The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:30 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 797
What if the USS Alaska CB-1 battlecruiser class of ships was not decommissioned and had been modernised with new systems into the 50's, 60's, 70's or beyond? What would the ships have been like? Discuss any and all options.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
I think it would have been interesting to see the conversions planned for the Hawaii while she was only half complete. A missile version and a command cruiser version would have been neat. The command version was to have been armed with 6 twin 5"/54 automatics! Kind of a beefed up Atlanta CLAA :cool_1: The missile version would have been similar to the Boston and Canberra single enders with 2 twin Terrier launchers on the stern.

I like the idea of if modernizing them shortly after the war by nixing the float plane facilities amidships filling in the space with some extra twin 5"/38s and twin 3"/50s. Adding a helo deck astern and relocating the AA gun tubs to the extreme stern like on the BBs. Replacing all of the Bofors with a full 3"/50 battery. Getting rid of the 20mms save for for maybe 10-12 strategically placed for close in defense like ships carry .50 cals and Bushmasters now. Full electronics upgrade with Mk-25 radars for the Mk-37s, radar directed 3" battery, SPS-6 and maybe SPS-8A.

And oh yeah, nix the Bofors mount above the conning tower and extend the bridge up a deck and enclose it all like many a ship was post war.

They would have been a real asset off Korea in the early days until the BBs showed up and afterwards. A Korean war version would cool as well as a Vietnam version. Oh where oh where to put all of the missiles for a 1984 version :big_grin: We have limitless possibilities here gents.

I've been wanting to do one like that set in 1946-1952 time frame for my alt-history time line. They would have been good fast raiding ships with some Des Moines Class CAs forming little hit and run units on enemy shipping and shore installations. I'll add it to my list of concept sketches I'm working on after I get the Des Moines sketches done.


Some questions gents:

How were they in regard to top weight? I know they came out late in the war so it probably wasn't an issue but what about all of the post-war add-ons? You think it would have become a problem? If so in what way?

Also, were these ships more like CAs with 12" in lieu of 8" guns, BBs with 12" guns, or somewhere in between in regards to speed and armor?

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2988
They have been quoted as being the best potential "commando" ships in order to support landing, NSFS, and helo accommodations.

To answer one of your questions earlier about whether the ship was more of a CA or a BB, really, what I have learned is that it was a heavy cruiser with battleship guns. While it was armed with 12" guns, it was only armored to take 8" AP rounds. So, I would say the "Large Cruiser" classification it was given was a good one. If it had protection against 12" AP rounds, I would say a small battleship or a battle cruiser.

Realistically, I imagine if she were reactivated in the '80s, she would have been set up as a commerce raider/interdiction ship. Then I think she would have been given at least as many harpoons as an Iowa and maybe provisions for Tomahawks.

The HUGE amidships area would have been perfect for installation of a huge missile battery, either eight quad harpoon launchers 6 Tomahawk ABLs, or a mix. It would certainly be “The Missile Deck”. If VLS were installed, it would have been the TLAM/ASROC kind (Mk41 Mod0).

I do think since we're talking about 12" guns we would start to run into the over-pressure problem, so Harpoon cans and other armaments would have to be positioned with that in mind.

As far as electronics go, I think a nuclear cruiser's suite would have done it (the same the Iowas got). I am not sure how the top-weight was. One of the reasons why the Iowas were so smooth was because they have SO much weight at the water-line (19,500 tones). The Alaskas, on the other hand, don't seem to have anything like that. Most of their weight is above the water-line, or so it seems at least.

If it were a 1950s reactivation, I think it would have seen a Talos conversion aft, because the available decksapce. SPG-55 would be involved. Oh, my, what an interesting concept!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
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.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2988
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!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
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.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
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.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2988
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.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
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.


Image


Thoughts, suggestions?

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:05 pm
Posts: 530
Location: Massachusetts, USA
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.


Image


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. :)

_________________
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 5:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
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?

Image

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
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.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
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?

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
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.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:28 am
Posts: 379
Location: Peoria AZ
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#p223141

Jim


Attachments:
MVC-177F.JPG
MVC-177F.JPG [ 94.13 KiB | Viewed 5481 times ]
MVC-179F.JPG
MVC-179F.JPG [ 84.65 KiB | Viewed 5478 times ]

_________________
jim

aux viewtopic.php?f=59&t=40896

CV-3 viewtopic.php?t=39515&p=263120#p263120

CV-6 viewtopic.php?t=33201&p=201342#p201342
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:05 pm
Posts: 530
Location: Massachusetts, USA
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.

_________________
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2013 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
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: ).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:12 pm
Posts: 379
Ok
We now have this beastie in 1/350. Any thoughts or changes.
This class was needs some love..
Thanks


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:12 pm
Posts: 379
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..


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2988
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?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group