The Ship Model Forum

Russ2146 wrote:To me this is fun exercise of the mind

Suuuure it is! LOL!

And this link worked, thanks! Neat diagrams! I notice that (on the side view anyway) that there really aren't that many crew quarters in the superstructure. Most of them seem to be placed in the aft of the ship, where I have placed the "air operations" of the ship. Of course, the new rear-mounted command structure doesn't have to be the same size as that of a Burke class, I was merely using that as a reference. It could be as large as needed to replace whatever officer quarters are needed (rank doth have its privileges).

I do notice that the TV studio will be lost! No more "Wake Up New Jersey" with its drive time program...

I'm sure that even the missile farm decks (if you will) would provide more storage/usable space than I first thought. I allowed for a 10' gap between the rows. It might be better to cluster those cells in armored compartments in groups of say 40 or so. With proper construction, even a catastrophic explosion would direct the blast up r/t into the ships entrails. By clustering them together, this would also free up a fair bit of space on those four decks of missile farm. And its amazing how much space the 'exhaust' stacks take up out of the super structure.

And I just had a thought: If all four Iowas were to be converted in this way, that would free up 4 triple turrets meaning of course that two more Iowas could be built! Yay me!

As for overall crew numbers, yeah I'm being liberal. But I always assume that in times of war they're going to overload on crew so the numbers might be skewed to those larger war-time footing numbers. Peace time means fewer crew doing more work I imagine. However, even if the crew is a thousand, that is still way less than a supercarrier, for a ship that is every bit as effective as a supercarrier in the most important ways (showing the flag/power projection and strategic presence). In some ways its better considering the effective range of Tomahawks vs the F/A-18.

Well then try http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/index.htm
Scroll down to BB-62, open the pdf and scroll down to the fourth page.

Take a look at the area of turret 2and the superstructure behind it. According to what you have put forth, the top of the missile farm would be level with the top of turret 2.
On the existing Iowa's, this would be the 03 deck level, ie, three decks above the main deck. going down from the main deck, you run into the Second Deck which is armored, protecting the machinery spaces, of whatever type you decide to use. So, you have 4 decks worth of verticle space to dedicate to the missile farm. you might also note that there is not a whole lot of verticle space back on the fantail, where you place your C3 (Command, Control & Communications.)

Scrolling down further on the pdf, you can see the Plan Views of the various decks and what the compartments are used for on each deck. You can actualy count the number of bunks in the berthing spaces and the number of shower stalls and toilets in the Heads.

I agree that crew size can be reduced, but even the Navy's penultimate reduced crew ships, the LCS, is now found to require a near doubling of crew size because they have come to realize that naval ships are a little bit more involved than commercial ships. To me this is fun exercise of the mind

Russ, I couldn't get your PDF to work. Clicking the link brings me an empty tab on Firefox. And I wasn't forgetting about them, I just assumed that many of the features of the ships would be automated (engines, the majority of the weapons, sensors, etc) since they're being upgraded/replaced. And that's a big hull, I'm sure there is plenty of space within it. The biggest addition to the ship was the missile farm and that was supposed to be built up from the main deck. And while whatever space was lost to the removal of the superstructure, some would be regained by the new superstructure.

Not sure how many berthing spaces are lost, but I know crew would be reduced, as all of of the original 5" mounts are gone, as well as one of the triple 16's. The missiles, while surely needing more crew than on a Burke since there are so many more of them, would surely use less than all the original gun mounts. So that's what? 200 people? 300 people? Just from removing the 5" guns and one of the big turrets. Further communications and data upgrades could save a couple hundred more places. And moving to a similar propulsion system as those used by our newest carriers? Might could be some savings there.

I'm working on a broad assumption here that it could be crewed by about 700-800, depending on the size of the Marine contingent. During the 80s they ran on a crew of about 1300 or so I understand, about half of their WWII crew complement. These ships sailed with about 50-60 Marines normally, so in a "commando" role they might ship as many as 200, which would require more helos or MV22s and the support for them.

Also, remember that most of the fuel stores would no longer be needed since my Iowas are "New-cler parred" (spoken in hill billy patois). And there is more room right there, if you don't mind the fumes!

Which gives me another reason for nuclear power: There might be a melt down resulting in Godzilla, satisfying yet another of my fan boy personas!

Again, I'm no expert, I'm just working on the assumption that most of the basic systems of the ship such as plumbing, communications, HVAC, data systems, sensors, etc would be replaced/upgraded to the latest stuff. Heck, the only original equipment left on this rascal would probably be the 'analog' gun directors of the big 16s, unless a way could be found to mate them to a fire control system similar to those used on the Mk45s, which wouldn't save much manpower to speak of since for those guns all the people are in the loading process.

Feel free to dispute these broad, uninformed estimates of mine, just remember that I'm trying to keep it fun here, which is the point really. Amiright?

Bryan,
You might want to go to http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/bb62.pdf and check out how many berthing spaces, galleys, admin offices, etc. that your plan wipes out. As mundane as it seems, you have to have crew to exercise command and control, operate systems and things like that.

Thank you CSGN, I appreciate the efforts. BTW, I also have Paint but scarce know how to use it. I was using simple drawings, attempting to scale all the bits to the correct sizes and cutting them out to literally paste them (well, tape). For a guy who works with and on PC hardware all the time, I'm a bit of a Luddite when it comes to software.

And to all who have taken the time to comment, I do appreciate it. Like I said from the beginning, I know this is well-covered ground on this forum, so I expected few if any comments. The amount of views actually exceeds what I thought I would get, let alone the comments and efforts by CSGN. So, thank you one and all, even the unenthused!

