The Ship Model Forum

I've received some requests on information on plating. I am trying to put together a reference on this. Assembly the data requires piecing information from many different sources together. It is not practicable for me to do a giant document jump and provide anything meaningful.

I have come to the conclusion that the hull was largely riveted in a misguided belief that the greater flexibility of a riveted hull than a welded hull was necessary for a ship of this size. I have not come across any references to that effect but that is the only conclusion I can come to. Some of the strake plates are welded. The structural members are welded. So inexperience in welding does not explain why the navy went to the cost and time of riveting the hull.

Here is a photo of the bow. I have labeled the strakes. There are several Q and R strakes at the bow. The current top of the boot topping is slightly below the designed waterline. So the K1 strake would not have been visible at all. The M strake is at the waterline for most of the hull length.

In this zone between about Frame 40 to Frame 2 the strakes are arranged in an inverted clapboard manner where the lower strake overlaps the strake above. Just forward of frame 40, the N strake overlaps the O strakes but aft this reverses with the O strake overlapping the N strake. Farther aft they switch to a butt alignment. The lower side strake switch to a butt alignment in this region as well.

A feature that is not visible is that the thickness of the strake plates vary. They are all 1/4" at the bow. They tend to get thinner immediately aft then get thicker aft. The visible plates range from 7/16" to 1-1/4". There are chamfers at the thickness transitions so the thickness variations are not apparent.

For modelers at 1:200 - 1:350 scale the thickness of the overlaps are around 1/1000" (hardly visible). The butting seams midship are hardly noticeable on the ship until you get really close.

For most of the length, the M and N strakes have a scarf joint.

The same kind of arrangement is at the stern as well.

[attachment=0]Bow.jpg[/attachment]

I know maybe 20 years ago Remington made an electrically fired sporting rifle with the idea of reducing lock time. Not sure what primers were used.

[quote="Fliger747"]It looks quite tapered. How are they extracted?[/quote]

It is very tapered. The primer automatically ejects when the breach opens.

It looks quite tapered. How are they extracted?

Here is a picture I took of a primer and a 7.62 case. They look similar to "assault weapons" types but are quite different in shape. A major technical difference is visible here. Note the dark ring at the base of the primer. That is insulation so that a circuit can form from the case to the center of the base. The center is not a percussion cap like on the 7.62 case and is smaller. The center is a plunger that can mechanically trigger the primer.

[attachment=0]P1050521 Primer.jpg[/attachment]

I'll go out on a limb and [i]a-s-s-u-m-e[/i] that these drawings have all now been de-classified for public consumption.

I would hate to think that the Spublovians might have access to some of our most top secret tools and formulas :doh_1: :censored_2:

[quote="Fliger747"]The above tool is used for a different type of "primer"? Red Lead?[/quote]

It is a plan for one of these

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Warner-1-gal-Paint-Mixer-2740/205052771

There are also plans for coat hangars, sword holders, ....

The above tool is used for a different type of "primer"? Red Lead?

[attachment=0]Drill.jpg[/attachment]

Thanks! Interesting!

I had always read that the primers for the 16-inch guns were similar to 30 caliber blanks. Last week I got to play with the lock and some primers.

It turns out that a primer may look like a blank bullet cartridge they are not at all like one.

To begin with they are MUCH heaver than a rifle cartridge because the walls are much thicker.

There is no percussion cap at the end of the primer as there is on a bullet.

The internal workings of a primer are much different than on a bullet. There is insulation so that a complete electrical circuit can be created from the outside case to the center of the end. That circuit passes through a filament wrapped with guncotten that sets off the an initiator charge that then sets off the primer's main charge.

Indeed I don't think the Mk38 system could effectively be replaced for the main battery, though it has been augmented by such things as choreographing the fired rounds, improved radar, drone spotting and whatnot. If one replaced the dual 5"38 mounts, certainly the MK37, as excellent as it was for WWII would be anachronistic.

The power plants, as advanced as they were for the time are 80 year old technology. As much time as elapsed between the Civil War and WWII.

