"Veterans" returning to active service often occur just before the outbreak of multiple wars.

Chasing the "Admiral Nakhimov": Trump's Attempt to Transform the "Iowa" Class Battleships into High-Speed Missile Bunkers

Old veterans returning to service often occur before multiple wars break out.

(Image caption: The second ship of the U.S. Navy's "Iowa" class battleship)

It is well known that Trump has long declared to the world that he is determined to "Make America Great Again." According to the latest news, he plans to prioritize reviving the former glory of the U.S. Navy - over the past few decades, the problems of the U.S. Navy have been accumulating like a snowball.

However, many people think that the solution chosen by this American leader has already gone beyond common sense.

At a meeting of high-ranking military officers in the Marine Corps Base at Quantico, Virginia, "Red Hair Donny" (Trump's nickname) revealed that he was seriously discussing with the Secretary of the Navy, John F. Foley, the possibility of reactivating battleships for active service in the fleet.

"I look at these ships sailing alongside destroyers - nothing can stop them," Trump said emotionally.

Trump continued, "We are indeed considering a plan: a battleship with a strong 6-inch (about 152 mm) fully steel hull. No one builds such ships anymore, but Foley likes this idea, and I seem not to object." These words shocked the generals present.

He then added, "Some may say 'This is outdated technology,' but looking at the guns on these battleships, I don't think it's outdated technology."

The U.S. online media outlet "The War Zone" reported that "it is currently unclear whether Trump refers to reactivating any of the four "Iowa" class battleships preserved as museum ships across the United States or planning to build new ones of the same type."

However, before discussing the pros and cons of this idea, we need to briefly review the service history of the last batch of U.S. battleships.

The fastest sailing "Iowa" class battleship was built during the height of World War II. Between 1943 and 1944, the U.S. planned to build six ships that were considered the pinnacle of combat power at the time.

Only four were ultimately completed and commissioned into the U.S. Navy, namely the "Iowa," "New Jersey," "Missouri," and "Wisconsin" - by which time World War II was nearing its end, and subsequent construction plans were shelved.

What was the combat capability of these "legendary four ships"? Taking a single ship as an example: standard displacement of 57,540 tons, maximum speed of 32.5 knots (approximately 60.2 km/h), with a range of 15,000 nautical miles (approximately 27,800 kilometers) when cruising at 15 knots (approximately 27.8 km/h).

The original crew size was 1,921, including 117 officers. However, as the air defense capabilities of each ship were continuously enhanced, the number of crew members increased significantly: for example, the crew size of the "Iowa" increased to 2,788, and the "Wisconsin" reached 2,978.

Nevertheless, the most core combat advantage of the battleship was undoubtedly the destructive power of its main guns. By 1945, each "Iowa" class battleship was equipped with nine 406 mm Mk.7 main guns.

In a confrontation with enemy ships of the same class, each "Iowa" class ship could carry Mk.8 armor-piercing shells - each weighing 1.225 tons, with a range of 38 km, almost capable of penetrating the deck or side armor of any warship at the time. When attacking land targets, the main guns would be loaded with Mk.13 high-explosive shells, although slightly lighter in weight (862 kg), their power was still impressive.

The four "Iowa" class ships underwent multiple modernization upgrades during their service. In the early 1950s, they were capable of launching nuclear weapons with a yield of 1,000 tons; in the 1980s, the U.S. Navy began developing long-range shells, aiming to strike targets 64 km away with a shell weighing 454 kg, but this project ultimately remained at the experimental stage.

The service history of the four "Iowa" class ships was long and complicated, but their service periods coincided almost entirely with the period of armed conflicts initiated by the United States globally after World War II.

Between 1948 and 1949, except for the "Missouri" still continuing to cruise in the oceans, the other three "Iowa" class ships were decommissioned due to the post-war fleet reduction and placed in long-term storage.

From 1950 to 1951, the U.S. Department of Defense reactivated the "Iowa," "New Jersey," and "Wisconsin" to respond to the Korean War. After the war, they were again placed in storage.

In 1968-1969, the "New Jersey" was activated from storage and deployed in the Vietnam War - the U.S. Department of Defense believed that the navy needed to bomb coastal cities of the "main enemy" at the time.

During Ronald Reagan's presidency in the 1980s, all four "Iowa" class ships underwent major repairs and modernizations: each ship was equipped with 32 Tomahawk long-range cruise missiles, 16 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and new radar, electronic warfare systems, and the Mk.15 Phalanx close-in weapon system.

After the modernization, these four battleships returned to active service in the U.S. Navy until the end of the Cold War. Afterward, the "Iowa" and "New Jersey" were once again decommissioned, while the "Missouri" and "Wisconsin" participated in the Gulf War and then entered long-term storage.

In my opinion, the subsequent fate of these ships could have become a reference for Russia - unfortunately, after 1991, Russia also removed a large number of still-capable ships from the naval list to save budget.

We almost "just dismantled them" - breaking them into pieces, calling it "plowing the sword into the plow," but in reality, it was to cater to the West.

But the way Americans dealt with these veteran battleships was completely different from ours.

Certainly, the United States has converted these giant battleships into floating museums along the coast: for example, the "Iowa" is moored in San Pedro Harbor, California, open to the public, while the "Missouri" is docked in Pearl Harbor, becoming part of the memorial site for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

But the storage of these ships came with a key condition: if a large-scale war breaks out globally, at least the "Iowa" and "Wisconsin" must be technically capable of quickly returning to active service in the U.S. Navy.

As for the "Missouri" and "New Jersey," which were finally removed from the list in 1995 and 1999 respectively, the U.S. Department of Defense had already assigned them the role of "parts supply ships" to provide components for the other two "sister ships" - meaning that their core equipment and mechanical systems were also kept in good condition.

Therefore, the U.S. Congress passed a special law prohibiting museum operators from arbitrarily dismantling or modifying key structures of the ships for tourist convenience.

This law also requires the military to maintain a sufficient stockpile of 16-inch (406 mm) battleship main gun shells - although the United States has stopped producing such shells and has no plans to restart production. After all, who can say that these "powerful" shells will never be used?

But the problem is, under what circumstances would these shells be used, and for what specific combat missions?

First, it needs to be clarified: the assumption proposed by "The War Zone" magazine that the U.S. Navy might build a new battleship is obviously unrealistic, and we can consider it nonsense. There is no country in the world building such gunships today, and the United States has long lost the relevant construction technology and capability. Rebuilding them is meaningless and time-consuming and costly.

Moreover, the construction of new surface combat ships in the United States is already fraught with problems. As mentioned earlier, the Secretary of the Navy, Foley, stated at a congressional hearing last summer: "To be honest, all our shipbuilding projects are a mess. Even the most successful projects are six months behind schedule and 57% over budget."

In this situation, the United States has people who dare to dream of launching new battleships? More importantly, what is the significance of doing so?

"The War Zone" magazine rationally analyzed: "The demand for maritime fire support in future amphibious operations is increasingly being questioned. Since 2020, the U.S. Marines have launched a comprehensive restructuring, shifting to a new operational concept, and the deployment of traditional large amphibious ships is no longer the focus."

The media further pointed out: "Ships primarily armed with artillery must approach the target to launch attacks, while the enemy's area denial capabilities are constantly increasing. Considering that battleships may be within the coverage of multi-dimensional threats from sea, land, and air, their mission scope will further shrink."

If battleships cannot provide fire support for amphibious operations, what is the significance of the "battleship revival plan"?

If we boldly speculate, theoretically, battleships returning to active service may play a role in areas such as the Red Sea and the coast of Yemen - after all, the Houthi rebels threatening these waters have no ability to sink or cause serious damage to the "Iowa" class ships.

Certainly, the attack drones and anti-ship missiles of the Houthi rebels can only leave shallow pits on the 307 mm inclined armor between the bow deck and the second deck of the "Iowa" class ships. But is it worth spending a huge amount of money to reactivate the battleship just to create a stir in the Red Sea?

In my view, the answer is obviously negative.

Perhaps, the idea of transforming gun battleships into missile ships is more practical - that is, turning them into a "giant floating missile bunker" with a sturdy armor and protected by multiple escort ships.

"The War Zone" magazine also analyzed along this line: "There have been previous concepts of converting battleships into 'missile armories,' equipping them with vertical launch systems while retaining some ship guns." The media also mentioned that the current "DDG-1000 project" (the Zumwalt-class destroyer project) in the U.S. follows roughly this direction.

Then, what exactly is the "DDG-1000 project"? According to the plan, the U.S. Navy has built two "Zumwalt"-class stealth destroyers since 2013 - these two ships have a standard displacement of nearly 15,000 tons (comparable to cruisers), with a single ship cost of up to 4.4 billion dollars, and were previously considered the "benchmark for future warships."

The third ship of this class was launched in 2018 but has not yet been officially commissioned. Why is this the case? Because the "Zumwalt" project has disappointed the U.S. from the beginning - the problem is not only the high cost, but also the complete failure of the attempt to replace traditional ship guns with electromagnetic guns. The U.S. failed to overcome the technical challenges of electromagnetic guns, and related R&D work has gradually been put on hold since 2021.

Then, what has filled the position of the electromagnetic gun? The U.S. military now plans to install a launch well capable of firing "Conventional Prompt Strike" (IRCPS) hypersonic missiles in the position of the main gun turret on each "Zumwalt"-class ship - this missile has a range of 3,000 kilometers.

However, the U.S. Department of Defense has made similar slow progress in the development of such missiles, but there is no turning back now - because in the field of ship-launched hypersonic weapons, Russia and China have taken a significant lead.

Perhaps, the U.S. is planning to retrofit the "Zumwalt"-class destroyers and the "Iowa" and "Wisconsin" battleships together to make them compatible with the same hypersonic missiles? After all, this might be the only reason why Trump suddenly took an interest in these "World War II veterans."

But if this renovation is actually implemented, Russia may have another reason to be proud - because at that time, the U.S.'s "missile battleship" would be extremely similar in concept to the Russian "Admiral Nakhimov" 1144.2M heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser, which has just undergone modernization. This ship, which has undergone years of upgrades at the Severodvinsk Shipyard, is recognized worldwide as "the most powerful combat ship in the world."

It is well known that after a complete overhaul, the "Admiral Nakhimov" is equipped with 80 universal shipboard launch cells, capable of firing "Kalibr" cruise missiles, "Oniks" anti-ship missiles, and "Zircon" hypersonic missiles, while also equipped with 96 "Rif-M" (S-300FM)/"Bastion" (S-400) shipborne vertical launch systems for air defense missiles, "Paket-NK" anti-submarine torpedo systems, and " Pantsir-M" combined anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems.

Russian designers successfully integrated these systems into a ship body with a standard displacement of only 26,190 tons. While the U.S. "Iowa" class battleship has a displacement of about twice that, theoretically, it should be able to carry more missiles.

Could it be that this is the reason why Trump suddenly became interested in these almost forgotten World War II battleships?

For the latest news, analysis, and core information on weapons and military conflicts, please follow the author to learn more.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7558705467443249705/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking on the 【Like/Dislike】 button below.