The Ship Model Forum

by **navydavesof** » Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:14 pm

lucasner wrote:This thread has me 100% committed to building my own version!
Can someone explain the logic for keeping the optical rangefinder? And, I would think the radar above the rangefinder would not be necessary due to much MUCH more modern surface search radars fitted, right?
This thread has truly inspired me, thanks!
Dave

Hey, man! Thanks for showing interest! The logic behind keeping the optical range finders is reliable redundancy. The optical range finders are remarkably accurate, and if the updated, electronic gun fire control system goes down, or if the gunfire control radar goes down, you can shift to the optical range finders and still land accurate shots.

To your second question, should be radar on top of the optical rangefinders still be retained? No, I do not believe so. The SPQ-9Bgun fire control radar can suffice, and if I ever finish this model project, I am seriously considering replacing the aft main battery optical range finder with a second SPQ-9B.

by **lucasner** » Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:22 am

This thread has me 100% committed to building my own version!
Can someone explain the logic for keeping the optical rangefinder? And, I would think the radar above the rangefinder would not be necessary due to much MUCH more modern surface search radars fitted, right?
This thread has truly inspired me, thanks!
Dave

by **navydavesof** » Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:19 am

I will continue with the project of a modernized USS Iowa. As has been stated many times before

The electronics will be a surface-combatant version of the LHD electronics suite with a BB customized SSDS I would call SSDS (v)3. While I really want her to have either 128 or 156 VLS, I may settle with the most realistic 96 VLS. This would be okay, because it would be split between TLAMs and ESSM in a mix of 90 TLAM and 6 (quad pack which means 24 ESSM) with 2 RAM and (1 fwd and 1 aft in place of the Mk37 directors) and 4 Phalanx Block 1B.

by **navydavesof** » Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:23 pm

However these findings will not stop me building an economical modernized Iowa-class BB. Heck, this might actually inspire an WIF focused around if the 4 921' Montana-class BBs were constructed and mothballed. After the Iowas had been used, the USN would begin to pull the Montana-class BBs from the mothball fleet for reactivation and modernization.

I have already expressed the modernized Iowa-class as a reduced LHD electronics suite reflecting SPS-49, SPS-48, SPQ-9Bx2, SLQ-32(v)6 perhaps, NULKA, SRBOC and secret stuff, on the electronics front.

Get some.

by **navydavesof** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:12 pm

Thomas E. Johnson wrote:As it is pretty clear now that the goal of a 350 ship Navy cannot be reached with out reactivating and modernizing older existing vessels, is there any movement in the circles of decision makers to explore re-appropriating these ships back into the navy Dave?

No. It is clear to me that SECNAV is not serious about executing the President's demand for a 355 ship fleet. He is obviously not on board with this idea. He just issued a memo stating that we will not do something as simple as reactivate 10 OHP-class FFGs in even the smallest capacity much less modernize them with any worthwhile combat systems.

THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
WASHINGTON DC 20350-1000

December 5, 2017

MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
SUBJECT: Support for Joint Interagency Task Force
This'Task Force is a very important element in the control of illegal drug
transportation. Navy ceased providing surface ship support at the end of2015 when the
FFG-7 ciass was retired. Since then maritime events have doubled and more growth is
expected~by the Task Force in the coming years. Clearly the presence of Navy ships had
a deterrent effect on the drug transportation process. We must restore this impact now in
this vital national priority program.
We discussed the idea of reactivating FFG-7 ships, but the process of evaluating
alternatives identified better solutions using LCS and T-EPF ships. The LCS is ideally
configured for this low intensity operation and the T-EPF has significant potential with
some minor changes. Both classes need to include basic Remote Piloted Vehic!e visual
detection similar to SCAN EAGLE employed on USS PONCE (LPD-15). These ships
are now sunk cost, leaving only operating cost which has been included in the budget.
Operating cost in support of the Task Force should be covered within the funds
appropriated for the drug control purpose.
I request that you resource at least four ship years of this ship combination
beginning early 2018,. This is well below the SOUTHCOM requested amount. Multiple
demands will require prioritization, but this mission must be in the top priority category
for these ships, reversing the prior decision to eliminate support. Since the training areas
are close to the operational areas covered by the Task Force, it is likely possible that part
of the training profile can be real maritime security tasks likely to be encountered many
'
places in the world.
Please advise regarding the schedule beginning in 2018 for providing these ships
for Task Force use.