I have another WHIFF coming eventually, something that I doubt anyone has thought of before. There will also be a bit of alt history included. Please feel free to rip me a new one over it when it comes along!

Cheers!

that was just a quicky i did because i was having trouble picturing it in my minds eye.
BTW I use MS faint that comes with windows 95% on the time. Its a great program and nobody realises its capabitilities.

So, you want a higher missle deck and a burk style bridge, ill see what i can whip up

Yes, there are some things that aren't quite perfect about CSGN138's image, but its pretty darn close.

I agree with Russ that the missile deck should be higher. And if I may, smoother, if that makes sense.

Also, I think the proportions are off on the bridge structure. If the Burke bridge was scaled up to fit an Iowa, there probably wouldn't be a need for the rear half of the structure, which was what I had in mind to start with. Everything would be in the front section "billboard" section.

But again, cheers to CSGN138 for coming up with such a good image so quickly. I have nothing to manipulate images with and was attempting to do it by hand with little success.

And yeah, I am the same Bryan that started this thread and posted as 'guest'. Not sure how that happened when I know for a fact I was logged in when I originally posted. Oh well.

Any more comments? Anyone? Bueller?

it does look like an oil tanker...A LOT. kind of funny, I did a "carrier" version of my strike cruiser and it looks almost exactly the same. I need to get that picture off my work computer and get it posted

No, I think the "missile deck" would be higher, since the top of Turret 2 is three decks above the main deck. This would would give 4 decks of space above the armored box to allow for the height, or depth, of the Mk 41 modules. The overall look reminds me of an oil tanker.

Having the C3 structure built of the latest materials would save some weight and survivability so maybe the armored box should be left out too.

Ah CSGN138, you have made my day good sir! That is almost exactly what I had in mind.

BTW, my browser did not log me in at my last post; the "guest" comment was mine.

something like this?

Yes, just a little. It would still be sleek I think; the raised 'missile deck' would continue the lines started by Turret 2 and culminate in the bridge structure. I'm thinking more like a Soviet Typhoon where there is very little clutter down the length of the ship until you hit the bridge area.

That would look like a neo-Nelson in silhouette...way to destroy the Iowas' natural beauty

And to be honest there is probably nothing new here. If you're tired of this particular subject feel free to move along; I am after all just a newb! :)

Anyhoo, after paging through Navydaves Whiff on this subject (and after viewings of the movie Battleship got back in a Navy sort of mood) I came to the realization that bigger is better. And this wasn't just my ex-wife talking! Seriously, we like the super carriers because their size gives them flexibility. Similarly, the Iowas are darn big and taking full, ruthless use of the space would give us not only a strategically viable "missile farm" but also the gunnery platform that we all know and love.

So, my plan would be to raze everything behind Turret 2, including turret 3. This doesn't seem to be an idea that anyone has seriously discussed, but I have my reasons for this:
1) By keeping only the two forward turrets, the ship can still produce that lethal gunfire but without presenting that bigger broadside aspect (in other words, less of the ship is visible to be hit by counterfire).
2) The Command/Control elements of the ship can be housed further back on the ship and perhaps upgraded to include the most advanced electronics, the distance hopefully reducing the overpressure that others mention that would play havoc with those advanced systems
3) A new Command/Control structure could make use of the latest materials and construction technologies to reduce the ship's cross signature; additionally, the radical change in the ship's profile would do the same.

I envision a bridge structure broadly similar to those used on the Arleigh Burke class, adjusted for need.

Moving on, a new deck would be built up behind Turret 2 and extending to roughly where Turret 3 would stop (the turret itself, not its guns). This deck would be of sufficient height to permit that missile farm I was talking about, specifically VLS cells. Now, I haven't done much research for this part (or even any of it, to be honest), but since the beam of the ship is 108 ft I would imagine that it could be at least 80 ft wide. This deck would then conceivably contain four rows of Mk57 VLS cells (using info from Raytheon's website, which states they are 7.25' X 14.2' in size), perhaps more - I envisioned a 10 space between each cell which may or may not be needed, or at least not needed at that size. Those with more knowledge, feel free to correct me here). These rows would extend until nearly the former space where turret 3 was. Total number of VLS cells? Hard for me to say without doing some math, which hurts. But at roughly 260' between Turrets 2 and 3, the numbers get pretty big, roughly 15+ launch cells per each of four rows. You guys can do the math here without me.

I think Turret 3's spot would be where the new bridge structure would be, perhaps raised a bit higher than the missile deck for reasons I will explain below.

The space immediately under the bridge structure (where Turret 3 once was) would act as both hanger and elevator to below deck aircraft storage and maintenance. I envision the ships to have an air complement of 2+ ASW helos, 1 or 2 MV22s for use in replenishment, and the requisite drone craft. These ships would also embark a sizeable Marine complement to act as a commando force, security detachment, or even a limited landing party.

We could also probably find some deck space for a couple of mk 45s and a couple of Bushmasters for use against small craft.

Now the big question you all may be asking is, Who is this guy and why is he wasting our time? But the next biggest question you might ask is, What about the propulsion? My Iowas would be nuclear powered for the following very simple and highly logical reason:

Like cigarette smoking, nuclear power is just cool. Even I, a non-radioactive non-smoker understand that inherent fact. I understand it so well that none of your "logic" or "facts" can be used to sway my opinions. Just deal with it. The coolest thing of all? James Dean, a Marlboro in his mouth, working on the reactors of CVN-65. That is what we might even term a 'cool-gasm'.

So there it is. Again, while I might claim to be an expert on these sorts of things, that claim would be a lie. This is just my own whiff, presented very tongue in cheek. Thanks for reading and please be gentle!