OBXRon

probably a Palin supporter too to make such an awful suggestions

More likely its someone from another country living here and flying the flag of some other country.

dmill...I am an independent and I am not happy with the present commander in chief for his internal policies...but when it comes to the military...as commander in chief he has been a surprise. He has been one of the most aggressive and forward ones we have had, and has not dropped the ball on the military in any way shape or form. Because of all the other problems and perhaps because it goes against his party lines, there is little no no press on what this administration has done. We are investing heavy in the future of the military, well beyond and what his predecessor proposed or planned. Either he or someone in his administration really knows whats going on. Even if he loses his office in hindsight it is going to be an interesting evaluation of him. Save this paragraph and print it out and save it somewhere, and regardless of the state of affairs in this country in 10 years, go back and read what I said again.

I am not going to vote for him twice, since I did not vote for him the first time. What you say he has done wrong has facts behind it and I agree, but what I telling you are the facts that are not in the press that you and most people are not aware of. I am sorry if you do not like it, and you do not have to vote for him either.

I know what we can do in an article about retiring a ship.

Let's all interject political hate into it.

And thanks to all those that voted all these blind hate posts up. Real classy.

I am sure there is an article about a cat stuck in a tree you can hate politicians on.

As for you Clowns carring on like an Islamis Extremenist, you are more dangerous to youselfs than anybody. You think talking in such a disrepective manner makes you a man. You think that is is supporting your choice of a candidate. You have been nowhere, have done nothing, and will never amount to a pile of S*** your whole life. I have known many like you in my life time and they are still going to the same bars, sitting on the same stools, and talking the same crap. Your life is carved in stone.

@6dogs the only reason you know so much is because you sit on the stool next to them, but that's OK you have to get a education somewhere may as well be in a establishment full of know it all types, the question is whether or not its a liberal bar or a conservative bar or one of the others?. that is a magnificent ship I hope she gets good care at her new home. as far as the political rhetoric I agree Mr O is in the wrong field of employment, I'm surprised he didn't have the ship scraped that would pay for another family vacation for the O's. has O learned how to salute the flag yet, or is he still against the flag? maybe we will find out when he shows us how transparent he can be. so far the government has been the most transparent in history we haven't been privy to much of anything hes been up to its all secret stuff.

If we had dressed up Obama in a flight suit and helicoptered him on to the deck of the Iowa in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner maybe all the racist righties and fascist repubs would be happy. They can relate to morons and empty braggarts.

Blulake don't forget the overly large Codpiece, must include that too..;-)

GW is such a "manly man", isn't he?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEPPHjKIZps&feature=related

retired--You can show all the right wing economists and fiscal "experts you want. You can condemn all the Obama stimulus plans and programs and spend millions on all the phony right wing films about Obama's economic policies. But you cannot change the fact that while Cheney and Bush raped the Federal Treasury, launched two wars on credit and paid billions on inflated no bid private contracts (quickly approved by a solid republican Congress) to politically connected war profiteers, all those so called fiscal conservatives, and right wing economists issued not a god damned peep. Not a word, nothing. While President Cheney and underling Bush mortgaged our country to the Chinese in an effort to steal the Iraqi oil fields they said not a word. Oh, actually they quietly nodded in affirmation as the lying sack of @!$%# Cheney told us not to worry the Iraq war "would pay for itself". So save all your horse@!$%# "films", and phony, hypocritical condemnations of Obama. When it comes to fiscal responsibility the teabaggers, the reichwing republicans and so called conservatives have zero credibility. They are just full of crap. Either that or they were asleep for most of the last decade. Or...just plain brain dead.

Bush mortgaged our country to the Chinese

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/26/214938.shtml

Speaking of china ..Americans seem to forget the facts.

You actually pay attention to the garbage coming out of Newsmax? Just another ultra rightwing Fox clone with an irrational and feverish hatred of Obama? Facts from Newsmax?? Oh, you crack me up. If Newsmax was a newspaper instead of a political porno site I wouldn't wipe my ass with it. Link all you want it's still scurrilous excrement. An utter waste of time...

Have you ever researched anything yourself? Not sure if you served or not but i would not comment on G.W's Military career because i would not want him to comment on mine.

In the Navy Times a few months ago , there was a article which said and i quote " less than 1% of the U.S actually serve in the military" Unbelievable as that sounds to me since i know so many that have .

After reading Newsvine and all the Bashers like you and our Apologizing leader and chief's comments. I fear our best days may just be behind us.

Yeah you're probably right so go ahead and vote for Willard Romney. He bicycled around France while 55,000 Americans died in Southeast Asia. Not one single blood relative of Romney has ever served in the American military. In fact almost none of his fellow religious cultists ever served in our military and you can be damned sure none of his five sons will serve. And your crap about Obama being an apologist is just that, crap. You love links so read this:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0209-chapman-20120209,0,1070341.column

Get your head out of Fox and get the truth. By the way The Chicago Tribune is basically a right wing rag and yet still published this. Read it sir!

I want one :(

Interesting link Bluelake ..It does not make obama sound any better to me though .It just leaves me with the same feeling i had before NOBODY who runs is worth voting for.

Have a nice day.

In fact almost none of his fellow religious cultists ever served in our military

Absolute and utter horse pucky. Nothing Retired said was incorrect. Sorry.

on the other hand, you won't find an amish or other mennonite in the military either. (and the amish tend to avoid politics too)

retired,

Current US population is roughly 350million, of which 1% would be 3.5million. So we probably do have slightly less than 1% CURRENTLY serving military between regular service and active duty reserve and gaurd personnel. But, this ignores the huge number of veterans from WWII to those currently exitting the service. That number probably exceeds 35million, or 10% or the populace. Though not a veteran myself, I am the son of an Army vet with 3 Landing Badges and a Bronze Star from the South Pacific. He has passed. Today, I drive a Navy 1st Lieutenant Nurse from WWII, the widow of a Marine 2nd Lewy, to church each week.

In fact almost none of his fellow religious cultists ever served in our military

Here is one of his fellow "cultists" that never served. Does his voting record make him a chicken hawk?

Reid has supported the use of force in the Middle East but in September 2007 he called for a drastic change in strategy.[citation needed] In January 1991 he voted to authorize the first Gulf War.[24] quoting John F. Kennedy's 1963 State of the Union speech on the Senate floor, saying "the mere absence of war is not Peace."[25][26] He also voted in support of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[27][28]

If in fact almost none of those "cultitsts" ever served then please explain why the Army and Air National Guard, Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Naval Reserve, Marine Force Reserve and Coast Guard Auxilliary all have units in Utah. Please explain why there are over 35 VFW posts and the American Legion has 99 posts.

Bluelake, doesn't matter if you are a paid political poster or a true political groupie weirdo, stop spreading your garbage on EVERYTHING you can. J. W. Bush thought he could waste our money like nobody else. But we at least bought wars with the money.(sarcasm) But Uncle Sambamma showed Bush (and everyone else) he didn't know squat about wasting taxes. After the S&L's uppers made themselves GROSSLY wealthi-ER by producing disguised garbage investments out of loans to noncredit worthy people, not only has Uncle O. not sought prosecution or investigation of those responsible, but gave BILLIONS more to these same people who caused this financial fiasco we are living today for BAILOUT. Who almost as soon as got the federal check started making bonus to themselves. The very same people who should be rotting in jail right now. The only consolation for Uncle O. in all this is EVERYONE 'up there' has something tied to this mess, OR they would be raising hell about it now. There is no one to vote for that isn't a criminal. So, lest you be a crook too, stop painting turds pretty colors. They all still stink. I suppose you've seen the movie 'Inside Job'. If not, everyone should. You'll learn a lot about the good, the bad, and the ugly. There actually are some good ones around, but they are few and far between, and under the thumbs of the bad and ugly. A whole lot of ugly I tell ya, and ugly is obviously bipartisan.

Yeah. Like the Somali pirates...

You can be assured that a good percentage, although not the majority, of the museum's capital and operating costs will have to come from private sources. Admission fees, special private tours, dinners, galas, banquets, concerts, custom ship models, and the like. Almost no museum survives solely on appropriations from tax revenue.

The Pacific Battleship Center is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization established in 2009. The organization was awarded custody of USS IOWA BB-61 on September 6, 2011 for display as a museum and educational attraction at Port of Los Angeles Berth 87.

Sca58, For being concerned about money? In these times when countries are going bankrupt?

Sca58, For being concerned about money? In these times when countries are going bankrupt?

Even when money is tight, a way has to be found to preserve our heritage. This battleship is part of who we are as a nation. As history has shown, recessions are temporary. Once lost, the Iowa-class battleships are gone forever.

idspispodp,

You were disrespectful in this comment to bellyache about a very small amount of money.

Spending tax payer money to maintain the Iowa class BB's is vastly better spent money than $4 billion annual welfare to the oil companies.

Some people (Republicans) are so petty and small minded. They argue about the seating in a car that is heading into a concrete wall at 100 mph.

The ship will be a shot in the arm fot the comunity, shops, restaurants, tourism and whatever the area wants to contribute to that, it will more than pay for itself, plus its a tribute to the greatest generation, we owe them that.

@ bill with dumb fux, think about what you just said! does the name Ralph Nader remind you of anything, he almost distroyed the auto industrie and he was not a Republican he was a Liberalist, thats like a left wing super democrat, he attacked every aspect of American manufacturing, and set the stage for corporations to vacate this country. and he never did attack foreign products. he killed the corvare, he killed the convertible, he attacked everything made in America and helped open foreign markets to replace what he put out of production in America.

Next I suppose you will tell me that it wasn't Carter that signed the community reinvestment act in 1977 that set the stage for the recent realestate collapse and Clinton never granted China special trade status or expanded the free trade agreements, you going to tell me Bush went back in time and set all this up so he could destroy this nation, you going to tell me that Bush removed all the stock marketsafeties in 1999 that allowed the markets to spiral out of control, well I wont buy it. Oh and Nancy Polosi never misinformed the Potus on the pending crisis when he wanted to reinstall the safeguards and put controls on housing and the banking and loan companies like Freddie Mack and Fanny May, why do people only believe what they hear and not bother to look.

Now isn't that a nice boat.

you going to tell me that Bush removed all the stock marketsafeties in 1999 that allowed the markets to spiral out of control,

actually, that was the republican controlled congress, clinton just signed it

danwill

you going to tell me that Bush removed all the stock marketsafeties in 1999 that allowed the markets to spiral out of control,

actually, that was the republican controlled congress, clinton just signed it

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 passed with 377 voting yea, 193 Republicans and 181 democrats, 2 from each part voted nay and 51 did not vote.

These older ships that have been docked and revamped multiple times (which is millions of taxpayer $$$) are probably costing the US too much to maintain. Why not turn it into a museum (with private funds) so that later generations can see how our Sailors and Marines lived and worked on these ships?

I just made a trip to San Diego to welcome my brother home from a tour at sea and we toured the USS Midway (which was revamped 3 times since the 1940s). It was completely fascinating to see how much the crew got done in such limited space. Does the average American know that even though the Midway was in use up until the 1990s, it still ran weekly through millions of gallons of diesel fuel? It is probably the same with the USS Iowa guessing by it's age. Whereas the newer ships are fueled by nuclear power and only need fuel for their aircraft.

Thank you to all the men and women who served abord the USS Iowa!

Well put Stuckatwork. I always thought as a small child that the battle ships were the neatest thing there was. Ended up doing 4.5 years on a sub later, but I still think the old battle barges are the baddest looking things the USN ever built. And let me expand on the thanks you give with thanks to all past and especially to the active military serving in danger zones today. We at home so much appreciate you and look forward to ALL of you to return. Your service will never be forgotten, and NEVER shall the American people treat veterans as those of the Vietnam and Korean Wars were treated. At least if I am anywhere near. Those guys should be treated as royalty after what they went through AFTER they got home. Bless you one and all.

The guns are right there--they are nearly horizontal, but you can clearly see three from the #2 turret. They have a black end-cap on the muzzle. Certainly most of the smaller 5-inch guns are long gone, but the big ones are there.

You can see the 16-inchers plain as day in the picture.

6/10/12 I'm Confused ? WHY would they Remove the 16" Guns ? Doesn't make sense ? SPW

The big 16-inchers are there! Their muzzles have covers on them.

Also, this photo was taken with a long telephoto lens, which has a natural tendency to "flatten" perspective. Everything from front to rear will look crunched together, making certain details hard to distinguish without close examination. Also the height of the subject will look exaggerated.

I kind of like the effect in this photo. It gives this mighty vessel an even more ominous appearance which sends a clear message to the enemy: Don't tread on me!!!

Just for clarification. The name for a muzzle plug is tampion.

Spike, I recently had a terrible sewer back up cause my GF was flushing a bunch of those things. Was wondering what they were for. Now I wonder what she was using them for.

@ paledude - psssst.... The ones for guns have an "i" in the word. The ones your GF flushed don't ;)

Really bad photo journalism. Photographer in a lousy position to take pictures of the ship.

