[Panther Al]

Very good points on Manpower and Fuel issues, but there is a couple of countervailing points:

The steam plants in those ships used bunker oil - not diesel. Bunker oil is also considered garbage production in modern refining compared to the higher grade fuels: in essence, its the leftovers after making good fuel as far as I can tell by reading up on it. So fuel will be scarce yes, but it won't be anywhere near as bad to source it as it would be the high test. Even better; the engines that burn it - particularly the ones built in the first half of the 20th Century, such as those in the Iowa's, are sufficiently crude that in a pinch it could use the raw stuff at the cost of decreased efficiencies, more maintenance, and much more pollution (IE: Very a dark exhaust plume).

As far as maintenance on the plants go, as long as they can get raw materials, a majority of its power plant (That is, the small(er) parts that typically break now and then) can be supported by the on board machine shops.

Compared to the other ships in the Navy, the Iowa's was maintenance nightmares yes: but thats because of old simpler equipment. Once the nukes fly however, the high tech supply line that the newer ships require more than air will dry up - but the simpler, older equipment (less the upgraded electronics such as the radars and such) on the Iowa's can still be made with relative ease in small to medium sized machine shops either afloat in depot ships or the smaller ports that didn't get nuked.

And while yes, that manpower can be used elsewhere, but will it be worth it?

In 2000, in a perverse way, the Iowa's might become the most seaworthy and available ships in the fleet because of its maintenance intensive but simple nature.

Of course, that leaves ammo.

This is actually the larger problem, but not for the reasons you think.

Producing the shells is easy: all you need is a casting shop, of which there is thousands in the US, to cast the shells. It's the boomenstuff that is the problem. But not as large or insurmountable as it sounds. If the US industry can supply small arms with the newer fancier powders for rifles and machine guns, as well as the courser stuff for mortars and tube arty, then they can easily provide the propellent (a even larger and simpler powder to manufacture - again due to the age of the basic design of the gun) for the 5" and 16" guns. Explosive filling is the handicap though. Good news though can be found here: The stuff used in Mortars could be used in the 16" shells as it is sturdy enough to handle the (relatively) lighter impulse of the propellant as it launches the rounds out the tube - and the 5" shells can use the same stuff they are filling howitzer rounds with.


And yes, the actual impulse delivered to the shell of a 16" gun is actually lighter than that of a 5" or 155mm shell. Larger amount of powder yes, bigger boom, oh hell yeah... but the scale of it actually works for us for the same reason Dr. Bull twigged on to the idea that the Superguns he made could actually loft fragile satellites with a powder load that can only be described as massive. Thats the reason he made them for Iraq: the money he was to be paid for them he was already planning spending on building a 60" Supergun to loft communication and other sats into orbit with. An lifelong desire he picked up when he worked on the HARP project, which was *almost* able to put a round into orbit. The gun? A 16" gun that was in stocks as a replacement for wrecked guns from battle damage on the Iowa's and was declared surplus at the end of the war.

In short:

Are the Iowa's the end all be all?

No.

Are they a massive drain on resources, both pre TDM and post?

Oh hell yes.

But can they be supported after the TDM when the supply of high tech parts and high end fuels are scarce at best and non-existant at worst?

Yep. The only ships in the fleet save perhaps, the old Knox Class Figs.