Kitty Hawk was slated for the scrappers without logical explanation. To suddenly get her out of the running for reactivation, however is inline with the Navy's decisions over the past 15 years to eliminate the threat to new ship building; ie the entire Spruance-class. If we could have 20 Spruance DDs reactivated and added to the fleet for another 15-20 years through a SLEP, then we would not need these dumb LCSs and DDG-1000s....right....sink them....scrap them....get them out of the way.

No, unfortunately under current leadership, they will continue to "accept the risk" of our current force structure and not execute any efforts to grow the fleet under even the easiest circumstances.

by **Thomas E. Johnson** » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:16 pm

As it is pretty clear now that the goal of a 350 ship Navy cannot be reached with out reactivating and modernizing older existing vessels, is there any movement in the circles of decision makers to explore re-appropriating these ships back into the navy Dave?

by **navydavesof** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:35 am

EJM wrote:
The more we discuss this, the more I want to use one of my New Jerseys as a Mk41/57 VLS and medium helo facility BB. Depending on how quickly you start this build, you and I might have a build off!
I'll let you start or finish whatever you currently have first. A build off would be fun, but my Iowa model is still a few years away from actually getting started. I've got too many other projects (Aircraft, Tanks, Sci-fi, etc.) that are on the "to do" list first.

Do you have links to your other models? It would be fantastic to see more of your work!

The battleship models that I will be finishing are the Iowa in this thread and a 1996 Wisconsin as she may have appeared based on the basic WIP design and my educated guess of additional systems of the time period.

by **EJM** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:10 pm

The more we discuss this, the more I want to use one of my New Jerseys as a Mk41/57 VLS and medium helo facility BB. Depending on how quickly you start this build, you and I might have a build off!

I'll let you start or finish whatever you currently have first. A build off would be fun, but my Iowa model is still a few years away from actually getting started. I've got too many other projects (Aircraft, Tanks, Sci-fi, etc.) that are on the "to do" list first.

by **navydavesof** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:40 pm

EJM wrote:Another option for a possible helo hangar would be to have an under deck one similar to what I've heard and read that the Albany class and Virginia class cruisers had. Is this possible on the Iowa BB? Though the bad part is that after I did some checking, a lot of the crew quarters and ship's services/facilities (Crew's Mess, Library, Laundry, etc.) on the 2nd and 3rd decks under the main deck aft of Turret 3 area would have to be removed or relocated.

Previous thread about below deck hangars.
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=59511&start=60

The more we discuss this, the more I want to use one of my New Jerseys as a Mk41/57 VLS and medium helo facility BB. Depending on how quickly you start this build, you and I might have a build off!

If I did not expand the helo landing deck to the ship's beam, I would lay out the markings on the aft deck as below on the Nashville.

I am also thinking about expanding the helo deck to the length of the ship to the stern.

by **navydavesof** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:44 am

EJM wrote:Another option for a possible helo hangar would be to have an under deck one similar to what I've heard and read that the Albany class and Virginia class cruisers had. Is this possible on the Iowa BB? Though the bad part is that after I did some checking, a lot of the crew quarters and ship's services/facilities (Crew's Mess, Library, Laundry, etc.) on the 2nd and 3rd decks under the main deck aft of Turret 3 area would have to be removed or relocated.

Previous thread about below deck hangars.
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=59511&start=60

That is one of my favorite threads. The conversation we kicked off helped me understand and design below-deck hangars for a few of my to-do ships!

