Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: USS Kentucky, BBHN-66 ca 1991 |
 |
|
Good day it’s been a long time since I have been here. Life just happened I had to retire from active duty due to two injuries a small stroke and my back/spine broken in multiple places. so what was the basic recipe a 1/350 New Jersey and a Long Beach superstructure the deck was stock plastic. Any updated pictures.
Good day it’s been a long time since I have been here. Life just happened I had to retire from active duty due to two injuries a small stroke and my back/spine broken in multiple places. so what was the basic recipe a 1/350 New Jersey and a Long Beach superstructure the deck was stock plastic. Any updated pictures.
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2024 2:08 pm |
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: USS Kentucky, BBHN-66 ca 1991 |
 |
|
Hate to necropost, but one major issue: The deckhouse should be as far forward as possible, ideally where the bridge originally was and the twin-arm launcher now is The area above where the boilers were and the reactor now would be should have next to nothing above it (save for AA mounts and tomahawk box launchers) so that it is accessible for refueling Additionally, this would capitalize on the armored tunnel for control cables and whatnot http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfil ... 6584C4.jpg
Hate to necropost, but one major issue: The deckhouse should be as far forward as possible, ideally where the bridge originally was and the twin-arm launcher now is The area above where the boilers were and the reactor now would be should have next to nothing above it (save for AA mounts and tomahawk box launchers) so that it is accessible for refueling Additionally, this would capitalize on the armored tunnel for control cables and whatnot http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/48137/A340C66177BE46168029882A876584C4.jpg
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:48 am |
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: USS Kentucky, BBHN-66 ca 1991 |
 |
|
...now another question! How would she look like in 2016...food for thought!
cheers Uwe
...now another question! How would she look like in 2016...food for thought!
cheers Uwe
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:51 pm |
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: USS Kentucky, BBHN-66 ca 1991 |
 |
|
Hi Just spoted this thread while doing a bit of Kentucky research...and I have to say I really like that! One thing I would change are those single barrel 20mm Orlinkons at the bow...not those were already outdated before the Japanese surrender and for sure would not have been there in the 80ties...unless for sentimental/tradidional reasons. I was about to throw away on old, half build, Saratoga CV-3 model...now I am going to keep it for another xx years. Maybe one day she will appear off the coast of Vietnam in the late 60ties  cheers Uwe
Hi
Just spoted this thread while doing a bit of Kentucky research...and I have to say I really like that! One thing I would change are those single barrel 20mm Orlinkons at the bow...not those were already outdated before the Japanese surrender and for sure would not have been there in the 80ties...unless for sentimental/tradidional reasons. I was about to throw away on old, half build, Saratoga CV-3 model...now I am going to keep it for another xx years. Maybe one day she will appear off the coast of Vietnam in the late 60ties ;-)
cheers Uwe
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:40 am |
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: USS Kentucky, BBHN-66 ca 1991 |
 |
|
Beautiful work! Not a ship to take lightly.
One wondering that comes to mind is the "HMS Furious effect". In her early configurations Furious had a lot of problems in the landing-on area aft of the superstructure and stack as they produced a lot of air turbulance, being right on the center line. I can't help but suspect that the large flat-faced bridge block will do the same thing.
Beautiful work! Not a ship to take lightly.
One wondering that comes to mind is the "HMS [i]Furious[/i] effect". In her early configurations [i]Furious[/i] had a lot of problems in the landing-on area aft of the superstructure and stack as they produced a lot of air turbulance, being right on the center line. I can't help but suspect that the large flat-faced bridge block will do the same thing.
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:00 pm |
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: USS Kentucky, BBHN-66 ca 1991 |
 |
|
MAN! I am lov'n this! Very Cool! Very nicely done! 
MAN! I am lov'n this!
Very Cool! Very nicely done! :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1:
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:15 pm |
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: USS Kentucky, BBHN-66 ca 1991 |
 |
|
Cliffy B wrote: The only problem though is that Phalanx on top of Turret 2... First shot and that thing is toast! Not sure if even putting right in front of the CGN superstructure would save it. They had a lot of trouble locating and keeping them working on the real BBs. They just weren't built to deal with that much overpressure. Yeah, there are lots of conflicts on there, like where the SPS-49 is located, how cramped the 5" guns and boats are and a few other things, but I agree, Cliffy: Quote: Very nicely done man, both the design and build! Sharp and clean, I like it! Very, very sharp and VERY nicely done!
[quote="Cliffy B"]The only problem though is that Phalanx on top of Turret 2... First shot and that thing is toast! Not sure if even putting right in front of the CGN superstructure would save it. They had a lot of trouble locating and keeping them working on the real BBs. They just weren't built to deal with that much overpressure.[/quote]Yeah, there are lots of conflicts on there, like where the SPS-49 is located, how cramped the 5" guns and boats are and a few other things, but I agree, Cliffy: [quote]Very nicely done man, both the design and build! Sharp and clean, I like it! :thumbs_up_1: [/quote]Very, very sharp and [i]VERY[/i] nicely done!
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:51 pm |
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: USS Kentucky, BBHN-66 ca 1991 |
 |
|
Very nicely done man, both the design and build! Sharp and clean, I like it! The only problem though is that Phalanx on top of Turret 2... First shot and that thing is toast! Not sure if even putting right in front of the CGN superstructure would save it. They had a lot of trouble locating and keeping them working on the real BBs. They just weren't built to deal with that much overpressure.
Very nicely done man, both the design and build! Sharp and clean, I like it! :thumbs_up_1:
The only problem though is that Phalanx on top of Turret 2... First shot and that thing is toast! Not sure if even putting right in front of the CGN superstructure would save it. They had a lot of trouble locating and keeping them working on the real BBs. They just weren't built to deal with that much overpressure.
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:26 pm |
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: USS Kentucky, BBHN-66 ca 1991 |
 |
|
Some more pics, more PE added along with a few details:
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/65-66-1.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/65-66-2.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/65-66-3.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/65-66-4.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/65-66-5.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/65-66-6.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/65-66-7.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/65-66-8.jpg[/img]
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:39 am |
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: USS Kentucky, BBHN-66 ca 1991 |
 |
|
WOW. That looks sweet,I'm assuming that in the "here-to-for" what if, that the aft 5" turret on the port side would have to be turned for launching a/c? Very Nice all the same.
Pete
WOW. That looks sweet,I'm assuming that in the "here-to-for" what if, that the aft 5" turret on the port side would have to be turned for launching a/c? Very Nice all the same.
Pete
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:28 pm |
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: USS Kentucky, BBHN-66 ca 1991 |
 |
|
Guest wrote: nice work, what scale 1/700 or 1/350, am guessing 1/700... ? why keep the duel 5 inch not replace them with single 5 inch... otherwise nice work... Oh, this is a 1/350...some might say that 1/700 is for sissies. Also, why replace the duel 5" with a single?
[quote="Guest"]nice work, what scale 1/700 or 1/350, am guessing 1/700... ? why keep the duel 5 inch not replace them with single 5 inch... otherwise nice work...[/quote] Oh, this is a 1/350...some might say that 1/700 is for sissies.
Also, why replace the duel 5" with a single?
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:21 am |
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: USS Kentucky, BBHN-66 ca 1991 |
 |
|
nice work, what scale 1/700 or 1/350, am guessing 1/700... ? why keep the duel 5 inch not replace them with single 5 inch... otherwise nice work...
nice work, what scale 1/700 or 1/350, am guessing 1/700... ? why keep the duel 5 inch not replace them with single 5 inch... otherwise nice work...
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:40 pm |
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: USS Kentucky, BBHN-66 ca 1991 |
 |
|
[quote="navydavesof"]Nice, man! I began a Kentucky what-if in 2010, that I need to get back to this year. I like how yours is going! Keep the updates coming, man![/quote]
Thanks!!!
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/bbhnr.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/bbhnq.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/bbhnp.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/bbhno.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/bbhnn.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/bbhnm.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/bbhnl.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/bbhnk.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/bbhnj.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/bbhni.jpg[/img]
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:35 pm |
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: USS Kentucky, BBHN-66 ca 1991 |
 |
|
Nice, man! I began a Kentucky what-if in 2010, that I need to get back to this year. I like how yours is going! Keep the updates coming, man!
Nice, man! I began a Kentucky what-if in 2010, that I need to get back to this year. I like how yours is going! Keep the updates coming, man!
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:29 am |
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: USS Kentucky, BBHN-66 ca 1991 |
 |
|
I'm not really in to what ifs, but I like it!! 
I'm not really in to what ifs, but I like it!! :smallsmile:
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:10 am |
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: USS Kentucky, BBHN-66 ca 1991 |
 |
|
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/bb66u.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/bb66t.jpg[/img]
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:31 pm |
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: |
USS Kentucky, BBHN-66 ca 1991 |
 |
|
This is the USS Kentucky, converted to BBH status under nuclear power in 1965. This will be the modernized 1990s version, as if she underwent conversion with the other four Iowas in the mid 80s. Here's my storyline so far( the XXXs will be filled in when I'm done and do the final scale conversions): Quote: The USS Kentucky was still under construction at the end of hostilities and was caught up in the post-war draw down of the armed services. Her construction was suspended twice, during which times she served as a spare parts cache of sorts. Kentucky was nearly scrapped after several failed attempts to have her completed as a guided missile battleship. Since the 71% ship had begun the scrapping process, the Navy used Kentucky's four turbine sets to power the ships Camden and Sacramento. As the hull was being torn into, the Navy suddenly realized the need for helicopter assault troops, after the world saw the action in Il Drang valley in November 1965. The decision had been initially made to convert one of the 4 completed Iowas, but it soon became apparent the hulk of Kentucky would be a more suitable option. With the lack of a suitable boiler system available, the Navy turned to Westinghouse, which had put into production reactor sets for the USS Enterprise and were well equipped to produce more. The resulting power plant included 4 × Westinghouse A2W nuclear reactors with 2 sets of Westinghouse geared steam turbines, 4 × shafts producing 160,000 shp.
The hull was extended XXX feet, giving an overall length of XXX from rear elevator to bow. The initial setup called for one elevator, but experience in Vietnam led to several improvements during her 1985-86 refit. The port side was sponsoned out XXX feet, with an angled flight deck capable of operating McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harriers. The starboard side was also given a small sponson, to allow clearance for larger helicopters, such as the CH-53 Sea Stallion, to park well out of the way of the flight line during operations. A second, larger elevator was also added to the starboard side. This brought the maximum width of the ship to XXX feet. Additional compliments of this upgrade include 4x quadruple Harpoon canisters; 4x 20mm Phalanx CIWS Mk 15 guns; and 24 BGM-84 Tomahawk cruise missiles in six Armored Box Launchers. The original 6 16" 50cal guns leftover from the 1965 refit remain, as well as the 8 5"/38cal guns in four twin turrets. The electronics package included the same compliments the Iowas were given: AN/SPS-49 air search radar; AN/SPS-67 surface search radar; AN/SPQ-9 gun fire control radar; AN/SLQ-32 Electronic Warfare Suite; AN/SLQ-25 Nixie Decoy System; and 8x Mk 36 SBROC Chaff launchers. Shown "operating" with my waterline USS New Jersey.....     
This is the USS Kentucky, converted to BBH status under nuclear power in 1965. This will be the modernized 1990s version, as if she underwent conversion with the other four Iowas in the mid 80s.
Here's my storyline so far( the XXXs will be filled in when I'm done and do the final scale conversions):
[quote]The USS Kentucky was still under construction at the end of hostilities and was caught up in the post-war draw down of the armed services. Her construction was suspended twice, during which times she served as a spare parts cache of sorts. Kentucky was nearly scrapped after several failed attempts to have her completed as a guided missile battleship. Since the 71% ship had begun the scrapping process, the Navy used Kentucky's four turbine sets to power the ships Camden and Sacramento. As the hull was being torn into, the Navy suddenly realized the need for helicopter assault troops, after the world saw the action in Il Drang valley in November 1965. The decision had been initially made to convert one of the 4 completed Iowas, but it soon became apparent the hulk of Kentucky would be a more suitable option. With the lack of a suitable boiler system available, the Navy turned to Westinghouse, which had put into production reactor sets for the USS Enterprise and were well equipped to produce more. The resulting power plant included 4 × Westinghouse A2W nuclear reactors with 2 sets of Westinghouse geared steam turbines, 4 × shafts producing 160,000 shp.
The hull was extended XXX feet, giving an overall length of XXX from rear elevator to bow. The initial setup called for one elevator, but experience in Vietnam led to several improvements during her 1985-86 refit. The port side was sponsoned out XXX feet, with an angled flight deck capable of operating McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harriers. The starboard side was also given a small sponson, to allow clearance for larger helicopters, such as the CH-53 Sea Stallion, to park well out of the way of the flight line during operations. A second, larger elevator was also added to the starboard side. This brought the maximum width of the ship to XXX feet. Additional compliments of this upgrade include 4x quadruple Harpoon canisters; 4x 20mm Phalanx CIWS Mk 15 guns; and 24 BGM-84 Tomahawk cruise missiles in six Armored Box Launchers. The original 6 16" 50cal guns leftover from the 1965 refit remain, as well as the 8 5"/38cal guns in four twin turrets. The electronics package included the same compliments the Iowas were given: AN/SPS-49 air search radar; AN/SPS-67 surface search radar; AN/SPQ-9 gun fire control radar; AN/SLQ-32 Electronic Warfare Suite; AN/SLQ-25 Nixie Decoy System; and 8x Mk 36 SBROC Chaff launchers.[/quote]
Shown "operating" with my waterline USS New Jersey.....
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/bb66k.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/bb66l.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/bb66m.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/bb66n.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q9/SigfanUSAF/bb66o.jpg[/img]
|
|
|
 |
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:05 pm |
|
|
 |
|