You might consider the source of your information. The website you linked is the property of a Mr. Mike Sparks. I don't intend this as any sort of
personal attack, but Mr. Sparks is, to put it mildly, an 'interesting' fellow, with a great many 'interesting' ideas on how to make the US
military work more effectively. It's always interesting to take some of his opinions and discuss them with other people who have considerable
experience in military affairs.
In the specific case of battleship reactivation, Mr. Sparks seems to think that the Iowa's main guns are 'super weapons' with incredible range,
accuracy, and hitting power. The reality is somewhat less impressive, at least when compared to a modern guided missile. The 16" 50 cal / Mod 7 gun
used on the Iowas had a maximum range of 42,376 yards, using the 2,700lb AP shell fired at 45 degrees elevation. Sound impressive? It's not. At that
range, a typical salvo of 9 shells would be spread over an elliptical area larger than a Nimitz class aircraft carrier, which makes hits by more than
one shell highly unlikely. The 2,700lb shell, if it hits, is mostly casing. The bursting charge is 40.9 lbs. No, it's not a typo. A shell weighing
almost a ton and a half delivered 41 lbs of explosive. So...we have a 'super weapon' that can reach 30 miles (give or take) and hit a target with 41
lbs of explosive. This weapon weighs 268,000 lbs, requires a crew of around 90, and tends to spread its shots over a wide area. Compare that to the
performance of, oh...a Harpoon SSM. It's not a fun comparison for the 16" gun. The missile has more range, more payload, and greater accuracy, while
being lighter, more compact, and cheaper.
As for the battleship's survivability, ignore the heavy armor belt...modern anti-shipping missiles and under-keel torpedoes certainly will. The
missiles are more likely to hit the Iowa's deck armor (4-5") than its famous belt, and the torpedoes are going to cause all sorts of havoc on the
rigid structure of the hull.
Even if the guns had some advantage over modern missiles (which they don't), and the ships could survive a modern battlefield (which they probably
can't), there's still the issue of operating and maintaining 70 year old systems...not only do we not have parts for the key systems of an Iowa, we
don't have the factories to make those parts (gun barrel liners come to mind). We don't have ammo, propellant charges, or trained people for the
main guns, nor do we have the schools to even train the people.
Let's go one step beyond...let's assume that all of the problems with battleships are solved by a heavy application of techno-fairy dust, and
somehow, we find the billions of dollars it would take to totally rebuild all four Iowas to modern standards of habitability and communications. You
*still* only have four ships...which gives you two deployed at any one time, which *might* mean that *one* of them was somewhere near the right place.
"Near the right place" meaning "In the same hemisphere".
Does it really sound like such a great idea now? If so, I'd suggest that you ask friends of mine on other boards their opinions. Places like:
History, Politics, and Current Affairs
are frequented by folks who have been there, done that...and in some cases, are STILL there, and STILL doing that. As an FYI, if you think I'm
pulling the numbers for the 16" gun out of my anatomy, you can check them against the Navweaps site...or against Norman Friedman's "U.S.
Battleships", if you have a copy.
Battleships were engineering masterworks, and massively destructive weapons...60 years ago. Now? They're as obsolete as the "Line of Battle Ships"
that were the origin of their names.