Should your BB have a below deck hangar? Not if it's not necessary! The only reason why I went to using them in modern heavy cruisers, large cruisers, BBs, is because of the hazards created by having a main battery turret aft. Since you don't, I would suggest an above deck hangar. You may need as much of that below-decks space as possible, because your VLS may penetrate and eat up some of your 1st deck as well as your ATACM magazine.

by **EJM** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 2:04 pm

Another option for a possible helo hangar would be to have an under deck one similar to what I've heard and read that the Albany class and Virginia class cruisers had. Is this possible on the Iowa BB? Though the bad part is that after I did some checking, a lot of the crew quarters and ship's services/facilities (Crew's Mess, Library, Laundry, etc.) on the 2nd and 3rd decks under the main deck aft of Turret 3 area would have to be removed or relocated.

Previous thread about below deck hangars.
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=59511&start=60

by **navydavesof** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 12:07 am

EJM wrote:I actually have 3 spares in my spare parts box. So, no need to scratchbuild.

Awesome!

EJM wrote:Turret 3 is not a problem since I won't have a Turret 3 on my model. It's possible I might make the helo pad a bit longer, but not by much so that putting CIWS in the two tubs may be possible. If I put CIWS in both tubs, then the CAT system will go on either side of the ship somewhere amidships, though I'm not sure where yet.

Don't forget, sea spray and the risk of the helos striking your CIWS mouths are a very big concern. Helos would strike your CIWS units at least once every year.

I have a suggestion if you want to add another pair of CIWS or other PDMS. Why not put them on top of the aft most part of your missile deck?

Also, I would suggest your use the space on either side of your launcher for a helo hangar/maintenance facility. You have the space, and you could still have a helo pad large enough to accommodate 2 - 3 birds landing at a time while maintaining aircraft in the hangars.

Just a suggestion. Keep up the good work!

by **EJM** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:34 am

Also, it's pretty easy to scratch build a knuckle boat crane if you want. You can make it look much better than most of the kit parts out there.

I actually have 3 spares in my spare parts box.

So, no need to scratchbuild.

Depending on how long the CAT torpedoes are themselves, and if there are different kinds,

Yeah, I'm still trying to search for more information and/or photos before I scratchbuild any type of launcher system. The more information I find, then the better I'll be able to make a determination if I want to build and include the system or not.

Sea spray, the blast from Turret 3, and most of all, the danger of incoming helos striking them by accident proclues any type of tall system from being on the stern or in those tubs.

Turret 3 is not a problem since I won't have a Turret 3 on my model. It's possible I might make the helo pad a bit longer, but not by much so that putting CIWS in the two tubs may be possible. If I put CIWS in both tubs, then the CAT system will go on either side of the ship somewhere amidships, though I'm not sure where yet.

by **navydavesof** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:00 am

EJM wrote:The radar systems for my model I will have to think a little bit more on and then get back to you later on. As for the large refueling kingpost, I will be removing that as it will interfere with the firing arcs of the Seasparrow launchers, especially the starboard one, when I add them to a newly built aft superstructure. Gone will be the 2 smaller 26ft. (?) motorboats and I will replace them with modern Navy RHIB's. I'll keep the Captain's gig. The larger 30-40ft. personnel boat may be kept, but I'm not sure. The boat davits will be replaced with a crane type system from my spare parts box.

Also, it's pretty easy to scratch build a knuckle boat crane if you want. You can make it look much better than most of the kit parts out there.

EJM wrote:Will you keep or remove the SLQ-25 NIXIE anti-torpedo system openings at the back end of the fantail? I might keep it on mine, but am not sure yet. With the US Navy developing the new anti-torpedo torpedo called the Countermeasures Anti-Torpedo (CAT) system for use on aircraft carriers and/or other ships, I wonder if something like that couldn't also be used on a battleship?

Yes, I believe both systems could be used in conjunction with each other. Depending on how long the CAT torpedoes are themselves, and if there are different kinds, I will have a Mk32 SVTT somewhere on the stern on the ship, or I may have to figure out another launcher type.

