The Ship Model Forum

Thanks for the input David.
I'm somewhat on 'stand down' at the moment with the CinC in hospital getting a new valve, bypass and pacemaker.

Good luck and best wishes!

My goodness, yes my best wishes are with you, too. You guys will be in my prayers. I hope everything turns out well, Russ.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Interesting process you guys have followed. Really looking forward to seeing what Dave comes up with.

My own opinion is that there is, and never has been, anything like a battleship for power projection, firepower, intimidation, point strike, sea control, I could go on... the only problem with intelligently designed battleships has always and ever been politics. Otherwise there is no defensible reason why a modern bluewater navy with the resources to build and support battlegroup operations should steadfastly refuse to commission one (or four, heck, why not 8?)!

LL

_________________
In shipyard:
Trumpeter 1/350 USS Hopper DDG-70

David,

The 4X1 configuration is 4 modules, side by side. is there any reason they couldn't be end to end? Like this:

OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO
OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO

I'm thinking on both sides of the aft stack in the above configuration to avoid going too far outboard of the stack, though I haven't worked the measurements yet.

I'm thinking Strike Length amidships between and extending outboard of the stacks, then Tactical Length along both sides of the aft stack, and finally Self Defense length abeam the centerline between the aft stack and the aft director tower.

I don't know how far into the "What If" world you're looking to go but you might consider the Mk57 VLS (Peripheral Launch System) that's supposedly being installed on the DDG-1000. Raytheon has also developed other versions of VLS as documented on their site. I don't know what the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems are but, clearly, someone thinks the Mk57 has enough advantages to be placed on the DDG-1000. Just a thought ...

I am not as well versed in the Mk57 as I would like to be, but I believe the Mk57 is only being used on the DDG-1000 because it's a new technology, and they were really focused on packing that ship with as much new technology as they possibly could.

The advantage that I see is that the Mk57 has a larger growth margin for bigger missiles. The only bigger, heavier, and longer missile is the SM-6s...and that's an anti-ballistic missile missile that fits in the Mk41 VLS. The individual modules are very big, and you only get 4 tubes per module. So if you want about 1/2 as many missile tubes in Kentucky than you would get with the mk41 I would suggest the Mk57. Otherwise the Mk41 is still the way to go. However, it would look pretty cool with Mk57s!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Russ,

I have been thinking about it a lot, and before I was against having a helo hanger under the Turret 3's main guns. I have since changed by stand. I think it could be easily accomplished.

In fact, I am so much a proponent of the helo hanger under major caliber guns that I have changed my position for a new-construction battleship. If the Italians had kept their Vitorrio Venetos, they would have been able to build these ships. To me, a new construction battleship would see 9 or 12 sixteen-inch guns, and a helo hanger(above deck or beloo deck).

In the most term, people have forgotten that the battleship is a capital ship, and it's able to accomplish mission that the carrier does not need to perform. As far as a service portion of the population goes, there are many elements that will actually work.

I would imagine a main battery of 16" guns, a battery of 155m guns, a battery of CIWS guns and missiles (Phalanx CIWS and RAM).

The Navy is shrinking to an "UNOPERATIONAL" standpoint. :'-(

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Dave,
Wow!! So many ways to go in responding to your post, especially the last sentence. (which I agree with)

Lets just consider the ship for now. My thought is that the effectiveness of the anti-ship weaponry deployed today, both by the US and by potential adversaries, is based on the fact that there are no longer any armored combat vessals. Thus, activation or building of armored vessals would be a game changer with the advantage going to whoever has the armored vessals. I don't suggest that it would be possible to armor all combat vessals, but certainly cruiser and up. However, the smaller vessals should certainly have a higher degree of survivability than is currently being built.

For naval weaponry, I am not a fan of the 155. The reason the Army dropped the 175 and the 8" had nothing to do with the effectiveness of the rounds. The gun crew for one gun was 13 men (it took 5 and a cradle to load the projectile) The effort expended to pack as much capability into a 155 projectile is ridiculous, from a naval standpoint when a lightly manned, self loading 8" mount can be placed easily on a ship and the projectile has a lot more room for improvements. It does not need to be land mobile and the "shoot and scoot" aspect is vested in the ship, rather than the gun mount.

For AA, I note that during WW2, the 40mm and 5" mounts had both director and local fire control capability, which makes sense since if the Director was out for any reason, you could still shoot. This brings me to RAM and SeaRam. It seems to me that dual fire control is a desirable quality. If your primary FC is out for any reason, you can still shoot with a reasonable expectation of hitting the target. So SeaRam is a good thing but I have difficulty with the decreased number of available rounds. Seems to me that if beefing up the mounting will allow you to use a RAM launcher capped with a SeaRam radar and be switchable from remote to mount control, that is the way to go.

This post is getting long so I'll stop now.

Have you ever seen this?

This was a proposal back when they were first mounting RAM on ships, so they figured they could put 2 RAM launchers on a 5inch gun mount.

The thing with the hanger was that since Kentucky is at the 2nd deck, you could continue to complete her up in the shape that the Vittorio Venetos were, completing the stern only up to the first deck and making it a helo deck with the hanger underneath the guns of Turret 3. Some sort of spacer would be needed to raise the height of the top of the barbette up 1 or 1/2 deck for sufficient clearance, but I think that should be feasible before installation of the turret itself.

As you can see in this picture:

My comment about the Italians was that their VVs were perfectly arranged for this. All that was needed was to build the hanger, and they would have been good to go. Since you're building up your Kentucky from the 2nd deck up, she should be able to accommodate such a design change

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance