What if the Trump Administration reactivated the Iowas?

Setting aside any sense of reason, reality, professionalism and need, here we go:

- Decision announced during 2016 campaign. No serious work done due to the unlikely nature of a Trump win
- November 2016: A collective feeling of horror goes through the USN. Old 80s plans are pulled out, but many weapons no longer exist
- April/May 2017: Rushed proposals submitted. The issues of having sold spare guns and ammunition for scrap, not having another conventional steam plant in service, not producing ABL Tomahawks and a not insignificant fraction of the experienced personnel used in the 1980s reactivations having died since 1992 proved significant. The fact that there is already an SSN named Missouri in active service is icing on the cake. One of the naval designers given the task considers defecting to Bolivia.

1.) There is no need for extra Tomahawks anymore, so they are not shipped
2.) There is a shortage of 16” shells, spares and support facilities, so each turret has a minimum manning and shell supply, with one gun active
3.) Wisconsin is suggested as the most applicable and available Iowa at a cost of $5 billion for a thorough modernisation, expected to take 28 months
4.) This begins with great ceremony in September 2017, perhaps even on the 11th as a symbolic gesture.

Funding for the other ships is held up in committee and then becomes a casualty of the 2018 midterms.

Wisconsin’s reactivation runs over times and she is finally recommissioned in March 2020. Shakedown cruise and working up operations are thrown into chaos by COVID-19

By November 2020, she has conducted trial, fired some 16” rounds for TV and went on a coastal cruise of the Atlantic seaboard. The USN doesn’t really have a mission for her or a need.

February 2021: The Biden Administration denies reports it wants to decommission the battleship.

I love battleships as much as the next man - well, probably a heck of a lot more, when I think about it.

But that (battle) ship sailed a long, long time ago. In 1996-99, there was a bit more immediacy to the issue and a vague, vague hint of realism. Past 2000, it disappeared very, very rapidly, even in a time of military expansion and war. 2001/02 was the last real moment, but at the same time, was never more unlikely, given Mr. Rumsfeld’s beliefs and preference for lighter forces.

There might be a story there where there is more of conventional rearmament for the WoT - expansion to 12 Army and 4 Marine divisions, 14 carriers for 12 CVBG (10 Nimitz, Enterprise, Kitty Hawk, Constellation, JFK), 4 battleships and restarting bomber production. Not sure how, but it is more doable than 2016.

Why have an Iowa with maybe 16 cruise missiles tops when the in service Ohio SSGN conversions have 154 at hand? It's only the desire to have something pretty and seen the keeps the Iowa dream alive.

A costly overture considering the U.S. Navy is going to add to more Gerald R. Ford-class supercarriers namely the John F. Kennedy and the Doris Miller. Plus, the Pentagon was criticized for their controversial littoral combat ship program and the stealth destroyer program that ended up as expensive failures. Hence, the USN would purchase Italian frigates for their littoral combat force. A battleship would just be another resource sink that would make the LCS failure look kinder in comparison.

Well we always can agree that politics play a role in naming any ships.

If you want, here is a 40 min YouTube clip called, Which Museum Ships Would be Brought Back First if Needed?

In my view, his name is more properly suited to a DDG, but, given the horrifically inconsistent nomenclature employed by the modern USN, it isn't the worst. It does seem that former Acting SecNav Modly had some very ...creative...ideas about ship naming.