EJM wrote: I originally was thinking of placing Phalanx CIWS in each of the fantail 40mm tubs. But now that I remembered about the CAT system, I was thinking that might be better in each of those tubs.

CIWS was originally considered for those two tubs, but practicality got in the way, and they were moved into the super structure. Sea spray, the blast from Turret 3, and most of all, the danger of incoming helos striking them by accident proclues any type of tall system from being on the stern or in those tubs. My understanding is that the refueling station is for the UAVs. It does not hold enough fuel for helicopters. It's literally a cart with about 100 gallons of fuel. There is a much larger fuel tank inside the stern that was original used to fuel the float planes. I believe (but I am not positive) that was reconditioned for JP-5 to re-fuel the helos.

by **EJM** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:49 pm

The radar systems for my model I will have to think a little bit more on and then get back to you later on. As for the large refueling kingpost, I will be removing that as it will interfere with the firing arcs of the Seasparrow launchers, especially the starboard one, when I add them to a newly built aft superstructure. Gone will be the 2 smaller 26ft. (?) motorboats and I will replace them with modern Navy RHIB's. I'll keep the Captain's gig. The larger 30-40ft. personnel boat may be kept, but I'm not sure. The boat davits will be replaced with a crane type system from my spare parts box.

Will you keep or remove the SLQ-25 NIXIE anti-torpedo system openings at the back end of the fantail? I might keep it on mine, but am not sure yet. With the US Navy developing the new anti-torpedo torpedo called the Countermeasures Anti-Torpedo (CAT) system for use on aircraft carriers and/or other ships, I wonder if something like that couldn't also be used on a battleship? I originally was thinking of placing Phalanx CIWS in each of the fantail 40mm tubs. But now that I remembered about the CAT system, I was thinking that might be better in each of those tubs. I'm just not sure how big or small of a launcher to scratchbuild as I don't know the dimensions of the anti-torpedo torpedos. Although one of the 40mm tubs has a refueling system for helicopters, I'm sure this could probably be moved elsewhere.

by **navydavesof** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:52 am

EJM wrote:But where exactly are those positions? It's hard to tell in the pics, particuarly the Navsource one, but it appears they are on the main deck near the 5" gun spots. One refueling spot is between the starboard aft 5" gun mount and the refueling kingpost. The other one is hard to tell.

. All of the fittings were removed upon decommissioning. You'll have to look somewhere else I believe.

EJM wrote:About radars and sensors.........

I'm planning to have the following:
1-2x SPQ-9B radars (Do I need 1 or 2 for the six 5"/62 cal. Mark 45 guns I plan to have?)

It depends on what you want the ship's capabilities to be. One can provide all radar inputs to the GFCS.

EJM wrote:...2-4x Mk.95 illuminators for Seasparrow launchers.
1x SPS-49 radar
1x SPS-48 radar
1x SPS-67 radar
2x SLQ-32 ECM
2-4x OE-82C Satcom antennas
What else am I missing or do I need to have?

That covers a lot of stuff, but again it's a question of what do you want the battleship's mission to be? That will dictate what radars, equipment, etc you put on it. For instance, if you want it to do what I have in mind, then you would build the model I have described in this thread. If yours answers different missions, then you configure it differently.

EJM wrote:Do I need some sort of radar/sensor system for the MLRS I plan to have that I talked to you about in PM?

I don't know a lot about the workings of the MLRS. You would need a way to program, guide, and target the weapons.

EJM wrote:And lastly, any changes to ship's boats and boat handling equipment?

What do you want the boat capability to be? If you just want it to be standard modern Navy, RHIBs. Because the missions my battleship is arranged to meet, my boat arrangement is going to be totally different than normal ships.

I look forward to the thoughts behind your BB!

by **navydavesof** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:42 pm

EJM wrote:But which lengths can an Iowa battleship actually accomodate not only between the two funnels, but also on either side of the aft funnel? Because whatever length of VLS cell is put in, it means changing the rooms, passageways, etc. on the inside of the ship. Eventually, somebody's office, berthing space, ventilation ductwork, piping, etc. is going to have to go bye-bye or rerouted.