Dan,

Look again. The main guns are still there.

Neutered? Look just below the three black bellows on the gun turret. Those are three massive gun barrels.

One ship, even a battleship, isn't going to deter the pirates. Remember, the cost of Somalia is over a thousand miles long. For the cost of operating the USS Iowa, we could have dozens of small, fast attack craft operating in the waters that would be more likely to be in the vicinity of a pirate attack.

They are beautiful ships. The problem is the old steam boilers that run them. Remember these were built with the very best 1930s-early 1940s technology. 2 boilers each for 4 screws--that's a lot of Sailors trained on boilers (which aren't used anywhere else in the modern Navy) just to make her go. Plus, no one makes the replacement parts for most of the equipment on these things anymore

I'd love to seem them carrying the flag also, but it just doesn't make military or economic sense.

Supporting your premise, with the Iowa you wouldn't have to worry about a USS Cole type attack. Even if they set off an explosion next to her like the Cole, it would only scratch the paint.

Ir read somewhere that it is not fully decommisioned.Six month retro fit and she would be back in service.Meaning that they cannot totally gut it.Also they have developed new gps guided artillary rounds that im sure would work just dandy in those big ole 16's

But what a big beutiful Ship.I cannot wait to go see her!!

If I remember correctly... which I may not... I believe there are several issues with the remaining Iowa-class battleships. Not just the boilers, but overall manpower requirements, and metal fatigue regarding the ship's hull. Something about buckling of the keel, or somesuch? They are, simply put, OLD ships. Beautiful, powerful, and incredible historic pieces. But unfortunately, old.

Still, sad to see them isolated to port. But on the other hand, much better than scrapping, or sinking in 1,000 feet of water during rough weather.

Would be interesting to see the look on an Iranian Ship Captain or Somali Pirates face just as this let lose in their direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg

Would be interesting to see the look on an Iranian Ship Captain or Somali Pirates face just as this let lose in their direction.

If there ever was a comment left of on here, devoid of reality, I'd give the award to "CynicL1."

The fact that the Iranians always operate within range of coastal support, i.e land and air-based anti-ship cruise and (now) ballistic missiles...I'd hate to be on the Iowa. That ship can take a hell of a pounding, but it's AA defense is virtually nil, and the Iranians would have an endless stream of ordnance to throw at it.

The Iowa may sink and Iranian corvette or two, and then it would either be sunk, or left a burning hulking wreck itself. There is a reason these things were retired. Expense, and practicality against a capable, "real" opponent.

It is a fun idea, but not very practical. For the cost of the refit we could send several guided missile destroyers which collectively would have more firepower, be cheaper to operate, and more flexible in terms of operational capability. It's not like the pirates are fielding BBs of their own - the Iowa would be like using an elephant gun to hunt mosquitoes.

Still, the "Oh sh!t!" factor WOULD be hilarious, wouldn't it?

With the Somali pirates, it would be complete overkill. The expense of operations would be astronomical per the results. For the Iranians, at least as the Persian Gulf is concerned, the Iowa would be nothing more than an archaic, big juicy wet target. Any war with Iran, would primarily be an Air Force operation, and with good reason.

Tom, you might be surprised just how well one of these ships could protect itself from attack. In their final configuration, they didn't have a big AA defense from aircraft because that was not part of their mission. The did have cruise missile defenses in the form of CIWS. Their 5" batteries offer some protection too. Had enemy aircraft been an issue, it would not have been very difficult to install a Sea Sparrow launcher or two. Besides her 16" batteries that can accurately land 2,000 pound shells at ranges up to about 25 miles, they also had Harpoon anti-ship missiles with a range of about 130 miles and the 12 5" guns are pretty accurate out to about 10 miles.

Submarines present a bit of a challenge to all battleships but, that's what destroyers are for.

Short of using nuclear weapons, there aren't a lot of surface ships that, even in packs, could take on an Iowa class ship and expect to survive the confrontation. I'm not saying there wouldn't have been serious damage but, I think your estimate of a corvette or two and being left a burning wreck, is overly pessimistic, extremely so!

Unfortunately, being able to defend itself well is not the ships mission and doesn't serve the rest of an attack force well.

Well "TiredofHypcrites"(nice handle), CIWS are next to useless in practicality, at least the American Phalanx system, hence their replacement by RIM-116, and the 5 inchers were never really sinked with any effective modern anti-aircraft defensive tracking radar. As for Harpoon missiles, as well as land attack tomahawks...That's all fine and dandy. Great against the handful of say capital ships Iran has, and a few inland targets could be hit. Problem is, the Iowa would be operating in the Persian Gulf and/or the straight of Hormuz. A shallow lake of a "free-fire" kill zone for the Iranian armed forces. Lobbing shells 25 miles is all nice and dandy, until you look at a map and realize how big Iran is, and where the majority of it's "targets" are. Hundreds and hundreds of miles away from the sea. The Iowa and her escorts would find themselves playing tag with potentially hundreds of high speed armed missile craft, all the while receiving and endless stream of incoming ASM's and potentially even ASBM's now, both land and air launched.

Realistically, the U.S Navy would park the Iowa next to an aircraft carrier way out in the Arabian Sea. It would launch it's 36 Tomahawk land attack missiles, and that would be that. Complete waste of money and manpower, that could be achieved much more effectively by a modern Burke class destroyer. The Iranian Navy, minus it's handful of Russian built subs, would not bother trying to challenge a battle group that far out to sea. No point.

For the record, I've volunteered to help out on the Iowa, so it's not like I'm harping on the ship. I just have a pet peeve about military accuracy. The previous poster who compared the Iranians to the Somali pirates lives in fantasy land. He might want to sit down and have a talk with some officers serving in the 5th Fleet. Ironically, and last I checked, the Iranians have had their troubles with the Somali pirates, as much as anyone else.

Tom Berenger,

Actually the chief target of Iran is the Strait of Hormuz. It is the strategic target since it controls the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. Military power is not the ability to defeat an enemy in combat, but to defeat it before combat. Iran continues to export oil to southern Asia and China. It continues to use the proceeds to import goods from North Korea and China (and probably France and Germany if history is a good teacher).

I, by no stretch of the imagination believe that an Iowa-class battleship could achieve this on its own. No major capital ship, except raiders like the Graf Spee or the Bismark, were designed to operate on their own. Not even today's supercarriers can fully protect themselves, so they operate with a phalanx of screening vessels.

Oddly, as the article mentioned, the chief role of the Iowa-class in WWII was as an anti-aircraft screen against Japanese planes. 20 5" guns, 40 40mm Bofors guns, and a mass of 50 and 30cal machine guns provided quite an effective screen when added to the carrier's own AA guns. And they could actually steam as fast or faster than the carriers. Refitting with Phalanx guns, AA missiles and cruise missiles in the 1980-1990's extended both the range and the role of these ships.

Their overall power system is actually similar to modern carriers. Modern carriers depend upon a pair of reactors to provide steam for power, catapults, etc. The Iowa-class depends upon oil-fired boilers to drive steam turbines (remarkably durable machines) for propulsion and for electricity and heating when required. The biggest negative here is the amount of fuel required to operate these ships.

What you overlook, when dismissing the Iowa-class, is the awe factor. As earlier commentors wrote about Lebanon, the silhouette of the New Jersey on the horizon frequently stopped enemy fire without a shot or missile fired from the New Jersey. Properly supported from area land-based (we have bases nearby) and carrier forces, and with a proper screen, the ship could be a vital force. But it would be sad to lose so much history on a fool's errand.

There are about 436 ships listed here (238 USS ships, 198 USNS, MV, SS and other ships) that meet this definition of current ships. I dont think well be short for a while.

There are currently 11 aircraft carriers, 22 cruisers, 60 destroyers, 29 frigates, 2 littoral combat ships, 9 amphibious assault ships, 2 amphibious command ships, 9amphibious transport docks, 12 dock landing ships, 53 attack submarines, 14 ballistic missile submarines, 4 guided missile submarines, 14 mine countermeasures ships, 11 patrol boats, and 1 technical research ship (military intelligence ship, the USS Pueblo, which is currently held by North Korea).^[1]

Support ships include 2 hospital ships, 4 salvage ships, 2 submarine tenders, 1 ammunition ship, 5 combat stores ships, 4 fast combat support ships, 9 dry cargo ships, 15 replenishment oilers, 4 Fleet Ocean Tugs, 11 large harbor tugs, 4 ocean surveillance ships, 4 container ships, 16 cargo ships (used for pre-positioning of Marine and Army materiel), and 7 vehicle cargo ships (also used for prepositioning).^[1]

Your comment is interesting. The 2 USN hospital ships were actually converted from commercial ships. We did not the willingness to actually design a ship from scratch to serve as a hospital ship. We got rid of the two fleet commander ships instead of building proper new ones. The older ships require too many personnel too maintain compared to modern vessels. Remember these battleships have boilers on them. Pain to maintain compared to modern diesel electric propulsion systems. We also have decided that rapid fire automatic loading capable systems that can engage targets from 360 degrees are preferred. You are ready to go at a moments notice and do not have to wait on the next shell to be loaded by humans. We are not there yet, but we are getting closer. The USN Sealift command has actually gotten a few new ships designed for rapid cargo transport with rapid onload and offload capabilities. Yes, you have to design the ship to have that. You cannot take another ship and convert it to perform as well.

I remember being stationed on the Frigate Moinester FF1097 and seeing the Iowa Fire a broadside. Even a quarter mile away the cincussion was as awe inspiring as the heat wave. The recoil I was told pussed the ship 30 feet to starboard from a port broadside. One of the problems, is the age of all its systems. It took the engineers several days to patch all the pipe leaks from one broardside firing aloan. Could you imagine a shore bombardment that lasted several days or a week.

The 16' guns will fire a shell from beyond the horizon 50 miles to a target within fifty feet pin point accuracy. That might cause some deppressed spirits on the other team for a while. I too hate to see them go. The steal on the tower is eighteen inches thick and the sad thing is that we as a country no longer possess the capabilities to make the steel required to build a battleship. We would have to bye the steel from China to buid a United States Battleship. That is just wrong. I am just lucky to have see them at sea.

Tom Fortune,

I can believe your awe at witnessing the Iowa fire.

However, a couple of corrections.

First, gun range was 20-24miles, not 50. Accuracy was achieved through an analog computer, gears and dials - not keys and an electronic display. Guns were loaded by a combination of machine assist and "armstrong" transfer.

Second, the 18" of steel armor was a belt along the waterline, designed to defend against enemy heavy caliber fire or shallow running torpedos. A similar Japanese battleship, the Yamashiro, sank in the Surigao Strait after being hit by over 200 14" and 16" shells. This was the last battleship on battleship combat in history. It was sunk by six 'obsolete' battleships, including the Pennsylvania (sunk at Pearl Harbor and reclaimed) which could not find a target solution and never fired. The Fuso was also sank, but by torpedo from destroyers.

Oh no,

I suspect it will be mothballed until it becomes obsolete. Meanwhile, do you want to make it a walk-through museum?

All things come to an end. Enterprise is not the first, nor will it be the last nuclear-powered ship to be decomiissioned. But decommissioning does not mean the boneyard. Most ships spend a decade, or two or three, in the 'ghost fleet'. And like the earlier nuclear subs, the Enterprise includes the challenge of defuelling and decontaminating before anything else.

In WWII battleships were sunk using torpedoes launched from submarines, bombs dropped by airplanes, and by artillery fire from other battleships and cruisers. They were not impervious then, and even less so now, with cruise missiles added to the mix.

Uh, no...The BB's were used to shell the Japanese mainland by the end of the war. Japan had bigger, and perhaps better warships during the course, but air power negated their affect, and existence.

As for Iranian hackers, I am not sure what the hell you are talking about. The world is rather different between circa 1943, and 2012. Just sayin'.

A battleship is not impervious to damage no ship is or ever was, but i would rather be on a battle ship rather than any other ship, because it is a floating hunk of guns and metal. lol. the american battleship was better than the japanese counter parts because we had radar guided gun mounts that could lock on to enemy ships better and faster.

Well, I'd rather be sitting in a CIC 10,000 miles away, and let all the missiles to the work. ;)

Tom seems to speak from some experience. What I know is from a couple of Navy vets and alot of early reading. A battleship complement was between 1500 and 2000 men. About half those men spent 75% or more of their time below the waterline, in stores, the magazines, and the engine rooms and steerage. Survival for those men in battle was far less than 50%. Look at the WWII examples from Pearl Harbor (best chance of survival - shallow water and friendly port) to the Bismark (130 rescued, perhaps another 200 left to drown for fear of German submarines) to the Yamato (no known survivors).

What about the USS Missouri now in Hawaii? Most famous of all.

jgny - not the time for such crap, please take it else where. You have no more knowledge of our military needs than the professionals who are providing the input to the president.

