They require far too many crewmen for a modern warship, which is why they were retired again after the Bush I administration. It has nothing to do with their armament, which can reach many of the targets we want to hit. We’re not paying sailors $25 a month any more.
Yep. The heavy cruiser I served aboard had a crew of about 1200. You just couldn't do that these days.
Sure, you could automate the heck out of the thing, but that would constitute a whole new ship design. 16-inch guns and the 600-lb steam propulsion plant were designed to be crewed by people. They'd have to be redesigned. By then you have a whole new ship anyway.
It's all about the mission. Ship-to-ship, it's too big and slow a target and payloads these days are better than any armor. Ship-to-shore, i.e. fire support, you can get better range and accuracy nowadays without the bulk.
But they were good. My late Dad told a story about calling in fire support on a hill in Korea. He was expecting 155's but got the 16-inchers instead. He said it was a little startling when the top of the hill just went away. There's something to be said for that.
Checked to see how many sailors man our carriers?
The combat radius for a 16" gun [full 16" not with a theoretical sabot] is only 22 to 24 miles.
That being said an Iowa makes for a relatively hard target, can carry a butt load of missiles and can I have been told can deliver as much ordinance via its 16" guns in 45 minutes as a carrier can deliver in 24 hours.
Big guns can be automated to a certain degree -- look up Des Moines class cruisers. Coming back? Probably not, in part because they have no sponsorship and partly because of the whole range limitation issue.
Replacement parts are nowhere to be found except on museum ships, if still there and in working condition.
No one has made ammunition for the 16-inch guns for decades. Whatever is left has been in storage since 1991 at Seal Beach NWS and would have to be tested prior to use.