Dave,

First, thanks for your service! I would like to assure you that you know quite a bit about RADAR and various GFCS being deployed currently. More than I do, I assure you.

I will point out one other fact - the optical rangefinders on IOWA Class BB's work quite well and DON'T need replacement, or they would have already disappeared from the conning towers in the 1980's refits. As RADAR goes, I'm sure a more up to date replacement for the Mk. 13 main battery would have been sought had it been deemed necessary by the Navy at the time (again - 1980's). Since we are talking about a "what-if", possibly something newer would be in consideration along the timeframe you've given (2012). One thing that can't be overlooked - when the electronics goes out, THEN what do you do??? You rely on a proven, albeit limited fire control system - based on optical rangefinding; simple as that.

The 16"/50 gun is the IOWA class' primary weapon system - and today that use is just about 100% confined to shore bombardment, not taking out ships (although....with the presence of more Chinese carriers, cruisers, destroyers over the horizon...who's to say, right?) Thinking "what if" I could see a RADAR replacement to [i]augment[/i] the existing Mk. 13 optics. As for the replacement of 5"/38 mounts with 5"/54 mounts, that's your call. I don't personally think the ship is designed to handle the 5"/54 gun system without major changes internally which would be ineffective cost-wise for the resulting firepower.

I'll leave it at that - but, please do create a build log for your project - it's always interesting to see other's ideas about how they would "resurrect" the IOWA class!

Thomas E. Johnson,

Thank you, Sir. I absolutely missed the what-if thread on the Iowas. And as you said, I found the answers to several of my questions within seconds of pulling up the thread.

Sorry for posting this int he wrong section, admins.

Dave

Thank you for the pointers.

The Phase I Iowa's, I believe, were fitted with the AN/SPQ-9, which the interweb says is, "AN/SPQ-9A, (sometimes pronounced as "spook nine"), is a United States Navy multi-purpose SURFACE SEARCH & fire control radar used with the Mk-86 gun fire-control system (MK86 GFCS). It is a two dimensional SURFACE-SEARCH radar, meaning it provides only range and bearing but not elevation. It is intended primarily to detect & track targets at sea level, on the SURFACE of the water for either gun fire engagement or navigation. It can however, also detect and track low altitude (below 2000 ft) air targets."

According to several sites I found, "The AN/SPQ-9B scans out to the horizon and performs simultaneous and automatic air and SURFACE TARGET detection and tracking of low flying Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs), SURFACE THREATS, and low/slow flying aircraft, UAVs and helicopters." ...and... "The AN/SPQ-9 SURFACE SURVEILLANCE and Tracking Radar, developed by Northrop Grumman Norden Systems, Melville, NY, is a track-while-scan radar used with the MK-86 Gunfire Control system on surface combatants. It detects sea skimming missiles at the horizon even in heavy clutter while simultaneously providing detection and tracking of SURFACE TARGETS and beacon responses. The upgraded SPQ-9B - which uses a high-resolution, track-while-scan, X-Band, pulse- Doppler radar - will enable detection and establishing firm track ranges on subsonic and supersonic sea-skimming missiles. The system concept includes a new air mode that provides a new, low-cost, quality sea-skimmer detection capability and a SURFACE MODE with improved performance in support of the MK 86 Gun Fire Control System and backup navigation."

Am I reading all these references wrong in that the AN/SPQ-9B is only an Air Search radar as you stated?

I assumed that the A/N SPQ-9B was a modernized replacement for the SPQ-9A...which many many references I found say is also used for surface search and gun-fire control. As a surface search radar, I assumed it would provide significantly better range information than a 60 year old optical system.

I am not an expert on Naval weapon systems, but that is why I asked the questions. I also understand integrated weapon and fire control systems (31 years in the Air Force) which is exactly why I was so amateurishly asking what would be "realistic" in this what-if build. I was curious about the SPQ-9B because of what I had read, and as for over-the-horizon targeting, I would think an OPTICAL rangefinder would be just as useless...No?

I also know the difference between a turret and a mount...I apologize for mis-typing in my original post.

Dave

Lucansner,

I agree with T. E. Johnson - this thread belongs over on the "What if" Forum.

However, a couple observations re. your questions:

1) I don't know your extent of knowledge regarding shipboard weapons and their associated fire control systems, but I would suggest that you "bone up" about what guns work with what optical/RADAR fire control systems - these are not separate, but integrated systems to function together either independently or with other systems. Norman Palmar has written several books on this subject. I seriously doubt that the 16"/50 cal main battery would function properly utilizing the SPQ-9B FCS - it's designed for a rapid-fire AA system (MK-86), not an over the horizon type of shore bombardment weapon.

2) SATCOM communications antennae are installed "as needed" and are not just scattered here and there - every system on a ship is there for a specific purpose and the number of those required is based up a criteria and design study of that particular ship's requirements & application, etc.

3) 5"/38 cal guns are installed in shipboard MOUNTS, not turrets. The distinction between turret and mount depends on the size of a particular gun system - for example:

3"/50 cal gun MOUNT
5"/25 cal gun MOUNT
6"/47 cal gun TURRET
8"/55 cal gun TURRET
16"/50 cal gun TURRET

Those are just a few pointers to consider when coming up with a "what if" ship model - at least, when you're putting a tidy amount of time & cash into something like this, I would want to do some research as to the why's and how's and functionality before throwing things together. At least, that's my take on this sort of project.

Hope this helps,

[quote="lucasner"]I recently ordered Revell's modernized New Jersey Platinum edition, so am looking forward to doing my first Pontos set.

Bit I do have a number of questions since I am planning on doing a "what-if" build along the lines of the proposed "Phase II" modernization that was never done in the 90s. No, I don't intend on building an aft flight deck, but I am going to add VLS cells only for Tomahawks. I am also considering removing her aft 16" turret since I did read a proposal to fill the barbette with VLS (debating the "removing the aft turret would unbalance the ship" argument though).
I do have many questions about what her electronics fit would have looked like if she had stayed in service till around 2012. I'm looking at bringing her electronics up to date with what we would have seen on a CVN at that date. I know "what-if" questions can get ridiculous at times, but I really want to build as accurate as possible a ship.
Specifically:

1. What would be the value in keeping her optical range finders if she had been modified to carry the SPQ-9B? If they were removed, would it make sense for her to have TWO SPQ-9B's in the place of the old range finders?

2. I am going to remove all the WWII era Mk38 directors and replace her old twin 5in/38cal turrets with modern 5"/54 Mk45 mounts. I am confused about what sensors/directors she would carry for these guns. Is the SPQ-9B the only radar that would be needed? Would she have Mk50/60/61 directors just for the guns (I am thinking anti-air as well as anti-surface)?

3. I'm going to add a whole slew of SATCOM antennas, any guidance on where they would have to be? I know there were major concerns about the 16" blast affecting electronics, but I don't know how far/high they would have to be to protect them.

4. Same with Sea Sparrow. I read that Sea Sparrow wasn't considered for Phase 1 due to the same blast issues, but I want to add up to 4 RAM launchers high up on the superstructure and am considering adding Sea Sparrow anyway in accordance with some of the drawings I have seen from the 80's.

5. Since the 40mm/20mm were mounted at various times on top of the 16inch turrets (despite the ferocious blast), would it be bad to mount other modern electronics/guns/missiles on them? I was considering 25mm mounts, maybe SATCOM antennas, etc.

I don't intend to make her a Kirov-like ship with guns and missiles and electronics everywhere, but I would think that there has to be room for significant improvements and additions. Anything that makes sense I am missing?

I know that alot of her initial "Phase One" modernization was limited by the cost...but since I am thinking of a "money is not an issue" Phase II....where could I go with it REALISTICALLY?

Thanks, everyone![/quote]


I would draw your attention to NAVYDAVE’s thread in the “What If” subtopic in this area of the forum about a remodernized Iowa & Wisconsin. Pretty much all the answers to your questions can be found there. :thumbs_up_1:

I recently ordered Revell's modernized New Jersey Platinum edition, so am looking forward to doing my first Pontos set.

Bit I do have a number of questions since I am planning on doing a "what-if" build along the lines of the proposed "Phase II" modernization that was never done in the 90s. No, I don't intend on building an aft flight deck, but I am going to add VLS cells only for Tomahawks. I am also considering removing her aft 16" turret since I did read a proposal to fill the barbette with VLS (debating the "removing the aft turret would unbalance the ship" argument though).
I do have many questions about what her electronics fit would have looked like if she had stayed in service till around 2012. I'm looking at bringing her electronics up to date with what we would have seen on a CVN at that date. I know "what-if" questions can get ridiculous at times, but I really want to build as accurate as possible a ship.
Specifically:

1. What would be the value in keeping her optical range finders if she had been modified to carry the SPQ-9B? If they were removed, would it make sense for her to have TWO SPQ-9B's in the place of the old range finders?

2. I am going to remove all the WWII era Mk38 directors and replace her old twin 5in/38cal turrets with modern 5"/54 Mk45 mounts. I am confused about what sensors/directors she would carry for these guns. Is the SPQ-9B the only radar that would be needed? Would she have Mk50/60/61 directors just for the guns (I am thinking anti-air as well as anti-surface)?

3. I'm going to add a whole slew of SATCOM antennas, any guidance on where they would have to be? I know there were major concerns about the 16" blast affecting electronics, but I don't know how far/high they would have to be to protect them.

4. Same with Sea Sparrow. I read that Sea Sparrow wasn't considered for Phase 1 due to the same blast issues, but I want to add up to 4 RAM launchers high up on the superstructure and am considering adding Sea Sparrow anyway in accordance with some of the drawings I have seen from the 80's.

5. Since the 40mm/20mm were mounted at various times on top of the 16inch turrets (despite the ferocious blast), would it be bad to mount other modern electronics/guns/missiles on them? I was considering 25mm mounts, maybe SATCOM antennas, etc.

I don't intend to make her a Kirov-like ship with guns and missiles and electronics everywhere, but I would think that there has to be room for significant improvements and additions. Anything that makes sense I am missing?

I know that alot of her initial "Phase One" modernization was limited by the cost...but since I am thinking of a "money is not an issue" Phase II....where could I go with it REALISTICALLY?

Thanks, everyone!

Does anyone make PE detail up sets for the Trumpeter 1/700 modern Iowa models? I’m looking for something that has some etched bulkheads with details to place on the smooth bulkheads of the kit along the weather deck, and don’t want to try placing each door & pipe individually.

Sean,

The topic re. what bottles of which gas/liquid, etc. and how many were carried on board, where they were stored, etc. etc. - well, this has been beaten to death and I've tried to stay out of it. I have little/no experience with the chemical make-up of these gases/liquids and will not comment on that aspect of this subject.

I served in NEW JERSEY during her Vietnam Cruise (1968-69) and we had various racks of steel cylinders of this & that all over the ship. When I built my model of BB-62 (2012-1019) I tried to portray these stored bottles as I could from photos taken at the time. I did post replies early on in the "bottle wars" as there was a question as to "what" gases were carried aboard ship and what colors those bottles would have been painted. I recall researching the net for info on this and posted a couple charts, etc. with this info.

My best suggestion to you is that if you are building a WWII or Korean War era IOWA class BB, there are few color photos showing these stored bottles to go by - and the B/W photos really only show you [i]location[/i], not type. Use you best judgement and keep them grouped; single cannisters of one type probably wouldn't have happened. Thinking logically about the daily usage, etc. - it would be reasonable to [i]assume[/i] that the types of bottles stored in a given area may change as these bottles were expended and later replaced. With changes made during yard periods, it's quite possible the original locations of these storage racks would also have been changed. Where these cylinders were stored in 1968 were certainly not where they probably were stored in 1944 or 1953; possible, but not probable.

I hope this somewhat gives you a better feel for how to proceed, etc.

Hank