Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
I'm going with the scenario similar to the IOWA's where she had minimal upgrades until the late 70's - early 80's. Then recommissioned as a hybrid, losing the No.3 turret and gaining a flight deck and hangarbay. She would be strictly helo / vtol, with two deck edge elevators, handling most birds smaller that the CH-53. For weaps, she loses all of her 40 and 20mm mounts and gains harpoons / ABL's, and CIWS.
I'm going with the scenario similar to the IOWA's where she had minimal upgrades until the late 70's - early 80's. Then recommissioned as a hybrid, losing the No.3 turret and gaining a flight deck and hangarbay. She would be strictly helo / vtol, with two deck edge elevators, handling most birds smaller that the CH-53. For weaps, she loses all of her 40 and 20mm mounts and gains harpoons / ABL's, and CIWS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:47 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
My man, thank you!
Indeed my idea of the Alaskas would have been that of an Iowa. She would have had a helo hanger dug into her stern and a deck long on her stern to match her beam. That would have given her quite the landing area. I would split the ship with guns forward and landing deck aft. She would have the Mk42 guns and a significant VLS.
My man, thank you!
Indeed my idea of the Alaskas would have been that of an Iowa. She would have had a helo hanger dug into her stern and a deck long on her stern to match her beam. That would have given her quite the landing area. I would split the ship with guns forward and landing deck aft. She would have the Mk42 guns and a significant VLS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 12:06 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
David you always have me with ur ideas I have been hooked on what-if ships since my midshipmen days when I had to write a paper on the proposal to bring back the Iowa class. I was going to just get the Hawaii and go to town because she was never finished so it flair game of what she would have been fitted out with. Again go to town I have the Alaska and deck with a couple of extra New Jersey kits I may just remove the missile deck and fit it that space where the aviation gear was. David I would do this a lesson learn platform.do everything that they suggested to fix the Iowa design issues or upgrades that never happened. I am retired now with a new life after suffering two strokes in March. Nothing but time. My new wife from Manila loves these ideas she called them art in plastic which is corrrect no matter how you look at. My goal is to have something ready for va art show in the spring they had a revel Lexington representing our hospital it was out of box build . Now that I am a patient I can legally enter the contest
David you always have me with ur ideas I have been hooked on what-if ships since my midshipmen days when I had to write a paper on the proposal to bring back the Iowa class. I was going to just get the Hawaii and go to town because she was never finished so it flair game of what she would have been fitted out with. Again go to town I have the Alaska and deck with a couple of extra New Jersey kits I may just remove the missile deck and fit it that space where the aviation gear was. David I would do this a lesson learn platform.do everything that they suggested to fix the Iowa design issues or upgrades that never happened. I am retired now with a new life after suffering two strokes in March. Nothing but time. My new wife from Manila loves these ideas she called them art in plastic which is corrrect no matter how you look at. My goal is to have something ready for va art show in the spring they had a revel Lexington representing our hospital it was out of box build . Now that I am a patient I can legally enter the contest
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:28 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
MAJOR-B wrote: ...I think like Dave and others have this platform could be upgraded instead of flight deck section have an enlarged helicopter deck, not sure if I would remove the forward mounts but you could add harpoons and ciws amid ships and I would do a B.B. 61 missile deck amid ships where the cats where lots of space their.. I have 2 ideas for mine...gosh whenever I get to it.... Both will reflect an Iowa Phase II and more. 1. Alaska with 9 x 12" guns, 5 x Mk45 5" guns, 16 Harpoons, 4 Phalanx CIWS, 2 RAM, and a full Mk74 NTU SSDS Mod2/3 suite and a new below-deck stern hangar to accommodate 2-3 SH-60s. Between the forward fire control tower and the stack would hold two 32 cell arrangements and another two between the stack and the aft fire control tower totaling 128 tubes. 2. Alaska with Turret 3 removed and a massive Spruance style helo hangar built from the stack aft. She would likely have 4 landing spots across the stern. The hangar would be able to accommodate 2 SH-53s if necessary and 4 HH-60s but a f*ck ton of UAVs otherwise. She would have two 32-cell VLS tubes amidships with a 64 aft between the stack and the hangar. She would have 5 x Mk45 5" guns, one forward of the bridge, then 2 shoulder mounts and 2 hip mounts. She would have 4 CIWS, 2 RAM, maybe Mk38 25mm. Also, her hull would be blistered from Turret 1 to Turret 3. This would be mine/torpedo protection with a thickening of armor. Just imagine an Alaska with a Kidd-class AAW system, a stern helo hangar, or an above deck hangar in place of Turret3. How amazing is that?
[quote="MAJOR-B"]...I think like Dave and others have this platform could be upgraded instead of flight deck section have an enlarged helicopter deck, not sure if I would remove the forward mounts but you could add harpoons and ciws amid ships and I would do a B.B. 61 missile deck amid ships where the cats where lots of space their..[/quote]I have 2 ideas for mine...gosh whenever I get to it....
Both will reflect an Iowa Phase II and more.
1. Alaska with 9 x 12" guns, 5 x Mk45 5" guns, 16 Harpoons, 4 Phalanx CIWS, 2 RAM, and a full Mk74 NTU SSDS Mod2/3 suite and a new below-deck stern hangar to accommodate 2-3 SH-60s. Between the forward fire control tower and the stack would hold two 32 cell arrangements and another two between the stack and the aft fire control tower totaling 128 tubes.
2. Alaska with Turret 3 removed and a massive Spruance style helo hangar built from the stack aft. She would likely have 4 landing spots across the stern. The hangar would be able to accommodate 2 SH-53s if necessary and 4 HH-60s but a f*ck ton of UAVs otherwise. She would have two 32-cell VLS tubes amidships with a 64 aft between the stack and the hangar. She would have 5 x Mk45 5" guns, one forward of the bridge, then 2 shoulder mounts and 2 hip mounts. She would have 4 CIWS, 2 RAM, maybe Mk38 25mm.
Also, her hull would be blistered from Turret 1 to Turret 3. This would be mine/torpedo protection with a thickening of armor.
Just imagine an Alaska with a Kidd-class AAW system, a stern helo hangar, or an above deck hangar in place of Turret3. How amazing is that?
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 5:19 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
I see they have the Hawaii coming out if you google the Hawaii they have a photo from a game it has the main guns removed forward and aft and a section of flight deck added to the rear, again I think like Dave and others have this platform could be upgraded instead of flight deck section have an enlarged helicopter deck, not sure if I would remove the forward mounts but you could add harpoons and ciws amid ships and I would do a B.B. 61 missile deck amid ships where the cats where lots of space their..
I see they have the Hawaii coming out if you google the Hawaii they have a photo from a game it has the main guns removed forward and aft and a section of flight deck added to the rear, again I think like Dave and others have this platform could be upgraded instead of flight deck section have an enlarged helicopter deck, not sure if I would remove the forward mounts but you could add harpoons and ciws amid ships and I would do a B.B. 61 missile deck amid ships where the cats where lots of space their..
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:05 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
Ok We now have this beastie in 1/350. Any thoughts or changes. This class was needs some love.. Thanks
Ok We now have this beastie in 1/350. Any thoughts or changes. This class was needs some love.. Thanks
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:58 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
Well, firstly yes, these are cruisers. The US Navy has never had a “Battle Cruiser” in commission. These were very large (or “Super”) cruisers, designed with the purpose of overwhelming existing 8” gun cruisers (primarily IJN Nachi/Mogami types or DKM Hipper class). A look at the design shows that these are just up-scaled Boston class CA’s (hence the designation “CB” not “BC”). An early rebuild of this class would parallel other contemporary cruisers, while later rebuilds would likely parallel the Iowa’s. The Early (‘50s) rebuild would see the removal of the aft turrets (though the Mk38 may be retained it’s unlikely as this would be seen as extra room for missile space) & replacement by missile systems, most likely the Mk 4 Terrier system due to the extra volume available for vertical loading, though the Mk 10 or 12 Terrier/Talos systems may be used instead. The forward turrets would (hopefully) be retained (including the Mk38 – while the replacement for a Mk42 or later 45 sounds cool, the Navy would never spend money on it as it doesn’t enhance firepower significantly to justify the expense, actually the modern CGN Long beach received a modification to give her NGSF capability by adding 2 surplus Mk30 5”/38s amidships, it’s not likely they would add a weapon system to one ship while replacing it from another older ship & the labor intensiveness of the Mk38 is not an issue as these are large ships designed for them anyway). All 20mm’s & aircraft facilities would be removed. The 40mm’s may be retained initially (as with the Iowa’s in Korea) or replaced with Mk33’s. She would probably retain 2 of the 4 side Mk38’s & replace the other 2 with Mk11 Tartar systems, whether the 2 forward of aft Mk38’s were replaced is unknown, they could go with a full guns forward/missiles aft configuration or have some of each in each location (the Mk11 was fairly sturdy &7 unlikely to be effected much by the 12” guns {as long as a bird wasn’t hanging from the rail }). The upper works would be rebuilt (as with most CA/G conversions) with upgraded radar & missile FC systems (probably the SPG-55) & a large command center where the hanger was, with extensive facilities for fleet command staff & very long range com systems, also likely additional Mk33’s where the catapults were (the addition of extra Mk38s here would be cost prohibitive due to the lack of below deck magazine space). No Mk16 is likely as these are not ASW ships (it may be added to support ASW capable ships but I highly doubt it & it would likely be removed quickly as being redundant). A 80’s/90’s upgrade could have 2 versions (cheap or full like the Iowa’s) the Full conversion would likely be close to the Iowa full conversion, with the removal of all old missile systems. A full hanger & flight deck built up aft. Mk41 added in the former aft magazine spaces. The upper works cut back down with modern electronic, Mk15s added & a platform added amidships for Mk141/143 launchers (adding Mk41 here would be very unlikely but adding above deck launchers for Harpoon & Tomahawks would reduce the space needed in the Mk41 for these missiles & allow more room for other types). & Mk 25/29s in place of the Mk11s (or removed to make room for a “ski jump” along the side if aft mounted) A cheap conversion would see the same rebuild of the upper works (as with the Iowa’s) but would retain the existing missile systems (if Mk10/12s & Mk11s or replacement of the Mk4s with Mk26s). No hanger added. Mk33s may be retained, removed or reduced in #. It’s unlikely these ships would use Mk13/22s though the Mk11s may be replaced by them (likely 22s due to limited space to the side) or Mk25s. An interesting idea though might be to replace the aft mounts with a triangle of Mk13s, 1 in the former Mk38 position & the other 2 side by side (if there’s room) in the 12” position. A modern upgrade could see the replacement of the Mk11/22s with Mk29s, Mk49s or a small cell group of Mk41s. the forward Mk38 may also be replaced with a Mk29/49, or an AGS. The other 2 Mk38s would likely be replaced by AGSs as well (or a pair of Mk71s ).
Well, firstly yes, these are cruisers. The US Navy has never had a “Battle Cruiser” in commission. These were very large (or “Super”) cruisers, designed with the purpose of overwhelming existing 8” gun cruisers (primarily IJN Nachi/Mogami types or DKM Hipper class). A look at the design shows that these are just up-scaled Boston class CA’s (hence the designation “CB” not “BC”).
An early rebuild of this class would parallel other contemporary cruisers, while later rebuilds would likely parallel the Iowa’s.
The Early (‘50s) rebuild would see the removal of the aft turrets (though the Mk38 may be retained it’s unlikely as this would be seen as extra room for missile space) & replacement by missile systems, most likely the Mk 4 Terrier system due to the extra volume available for vertical loading, though the Mk 10 or 12 Terrier/Talos systems may be used instead. The forward turrets would (hopefully) be retained (including the Mk38 – while the replacement for a Mk42 or later 45 sounds cool, the Navy would never spend money on it as it doesn’t enhance firepower significantly to justify the expense, actually the modern CGN Long beach received a modification to give her NGSF capability by adding 2 surplus Mk30 5”/38s amidships, it’s not likely they would add a weapon system to one ship while replacing it from another older ship & the labor intensiveness of the Mk38 is not an issue as these are large ships designed for them anyway). All 20mm’s & aircraft facilities would be removed. The 40mm’s may be retained initially (as with the Iowa’s in Korea) or replaced with Mk33’s. She would probably retain 2 of the 4 side Mk38’s & replace the other 2 with Mk11 Tartar systems, whether the 2 forward of aft Mk38’s were replaced is unknown, they could go with a full guns forward/missiles aft configuration or have some of each in each location (the Mk11 was fairly sturdy &7 unlikely to be effected much by the 12” guns {as long as a bird wasn’t hanging from the rail :Oops_1: }). The upper works would be rebuilt (as with most CA/G conversions) with upgraded radar & missile FC systems (probably the SPG-55) & a large command center where the hanger was, with extensive facilities for fleet command staff & very long range com systems, also likely additional Mk33’s where the catapults were (the addition of extra Mk38s here would be cost prohibitive due to the lack of below deck magazine space). No Mk16 is likely as these are not ASW ships (it may be added to support ASW capable ships but I highly doubt it & it would likely be removed quickly as being redundant).
A 80’s/90’s upgrade could have 2 versions (cheap or full like the Iowa’s) the Full conversion would likely be close to the Iowa full conversion, with the removal of all old missile systems. A full hanger & flight deck built up aft. Mk41 added in the former aft magazine spaces. The upper works cut back down with modern electronic, Mk15s added & a platform added amidships for Mk141/143 launchers (adding Mk41 here would be very unlikely but adding above deck launchers for Harpoon & Tomahawks would reduce the space needed in the Mk41 for these missiles & allow more room for other types). & Mk 25/29s in place of the Mk11s (or removed to make room for a “ski jump” along the side if aft mounted) A cheap conversion would see the same rebuild of the upper works (as with the Iowa’s) but would retain the existing missile systems (if Mk10/12s & Mk11s or replacement of the Mk4s with Mk26s). No hanger added. Mk33s may be retained, removed or reduced in #. It’s unlikely these ships would use Mk13/22s though the Mk11s may be replaced by them (likely 22s due to limited space to the side) or Mk25s. An interesting idea though might be to replace the aft mounts with a triangle of Mk13s, 1 in the former Mk38 position & the other 2 side by side (if there’s room) in the 12” position.
A modern upgrade could see the replacement of the Mk11/22s with Mk29s, Mk49s or a small cell group of Mk41s. the forward Mk38 may also be replaced with a Mk29/49, or an AGS. The other 2 Mk38s would likely be replaced by AGSs as well (or a pair of Mk71s :big_grin: ).
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 05, 2013 2:31 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
Sauragnmon wrote: If I recall, the Classic Warships mould actually got bought up and refined by Midships. Samek is still in business, far as I know, but I don't know a whole lot on the manufacturer front, though they might have stopped producing the Alaska. I have both the Classic Warships and the Midship models and the molds are pretty darn near the same. The Midship hull is much cleaner and has little in the way of imperfections. My Classic hull has several pin holes and imperfections, but nothing that should prove too difficult to fix. All the major hull and superstructure parts are for the most part the same between the two kits. The main and secondary turrets and guns in the Midship kit are cast in resin while in the Classic kit they are made of white metal. Fortunately I got the Midship kit on sale, but it usually goes for $120-130 USD. I got the Classic kit on eBay probably about five years ago for a pittance. I am planning to whif the Classic kit I think. Samek does some pretty good work although I have not laid eyes on their Alaska kit.
[quote="Sauragnmon"]If I recall, the Classic Warships mould actually got bought up and refined by Midships. Samek is still in business, far as I know, but I don't know a whole lot on the manufacturer front, though they might have stopped producing the Alaska.[/quote]I have both the Classic Warships and the Midship models and the molds are pretty darn near the same. The Midship hull is much cleaner and has little in the way of imperfections. My Classic hull has several pin holes and imperfections, but nothing that should prove too difficult to fix. All the major hull and superstructure parts are for the most part the same between the two kits. The main and secondary turrets and guns in the Midship kit are cast in resin while in the Classic kit they are made of white metal. Fortunately I got the Midship kit on sale, but it usually goes for $120-130 USD. I got the Classic kit on eBay probably about five years ago for a pittance. I am planning to whif the Classic kit I think.
Samek does some pretty good work although I have not laid eyes on their Alaska kit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:02 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
I did a WWII what if, eliminated aviation and added 2 twin 5"-38 and 2 more 5" directors. Build thread at viewtopic.php?f=60&t=34248&p=223141&hilit=alaska#p223141Jim
Attachments: |
MVC-177F.JPG [ 94.13 KiB | Viewed 8141 times ]
|
MVC-179F.JPG [ 84.65 KiB | Viewed 8138 times ]
|
I did a WWII what if, eliminated aviation and added 2 twin 5"-38 and 2 more 5" directors.
Build thread at http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=34248&p=223141&hilit=alaska#p223141
Jim
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:01 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
If I recall, the Classic Warships mould actually got bought up and refined by Midships. Samek is still in business, far as I know, but I don't know a whole lot on the manufacturer front, though they might have stopped producing the Alaska.
If I recall, the Classic Warships mould actually got bought up and refined by Midships. Samek is still in business, far as I know, but I don't know a whole lot on the manufacturer front, though they might have stopped producing the Alaska.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:51 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
Thanks Sauragnmon, I'm pretty happy with the design now the only question is which kit? Only one available it seems is the Midships kit and Freetime has it for $89. Are there any others? I know Samek made one but I've never been able to find a Samek kit anywhere. Are they even still in business?
Thanks Sauragnmon, I'm pretty happy with the design now the only question is which kit? Only one available it seems is the Midships kit and Freetime has it for $89. Are there any others? I know Samek made one but I've never been able to find a Samek kit anywhere. Are they even still in business?
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:23 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
I think all in all she looks good, Cliff - a good Korean Fit layout really, and the enhanced secondary battery is certainly something. Good stuff all round I think with that.
I think all in all she looks good, Cliff - a good Korean Fit layout really, and the enhanced secondary battery is certainly something. Good stuff all round I think with that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:14 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
I did some more sketching and here's Scheme 2. Re-did the amidships superstructure with a more logical layout and reinforced the after mast for the SPS-8A. Any thoughts?
I did some more sketching and here's Scheme 2. Re-did the amidships superstructure with a more logical layout and reinforced the after mast for the SPS-8A. Any thoughts?
[img]http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu194/CliffyB/Artwork/CB-1Drawing1950sScheme2.jpg[/img]
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 5:37 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
Cliffy B wrote: Alright gents, here's my design for a Korean War Era rebuild. I used the Iowa Class rebuilds of the same era for ideas. All the Bofors have been replaced with radar controlled twin 3"/50s. Added 4 Mk-56 and 2 Mk-37 directors (all with Mk-25 radar). Radars are now SPS-6B, SPS-8A, and SPS-10. The bridge has been raised up a deck, extended out, and squared off. Added two more twin 5"/38s amidships and two more twin 3"/50s abreast the funnel. Raised the funnel cap. Added a helo landing deck aft, no hangar but parking space for several. Now that I look at it the after mast looks a bit too weak. I'll re-do that later. I retained 12 twin 20mm for close in defense mainly against small boats and the like. Some ships kept theirs throughout Korea anyway so its no big deal. I might lower the amidships Mk-37s and consolidate the deckhouse there a bit more. Thoughts, suggestions? Clff, you do excellent work with your sketches. I like the redesign you've put together for the Alaska here. The fitting of the twin 3" mounts was something I had thought would look really cool and seems like the logical progression from the 40mm mounts. I actually have the Classic Warship 1/700 Alaska kit and the Midship Models kit as well and figured I would whif the Classic Warship kit since it is a little more crude. I like your sketch think I may use your sketch as a basic blueprint when I get around to it, if you're okay with that of course. Of course, there are so many ideas for builds, one never know when I'll really get around to it.
[quote="Cliffy B"]Alright gents, here's my design for a Korean War Era rebuild. I used the Iowa Class rebuilds of the same era for ideas.
All the Bofors have been replaced with radar controlled twin 3"/50s. Added 4 Mk-56 and 2 Mk-37 directors (all with Mk-25 radar). Radars are now SPS-6B, SPS-8A, and SPS-10. The bridge has been raised up a deck, extended out, and squared off. Added two more twin 5"/38s amidships and two more twin 3"/50s abreast the funnel. Raised the funnel cap. Added a helo landing deck aft, no hangar but parking space for several.
Now that I look at it the after mast looks a bit too weak. I'll re-do that later. I retained 12 twin 20mm for close in defense mainly against small boats and the like. Some ships kept theirs throughout Korea anyway so its no big deal. I might lower the amidships Mk-37s and consolidate the deckhouse there a bit more.
[img]http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu194/CliffyB/Artwork/CB-1Drawing1950s.jpg[/img]
Thoughts, suggestions?[/quote]Clff, you do excellent work with your sketches. I like the redesign you've put together for the Alaska here. The fitting of the twin 3" mounts was something I had thought would look really cool and seems like the logical progression from the 40mm mounts. I actually have the Classic Warship 1/700 Alaska kit and the Midship Models kit as well and figured I would whif the Classic Warship kit since it is a little more crude. I like your sketch think I may use your sketch as a basic blueprint when I get around to it, if you're okay with that of course.
Of course, there are so many ideas for builds, one never know when I'll really get around to it. :)
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:56 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
Alright gents, here's my design for a Korean War Era rebuild. I used the Iowa Class rebuilds of the same era for ideas. All the Bofors have been replaced with radar controlled twin 3"/50s. Added 4 Mk-56 and 2 Mk-37 directors (all with Mk-25 radar). Radars are now SPS-6B, SPS-8A, and SPS-10. The bridge has been raised up a deck, extended out, and squared off. Added two more twin 5"/38s amidships and two more twin 3"/50s abreast the funnel. Raised the funnel cap. Added a helo landing deck aft, no hangar but parking space for several. Now that I look at it the after mast looks a bit too weak. I'll re-do that later. I retained 12 twin 20mm for close in defense mainly against small boats and the like. Some ships kept theirs throughout Korea anyway so its no big deal. I might lower the amidships Mk-37s and consolidate the deckhouse there a bit more. Thoughts, suggestions?
Alright gents, here's my design for a Korean War Era rebuild. I used the Iowa Class rebuilds of the same era for ideas.
All the Bofors have been replaced with radar controlled twin 3"/50s. Added 4 Mk-56 and 2 Mk-37 directors (all with Mk-25 radar). Radars are now SPS-6B, SPS-8A, and SPS-10. The bridge has been raised up a deck, extended out, and squared off. Added two more twin 5"/38s amidships and two more twin 3"/50s abreast the funnel. Raised the funnel cap. Added a helo landing deck aft, no hangar but parking space for several.
Now that I look at it the after mast looks a bit too weak. I'll re-do that later. I retained 12 twin 20mm for close in defense mainly against small boats and the like. Some ships kept theirs throughout Korea anyway so its no big deal. I might lower the amidships Mk-37s and consolidate the deckhouse there a bit more.
[img]http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu194/CliffyB/Artwork/CB-1Drawing1950s.jpg[/img]
Thoughts, suggestions?
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:19 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
Cliffy B wrote: The Mk-13s were pulled from the Perry's because the manufacturer (I can't remember who, Raytheon I think?) ceased supporting the missile or so the Navy claimed was the reason... All the International users of the Mk-13/SM-1 are still using them so I guess it was a cost cutting measure or another "well we don't need that weapons system anymore..." Just like they weren't building DDGs with Harpoon OR CIWS for a period of time. Quote: But I digress. Dave, would the Mk-13 even be usable on the Alaskas? You mentioned overpressure from the 12" guns interfering with weapon placement. I was going to suggest two Mk-13 or the twin arm version (like on the early DDG-2 Class ships) mounted on the wings like they were on the Albany. Giving the ships some self defense capability but retaining as much of their fire support and anti-shipping capabilities as possible. Thoughts? Could an ASROC with a reload mag go in place of the center line 5"/38 either fore or aft? What about amidships in front of the funnel. I know Saur mentioned a lot of machinery there but what about if you built up a deckhouse for it or for ABLs? I know that almost any weapon mount can be hardened against the over-pressure of 16" fire, the electronics, on the other hand, are harder to fix. Even Phalanx was having a really hard time for a while on the battleships. I am not sure about the Mk-13s but I don't think they would have had too much of a problem. The Albany, gosh, what a mess that ship was...having them on the wings might be alright, but Turret 2's train arch would have to be considered pretty heavily, too. Anything near the ends of those muzzels is in pretty good danger of getting ripped up. I don’t know about the ASROC between the structure and Turret 2. There does not SEEM to be enough room there, maybe enough for one of the smaller magazines. I don't know. I would have to see a really good scale drawing to compare what the Spruances had versus some of the other ships. Between the funnels, I believe that would have to be the case for anything. There is so much real estate there that there is no way it was stay free. If no weapons were slated to go there, they would at least put a huge flag quarters there....I think anyway. Something I think we all have to keep in mind for any of these WHIFs is that if we are talking about anything beyond 2000, we much accept that pretty much every arm launcher would be gone. Mk13,26, etc. The only thing around now is VLS. As far as performance, it is my understanding ESSM out drives SM-1 by a huge shot, and all of the moving parts associated with a Mk13 lead to the thing going down a lot more often than the VLS Just a few thoughts.
[quote="Cliffy B"]The Mk-13s were pulled from the [i]Perry's[/i] because the manufacturer (I can't remember who, Raytheon I think?) ceased supporting the missile or so the Navy claimed was the reason... All the International users of the Mk-13/SM-1 are still using them so I guess it was a cost cutting measure or another "well we don't need that weapons system anymore..." Just like they weren't building DDGs with Harpoon OR CIWS for a period of time.
[quote]But I digress. Dave, would the Mk-13 even be usable on the [i]Alaskas[/i]? You mentioned overpressure from the 12" guns interfering with weapon placement. I was going to suggest two Mk-13 or the twin arm version (like on the early DDG-2 Class ships) mounted on the wings like they were on the [i]Albany[/i]. Giving the ships some self defense capability but retaining as much of their fire support and anti-shipping capabilities as possible. Thoughts? Could an ASROC with a reload mag go in place of the center line 5"/38 either fore or aft? What about amidships in front of the funnel. I know Saur mentioned a lot of machinery there but what about if you built up a deckhouse for it or for ABLs?[/quote][/quote] I know that almost any weapon mount can be hardened against the over-pressure of 16" fire, the electronics, on the other hand, are harder to fix. Even Phalanx was having a really hard time for a while on the battleships. I am not sure about the Mk-13s but I don't think they would have had too much of a problem.
The Albany, gosh, what a mess that ship was...having them on the wings might be alright, but Turret 2's train arch would have to be considered pretty heavily, too. Anything near the ends of those muzzels is in pretty good danger of getting ripped up.
I don’t know about the ASROC between the structure and Turret 2. There does not SEEM to be enough room there, maybe enough for one of the smaller magazines. I don't know. I would have to see a really good scale drawing to compare what the Spruances had versus some of the other ships.
Between the funnels, I believe that would have to be the case for anything. There is so much real estate there that there is no way it was stay free. If no weapons were slated to go there, they would at least put a huge flag quarters there....I think anyway.
Something I think we all have to keep in mind for any of these WHIFs is that if we are talking about anything beyond 2000, we much accept that pretty much every arm launcher would be gone. Mk13,26, etc. The only thing around now is VLS. As far as performance, it is my understanding ESSM out drives SM-1 by a huge shot, and all of the moving parts associated with a Mk13 lead to the thing going down a lot more often than the VLS
Just a few thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:24 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
The Mk-13s were pulled from the Perry's because the manufacturer (I can't remember who, Raytheon I think?) ceased supporting the missile or so the Navy claimed was the reason... All the International users of the Mk-13/SM-1 are still using them so I guess it was a cost cutting measure or another "well we don't need that weapons system anymore..." Just like they weren't building DDGs with Harpoon OR CIWS for a period of time.
But I digress. Dave, would the Mk-13 even be usable on the Alaskas? You mentioned overpressure from the 12" guns interfering with weapon placement. I was going to suggest two Mk-13 or the twin arm version (like on the early DDG-2 Class ships) mounted on the wings like they were on the Albany. Giving the ships some self defense capability but retaining as much of their fire support and anti-shipping capabilities as possible. Thoughts? Could an ASROC with a reload mag go in place of the center line 5"/38 either fore or aft? What about amidships in front of the funnel. I know Saur mentioned a lot of machinery there but what about if you built up a deckhouse for it or for ABLs?
I'm working on sketches for my Korean War version now. I'll post them up in a day or so if all goes well.
The Mk-13s were pulled from the [i]Perry's[/i] because the manufacturer (I can't remember who, Raytheon I think?) ceased supporting the missile or so the Navy claimed was the reason... All the International users of the Mk-13/SM-1 are still using them so I guess it was a cost cutting measure or another "well we don't need that weapons system anymore..." Just like they weren't building DDGs with Harpoon OR CIWS for a period of time.
But I digress. Dave, would the Mk-13 even be usable on the [i]Alaskas[/i]? You mentioned overpressure from the 12" guns interfering with weapon placement. I was going to suggest two Mk-13 or the twin arm version (like on the early DDG-2 Class ships) mounted on the wings like they were on the [i]Albany[/i]. Giving the ships some self defense capability but retaining as much of their fire support and anti-shipping capabilities as possible. Thoughts? Could an ASROC with a reload mag go in place of the center line 5"/38 either fore or aft? What about amidships in front of the funnel. I know Saur mentioned a lot of machinery there but what about if you built up a deckhouse for it or for ABLs?
I'm working on sketches for my Korean War version now. I'll post them up in a day or so if all goes well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:55 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
Dave,
The Mk13 was retired for some odd reason in the majority of the US Navy - they would claim that you can't use SM-2 on the launcher - the Austrailians must have not gotten the memo as they're feeding their Mk13's with SM-2 last I knew. Additionally, the Mk13 allows Harpoon, which was a further thought on my part. As to VLS, I would leave a question - that's gotta be the Shallow VLS since you didn't mention TLAM in that case.
A buddy of mine and I were talking about the center area and that happens to be where a lot of the machinery space is, so that was what ruled out the VLS concept on the center block. Though the concept of wing-mount VLS wasn't really brought up, and that is a rather interesting point. Two 16's aligned down the centerline might fit in there, but I don't know.
Dave,
The Mk13 was retired for some odd reason in the majority of the US Navy - they would claim that you can't use SM-2 on the launcher - the Austrailians must have not gotten the memo as they're feeding their Mk13's with SM-2 last I knew. Additionally, the Mk13 allows Harpoon, which was a further thought on my part. As to VLS, I would leave a question - that's gotta be the Shallow VLS since you didn't mention TLAM in that case.
A buddy of mine and I were talking about the center area and that happens to be where a lot of the machinery space is, so that was what ruled out the VLS concept on the center block. Though the concept of wing-mount VLS wasn't really brought up, and that is a rather interesting point. Two 16's aligned down the centerline might fit in there, but I don't know.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:00 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
Code: Guns - centerline 5" replaced with Mk13 - similar footprint, could have a second stowage magazine below the ready mag for additional reloads. Wing 5" replaced with Mk45 5" for upgraded RoF, lesser crew requirement. My impression so far is that ESSM and maybe RAM have completely taken the place of the Mk13 launcher. So few moving parts, and you can launch faster. Maybe in place of the Mk13, a 16 or 32-cell arrangement packed with either SM-2s or ESSMs. Keep in mind that 16 VLS tbes can fit inside a 5"/38caliber magazine. If there is surrounding space, you could certainly go for 32. Code: Seaplanes - ditched, for a slightly raised center block to house two to four Tomahawk ABLs similar to Center Block Iowa - VLS can't be put to use there, so it's a necessity to hold them in ABLs. Really? No VLS? Why not? If there is sufficient depth, you can put as few as an 8-cell module on each side if not as many as two 16 or 32-cell arrangments, one port, one starboard. I can't wait to see a drawing of this from someone!
[code]Guns - centerline 5" replaced with Mk13 - similar footprint, could have a second stowage magazine below the ready mag for additional reloads. Wing 5" replaced with Mk45 5" for upgraded RoF, lesser crew requirement.[/code] My impression so far is that ESSM and maybe RAM have completely taken the place of the Mk13 launcher. So few moving parts, and you can launch faster. Maybe in place of the Mk13, a 16 or 32-cell arrangement packed with either SM-2s or ESSMs. Keep in mind that 16 VLS tbes can fit inside a 5"/38caliber magazine. If there is surrounding space, you could certainly go for 32.
[code]Seaplanes - ditched, for a slightly raised center block to house two to four Tomahawk ABLs similar to Center Block Iowa - VLS can't be put to use there, so it's a necessity to hold them in ABLs.[/code] Really? No VLS? Why not? If there is sufficient depth, you can put as few as an 8-cell module on each side if not as many as two 16 or 32-cell arrangments, one port, one starboard.
I can't wait to see a drawing of this from someone!
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:38 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: What-If USS Alaska survived and modernised? |
|
|
I've got aspirations of doing an Alaska one of these days with my own modernization programme conceived around retaining her capabilities as much as possible. The big 12" guns are her core feature, so removing them somewhat defeats her purpose. Here's a couple of ideas:
Guns - centerline 5" replaced with Mk13 - similar footprint, could have a second stowage magazine below the ready mag for additional reloads. Wing 5" replaced with Mk45 5" for upgraded RoF, lesser crew requirement.
Seaplanes - ditched, for a slightly raised center block to house two to four Tomahawk ABLs similar to Center Block Iowa - VLS can't be put to use there, so it's a necessity to hold them in ABLs.
Aft Deck - build another riser, put in a helipad.
40mm mounts - upper aft structure mounts, aft bridge mounts replaced with Phalanx. RAM potentially put on the lower aft structure pair, potentially on top of the bridge.
Probably an upgraded G/GLFCS to support replacing directors with more effective systems to improve long range engagement capacity and better support the Mk13's in operation.
I've got aspirations of doing an Alaska one of these days with my own modernization programme conceived around retaining her capabilities as much as possible. The big 12" guns are her core feature, so removing them somewhat defeats her purpose. Here's a couple of ideas:
Guns - centerline 5" replaced with Mk13 - similar footprint, could have a second stowage magazine below the ready mag for additional reloads. Wing 5" replaced with Mk45 5" for upgraded RoF, lesser crew requirement.
Seaplanes - ditched, for a slightly raised center block to house two to four Tomahawk ABLs similar to Center Block Iowa - VLS can't be put to use there, so it's a necessity to hold them in ABLs.
Aft Deck - build another riser, put in a helipad.
40mm mounts - upper aft structure mounts, aft bridge mounts replaced with Phalanx. RAM potentially put on the lower aft structure pair, potentially on top of the bridge.
Probably an upgraded G/GLFCS to support replacing directors with more effective systems to improve long range engagement capacity and better support the Mk13's in operation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:06 am |
|
|
|
|