While I may not be a military expert I can say one thing in general, change is inevitable...the horse and musket was at one time the main stay of military dominance. If you want to change the system do so without alienating others, make your desires known in more meaningful and productive ways.

Our military is bigger than the military of the rest of the world.....COMBINED.

Exactly how much protection do you require in order to feel safe?

I doubt we could ever have a large enough military to make you or others like you safe and I for one am sick and tired of carrying around your dead weight

jgny Your whole comment is an exercise in ignorance, try reading and watching real news. Congress will not supply the funds to maintain battleships when the military says they are obsolete, the shuttle was already slated to be shut down before Obama took office. The welfare state was reduced even while democrats still controlled congress in order to fund the republican formulated Romneycare package. You may have heard of the insurance company and big business funded Heritage Foundation which formulated the healthcare bill, you guys kill me grow up and get a clue.

jgny: You are plain ignorant. There hasn't been an active US battleship in about 2 decades. The Iowa was sitting around in dock somewhere getting gutted. Did that make you feel less safe? About a dozen countries with a puny destroyer with an exocet could've sank the Iowa. I'm passionate about the Dreadnought era, but facts are facts -- these ships are outdated.

You rant about medicare, food stamps, etc, but guess what still overshadows it by a large percentage? Defense spending. We still waged 2 wars simultaneously, is that not enough proof our military is sufficient? Geez. Yeah, why don't we spend ALL our GDP in the military then?

There hasn't been an active US battleship in about 2 decades

Technically you are wrong. Even though it is a memorial and underwater, The USS ARIZONA is, and has been on the ACTIVE status since WWII.

And your comment on the article was? Or your comment was just a simple rant to avoid paying a psychoanalyst? Pathetic... no wonder why you have chosen that name.

They are great boats Dave, granted, but everything in the Navy is trying to go stealth. The new aircraft carriers on the boards are an example of that. But for the "New Navy", she just doesn't fit in..she's considered a relic..

The Iowa is a great boat. Always has been, always will be...

Quite honestly, we don't need them anymore.

What we have now, is faster, more efficient and more deadly.

I'll take an M4 over a musket any day.

I also don't think it's in our best interests to keep a ship in use for over 100 years.

I like horses, but I am glad they are not our primary mode of transportation anymore.

She remains a wondrous symbol of American might and determination.

I am not real sure what it is about these ships that makes them so beautiful; the shape of the hull; the way they sit in the water; there is just something about battleships, especially the Iowa class, that makes them so appealing. I was fortunate enough to get a tour of Iowa when she came through Mayport, while I was serving in Forrestal. I wanted to be a battleship sailor but never made it, though I did serve in five other classes of ships.

Dave, your right, she could have served us for another 50 years and beyond but, in what capacity? The fact is, these ships were obsolete at the beginning of WWII. It is hard to accept that something this big and this powerful was made obsolete by something as small as an airplane. The major contribution of battleships in WWII was shore bombardment and even at that they proved mostly ineffective. In the Pacific, shore bombardments made the Japanese duck but once troops began to move off the beaches and the shore bombardment had to stop, the Japanese came out of their caves and were very effective at killing U.S. troops. The Japanese suffered very few casualties or equipment loss as a direct result of shore bombardment.

It was pretty much the same story in the Atlantic. If memory serves me correctly, none of the German main batteries were put out of action by shore bombardment on D-Day. Again, it just make the Germans duck.

In the 1990's, there were plans to remove one or more of the 16" batteries, on some of the Iowa class, and replace them with vertical launch tubes. This would have made for an impressive missile platform but, for the same money, a few CG's, DDG's and FFG's could do the same job for a lot less money and the would spread the assets around to make them less vulnerable.

These ships are no invulnerable to modern weapons. They weren't invulnerable in WWII. The Iowa's hull is not that different from the hulls of old class battle ships that were sunk by Japanese torpedoes and bombs at Pearl Harbor. True, small cruise missiles, like Exocets, would, probably, only scorch the paint and teak, but there are much larger smart weapons out there, that could, easily, produce significant damage.

Don't get me wrong, I believe these are the most impressive warships ever built. I would love to see one or all of these ships remaining in service; sailing around the world; showing the flag but, it would all be just an expensive show.

I am very thankful that it appears all of these ships will be preserved. If I am ever in the vicinity I would love to visit.

"How little do the landsmen know

Of what we sailors feel,

When waves do mount and winds do blow!

But we have hearts of steel." (18th century Sailor's resolution)