They were going to be Mk41 Mod0/1 Strike length tubes, the really long ones. Yes, all of those spaces would have been eliminated to accommodate the VLS and its supporting systems. Keep in mind that during the reactivation, a LOT of spaces were left vacant and were turned into spaces that can otherwise be combined or will no longer be used regardless.

by **EJM** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:43 pm

I know it's been said time after time in this thread that the Iowa class battleships could have been designed/renovated with VLS missile systems in mind. But from what I understand, there are 3 different lengths of VLS cells: Strike, Tactical, and Self Defense. Each one is a different length for accomodating different types of missiles. But which lengths can an Iowa battleship actually accomodate not only between the two funnels, but also on either side of the aft funnel? Because whatever length of VLS cell is put in, it means changing the rooms, passageways, etc. on the inside of the ship. Eventually, somebody's office, berthing space, ventilation ductwork, piping, etc. is going to have to go bye-bye or rerouted.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... tsheet.pdf
http://bemil.chosun.com/brd/files/BEMIL ... 8/4_35.jpg
https://www.dsiac.org/sites/default/fil ... 11-rv1.png

PDF of USS New Jersey blueprints, 1984.
https://maritime.org/doc/plans/bb62.pdf

by **EJM** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:44 pm

A few quick answers

Few is right.

That didn't help me much.

Yes they can take on fuel from 2 spots on each side of the ship.

But where exactly are those positions? It's hard to tell in the pics, particuarly the Navsource one, but it appears they are on the main deck near the 5" gun spots. One refueling spot is between the starboard aft 5" gun mount and the refueling kingpost. The other one is hard to tell.

About radars and sensors.........

I'm planning to have the following:
1-2x SPQ-9B radars (Do I need 1 or 2 for the six 5"/62 cal. Mark 45 guns I plan to have?)
2-4x Mk.95 illuminators for Seasparrow launchers.
1x SPS-49 radar
1x SPS-48 radar
1x SPS-67 radar
2x SLQ-32 ECM
2-4x OE-82C Satcom antennas
What else am I missing or do I need to have?

Do I need some sort of radar/sensor system for the MLRS I plan to have that I talked to you about in PM?

And lastly, any changes to ship's boats and boat handling equipment?

by **navydavesof** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:29 am

EJM wrote:@navydavesof: Here's something else to ask you (or anybody else) about. I may eventually remove or replace the aft starboard refueling derrick on my future Iowa build. I need some information and/or pictures on how the Iowa battleships were refueled and vertically replenished.

One photo I found on Navsource is this:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/01621c.jpg
Notice how the refueling derrick isn't being used for refueling of the battleship. The black hose lines are still hanging/tied together. There are two other refueling hose lines running from the replenishment oiler to the battleship. But the photo isn't clear enough to see where these hose lines end up connecting on the starboard side of the battleship. Anybody know the exact positions on the starboard side and/or have any better photos? Would there also be similar refueling positions on the port side of the battleship?

Notice the same thing in this pic too.
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/i ... 991_lg.jpg

On Page 7 of this thread, there are a few pics of a king post/tensioner. Did all Iowa battleships have them or just some of them? Where were they stored when not in use? Could they also be used on the port side as well as the starboard side?

A few quick answers

The King post is for refueling other ships so it would not be used while being refueled. That was a big deal about the BBs, the could refuel their own escorts.

The high line may only be on Wisconsin, but I built one for my Iowa, because it's a really good idea. Being that Wisconsin is the culmination of all the lessons learned during he class reactivation program, I would incorporate her more into the other ships even before making my own.

Yes they can take on fuel from 2 spots on each side of the ship.

The Ship Model Forum

What if Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: What if Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: What if Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: What if Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: What if Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: What if Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: What if Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: What if Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

Re: Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin