The Ship Model Forum

There were some reasonably conclusive discussion about propulsion conversion. Honestly it would be a LOT of effort...worth it sure...but a LOT of effort and a LOT of cost. The cost-effective option, however is just to use the current propulsion plant. There are LOTs of boiler powered ships in the Navy, and they're all capital ships. There is plenty of manpower able to man these plants. A new build, however I think should be powered by the same plant as the Makin Island (LHD-7).


The cool thing is that I do have the ear of the highest point of the unconventional technological development of the R&D section of the USN. I have offered it as a recommendation, and they want more thoughts on how the battleships could be utilized.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I just heard on the "news" that "the military" is looking for a less expensive alternative to the Tomahawk use in Libya, so maybe this is a good time to punch home to "the ear", that the utility of the BB(G) is in providing a range of weaponry options that would enable the most economical weapon-to-fire mission match to the operational commander.

I also have to wonder if the sight of a BB(G) cruising as close as water depth allows in eyesight of Tripoli, with guns trained on the presidential palace wouldn't have a certain psychological impact. The beholder of a carrier might be tempted to think that "it must launch aircraft to have an effect and I might be able to shoot down aircraft". But the beholder of the BB would have a much more difficult time rationalizing basis to hold out.

You know, it's kind of funny what never gets out. Dahlgren has proven 12" guns installed in a Des Moines turret.

As I have commented before, Dahlgren has stated that a 10" or larger gun is the only way for the US Navy to accomplish the missions it has set for naval gunnery, and the 8" gun is the smallest caliber that will perform adequate NSFS.

So, as we see, Dahlgren has produced a twin 12" gun turret that can be fitted on large US Navy combatants. Huh. Looks like I just gave away one of my 2011 Whiff projects. You can expect to see this one after I get the DDH and CGN-42 finished.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Finally - identification of that twin I saw on google earth!

You'll just love this blog and some of the comments:
http://www.informationdissemination.net ... m-sea.html

I am seriously considering doing a hull or plug for a 1/72 Iowa class! Am think of suggesting it as a club project / group build. We just started having a regular club meeting (bi monthly) at a community woodworking workshop that has all the cool tools needed for making such a project.
I know that one of the guys is considering BB-63 and I would want to build BB-62 USS New Jersey ( Its cool 2 cause CGN-9 escorted both BB's during their 90's service period )

Bruce

I am going stir crazy not being able 2 work on any models....

_________________
building:
1/72 RC USS LONG BEACH CGN9
1/72 RC USS CALIFORNIA CGN36
1/72 RC USS SAIPAN LHA2
1/72 RC USS JOHN PAUL JONES DDG53
1/72 RC USS SHARK SSN591
1/72 RC USS SEAWOLF SSN21
1/72 RC USS ALBANY CG10

I saw it already It's funny how it works, huh?
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=73825

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

My "How To" CD covering the proposed Iowa class to Congress covers my build of the Pulver submission. I dubbed my build the USS Tinian HAL-1. HAL stood for Heavy Assault and Landing ship which is what the Navy called it.

_________________
Rusty White
flagshipmodels.com
Home of the American Civil War warship kits

Nice presentation.

Is there a reason for the jog out on the Stbd Aft upper corner of the Aft stack?

Russ

Rusty,

I bought your CD some time ago, and I have to say that your Tinian is just amazing. It was such a fantastic project. What happened to it? Other than the pictures in the CD, did you have any more you could share?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

It has a place beside my desk in my shop/office. I am seriously considering doing one of the other submitted designs if I can get a NJ for a good price. There was one really bad error in the Pulver plans I have. He placed the CIWS right on the roof of the control tower! One blast and all the systems and the hearing of everyone in the control tower would be gone! I also have my doubts about locating the SATCOM dish aft of the stacks. All the smoke can't be good for reception or transmissions.

I think I just about covered every inch in the CD. Thanks for the kind words.

_________________
Rusty White
flagshipmodels.com
Home of the American Civil War warship kits

I am guessing here, but I believe the "jog" you mention on the stack was an effort by the architect to keep the original location of the existing boilers and save money by not removing any of the interior stack components. The stack was drawn that way on the plans that I used, that I include in the CD. The plans were strictly presentation drawn for Congress. All I had to work with was the starboard side and deck plan. The port side hangar deck was made up by me using the same designs used on the carriers of the day and resembles the starboard side quite a bit.

The Pulver design seen here was the most cost effective and practical submitted and was preferred by the Navy. It was the most seriously considered because it was based on current technology which would require little or no R&D. Unfortunately the Carter administration was in no mood to build up the Navy, so the project was canceled.

_________________
Rusty White
flagshipmodels.com
Home of the American Civil War warship kits

Rusty,

That's a fantastic design and an outstanding execution of the build!

I'm struck by the close spacing of the helo spots. Compared to a typical gator's helo spot spacing, these look very close, to the point of being a safety issue. It's hard to imagine a pilot wanting to land on one of the interior spots while the other spots were occupied. Maybe the spots were only intended for sequential takeoffs rather than landings? I realize this was only a concept but did you look at the spacing during the course of your build? Just curious.

Well done!

End to end, no problem, I agree that side to side is pretty close. I used the deck layout (below) on the drawing for the markings, so I wanted to make an accurate build of the submitted plan. The navy probably would have modified the markings anyhow, along with the location of the CIWS and probably a thousand other things.


Actual submitted drawing of the Howard Pulver design.

Martin Marrietta submission of Harrier design "Phase 2" Iowa.

Phase 2 design with ski jumps

The most radical (expensive) design was submitted by Gene Anderson of the hybrid Iowa that could land and launch high performance jets.

_________________
Rusty White
flagshipmodels.com
Home of the American Civil War warship kits

G'day, Thats an awesome model, she look's like a real ship.
With the raised flight deck would there be any top weight issues?? or is the estimated mass of the fight deck similar to the weight of the deleted turret??

Cheers Bruce

_________________
building:
1/72 RC USS LONG BEACH CGN9
1/72 RC USS CALIFORNIA CGN36
1/72 RC USS SAIPAN LHA2
1/72 RC USS JOHN PAUL JONES DDG53
1/72 RC USS SHARK SSN591
1/72 RC USS SEAWOLF SSN21
1/72 RC USS ALBANY CG10

I assume that is correct since the design was submitted by a Naval Architect.

_________________
Rusty White
flagshipmodels.com
Home of the American Civil War warship kits

rusty,
your work is outstanding,
I also have purchased your CD and plan on building this beast with one of my NJ I have in my stash..

You stated that you are thinking of redoing this project how? can you shed some light or is this a stay tune.. Have you thought of entering the cold war build with her...

I have found another version of this beast,, It has two landing areas in an "V" pattern with Turrent # 3 in the middle which I think would limit the use of that weapon... and it also does not have any primary flight control area..
here is the link to the site where the photo came from:
http://www.combatreform.org/battleships.htm

Not to be critical, but it's obvious a naval architect had nothing to do the design. One broadside blast from those 18" guns and you kiss that air strip on either side goodbye! That's why the guns hang over to the side of the hull.

Cool model though.

_________________
Rusty White
flagshipmodels.com
Home of the American Civil War warship kits

That's a case of trying 2 have all your cake without shedding some calories!
The Flightdeck would add 2 much extra weight....I can see her slidin down the slipway and disappearing stern 1st underwater

Bruce

_________________
building:
1/72 RC USS LONG BEACH CGN9
1/72 RC USS CALIFORNIA CGN36
1/72 RC USS SAIPAN LHA2
1/72 RC USS JOHN PAUL JONES DDG53
1/72 RC USS SHARK SSN591
1/72 RC USS SEAWOLF SSN21
1/72 RC USS ALBANY CG10

• While this was the first indication of a move away from proper training of its sailors that has consumed the US Navy today, the 16" guns of the Iowa-class battleships are still a front-line weapon system. Even today, over 60 years later and as the Libyan crisis has displayed, the Iowa-class battleships that have 20 more years of service to give, can provide unequalled war-fighting capability to the entire United States military.

http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/us ... on-9862973

If we want to give up the battleships, let’s make a system that is equal in its fire power capability. It’s clear the US Air Force cannot equal the Iowa-class endurance and on-station capability. It’s clear the US Navy cannot equal their endurance with the few tomahawks we have in inventory or “some day AGS(L) of DDG-51 Flight something). It’s clear the only way to effectively address the threats the US faces with littoral dangers and third-world countries like Libya, Syria, and threats as large as China, only large caliber guns can provide the volume of fire (total number of shots) necessary to accomplish the mission of subduing if not destroying the enemy.

Whatever definition, most appropriately the traditional definition of countering an equal threat posed to it, should be constructed and put to sea immediately.

NGFS is not what most people think. Most people think NGFS is ONLY to mount a massive amphibious invasion like those of WWII and Korea. In fact it is to deliver ordnance.

As Vietnam showed us, it’s to deliver ordnance to a call of fire in some coordinate direction. It does not matter who calls it. The SEALs, ANGLICO, USAF forward combat air controllers, whoever, they are calling for ordnance on target. Most of the time TACAIR in unavailable because of low inventory of USAF aircraft on hand. NGFS, however, can be there for months upon months.

NGFS supplies reliable support as long as you need it, and that's what matters.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance