop an antiship cruise missile (e.g., Exocet, Harpoon) with such a warhead would be far less than to reactivate a battleship. Studies have shown that a few hits by napalm-type weapons (bombs or missiles) could burn off the ship's antennas, leaving it incapable of using its guns or missiles. A mission kill can be as important as a ship kill, leaving a battleship afloat, but unable to carry out its mission and vulnerable to further attacks. An under-the-keel detonation of a conventional torpedo could possibly leave a battleship dead in the water. And, unlike modern warships, battleships provide no protection for their crews from chemical and biological weapons.
Cost: The reactivation of the four Iowa-class battleships in the 1980s cost in excess of $2 billion. Returning two ships to service today, with some update of their radars and communications, procuring spare parts (most of which would have to be made especially for the two ships), and training the crews (3,000-plus people) would probably cost far more than $2 billion per ship. For the same cost, would a fleet commander rather have one battleship with all of the limitations discussed above, or two new Burke-class destroyers?
Fuel consumption: The battleship's steam plant—designed in the 1930s—is an oil guzzler. A battleship steaming at 20 knots will burn 14 tons of fuel per hour; by comparison, a Burke-class destroyer burns 5 tons per hour; at 30 knots a battleship burns 51 tons of fuel per hour compared to about 16 tons per hour for the DDG. The DD(X) is expected to be more economical with an integrated electric drive propulsion plant. The cost of fuel also makes reactivation of the battleships impractical.
Modernization/conversion: The two battleships could be modernized and provided with more missiles, improved guns, etc. But that will take time and involve more cost-for just two ships. Even modernized, certain aspects of the ships would not change from their 1930s design—such as their inefficient oil-burning propulsion plants and the large number of men needed in the engineering department.
Ship numbers: There are but two battleships available. The direct and overhead costs for reactivating them will be for two ships with perhaps another ten years of service life. The Navy plans—and requires—series production of the DD(X) to provide ships in numbers as well as capability. Further, the DD(X) will introduce the hull, propulsion plant, and some combat systems for the planned CG(X) cruiser that will follow in another decade.
I have been aboard all four of the Iowa-class battleships and I have spent a week at sea in the New Jersey (BB-62) of this class. They are great ships—but not for the U.S. Navy's 21st century fleet.
1 See, for example, Dennis Reilly, "Battling for Battleships," The Washington Times, 21 June 2005; and Tracy A. Ralphs and Samuel Loring Morison, "DD(X) Navigates Uncharted Waters," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, July 2005, pp. 72-73.