The Ship Model Forum

The Navy is very vague about many things. Honestly, the Navy does not know what it wants. Pure evidence is the LCS program as a whole.

I know there are parts of the surface warfare community, including NAVSEA itself who fully advocate reactivating them due to their expected 15-20 year remaining service life, and yearly SHIPCHECKs reinforce their ability to be reactivated and modernized without significant industrial or scheduling effort. Structurally, the Warship Improvement Program (WIP) modernization detailed design made in 1986 which included Mk41 VLS, Sea Sparrows, the TAS-23 radar, and 60+nm GFCS to accommodate the 11" and 13" sabot ERGM rounds would be nearly unaltered. The only major changes would be in electronics, and those can easily be modernized by the JJMA successors and the detail drawings made by Bath Iron Works. Just like any of the 11 steam driven capital ships currently in commission, the BBs could be brought back and fully supported without major issue. That is despite them being over 70 years old. In reality, the ships are only as old as their service lives, which are at a maximum of 20ish years.

Totally feasible.

I am about to transfer back to the States where I can resume this 5 year old project and finish it! Oh, the gallery awaits!!!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I just finished the 1/350 1991 Missouri, and am now working on the 1/200 WW2 version. Huge project....

_________________
Thomas E. Johnson

http://www.youtube.com/user/ThomasEJohnson

Mate, I really look forward to your post in the gallery! I REALLY want to see your take on the 1991 Mo!!!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Can the NJ be brought back? They hacked into her number two barbette

If they did it could be repaired. But if they did I think they would be in big trouble. I believe that the terms of the donation specified that they were not allowed to make any changes that could impair the military service of the vessel should she be recalled.

_________________
Thomas E. Johnson

http://www.youtube.com/user/ThomasEJohnson

The smartest thing the Navy could do to preserve the battleships is to move them to a fresh water (or at least brakish water) port as this would almost totally stop corrosion. thin there has to be a port on the Delaware or Mississippi River capable of hosting the ships.

There are steel hulled ships on the Great Lakes that have been operating for almost 100 years and appear ready to go another hundred years.

GAB

While not on the Delaware or Mississippi..the west coast has at least 3 ports in fresh water that are deep enough to accommodate a BB. In fact, the Port of Astoria, Oregon on the Columbia river has proven it can host a BB because the Missouri stopped off there for 10 days after leaving BNSY for Pearl to clean any marine growth off her hull and prepare for berthing in Pearl.

The entire Columbia River is deep enough to take a BB up as far as Fairview, Oregon (near Portland). There was a group that wanted to bring Ranger up river and raised enough money to commit to phase 1 of it, but lost out because a continued upkeep and revenue requirement wasn't met.

Now that we have a new Administration that is highly dedicated to expanding US Military power, including the size of our Navy, can we expect to see more action/interest to bringing these ships back now, especially since our new President indicated during his campaign that he was eager to do so?

_________________
Thomas E. Johnson

http://www.youtube.com/user/ThomasEJohnson

Hmmmm, well, I don't know. If the pressure came down from the SECNAV and SECDEF Mattis then sure, the gears could start turning really quickly. A lot of things would have to happen simultaneously to make a 24 month schedule. Only applying current manning reduction and automation methods to the ship and a modernized version of the 1990s Warship Improvement Program, the ships would add between 900-1000 personnel per ship, and that's atop the new escort ships in the fleet.

Feasible? Again, absolutely! However, I imagine it would need a pretty strong word from SECDEF Maddog to get that moving.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

As nice as it may be to see some of the Iowa ships be brought back into service, it simply will not happen. Not even during Trump's Presidency. The ships are all museums now. The costs, manpower, and a few other variables would be too much to bring them back. Let sleeping dogs lie so to speak.

Cost, manpower, and education on ship's systems are always negated by comparison of the cost of new-build capital ships. As for my model, I have finally figured out the best place to put the Mk38 Mod2 guns so they can operate and survive the over pressure of the main battery.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Cool. When are we going to get to see new pics of your model build?

@navydavesof (or anybody else who wants to reply) :

I plan to build another "what if" modern 1/350 TAMIYA New Jersey battleship sometime in the future. Whether it will be fantasy or technically accurate as far as what can and can't be carried/used, I do not know yet. But just out of curiosity, I'd like to know what would happen to the following systems if placed/used on an Iowa battleship. How high up on the decks/superstructure and/or how far away from the main 16" guns must they be when dealing with the blast/concussive force from the 16" guns? What damages or problems could happen to these systems?

Octuple Mk.29 Guided Missile Launching System
Mk.95 illuminator radars
Mk.110 57mm gun (As used on US Navy LCS ships.)
Mk 46 Mod 2 Gun Weapon System (GWS) as used on LPD-17 San Antonio class ships.
Mk.32 triple torpedo launcher
Mk.38 Mod 2 Bushmaster gun system
SPG-62 illumination radars
RIM-116 RAM missile system

Not for quite some time. I am in a pretty heavy training cycle that has me away from my home station.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Right up my alley, man!

The launchers were strengthened in the 1980s and were ready to be placed in the Mt 51/52 locations. Back several pages I have pictures outlining their positions.

I have not investigated either of these systems for a BB. When the 76mmSR is available, I am not a fan of the 57mm in any regard. The Mk46 could probably take a beating. It's an upgunned version of the Mk242 gun (the Mk38's gun). I can only think to put it on either side of the aft fire control tower elevated with the VLS structure. I am a fan of the Mk38 Mod2 mount instead.

My idea is the stern. I will explore placing either 1 or 2 mounts near the aft gun tubs for anti-torpedo torpedoes as opposed to ASW weapons.

The Mod1 system was in place of the saluting batteries on Missouri and perhaps Wisconsin during the Gulf War. The Mod2 has the EO/IR camera which is the fragile point. I figured for the longest time I would mount the Mod 2 on top of the bridge and have their RSLs just aft of the citadel top.

I have recently moved that location to the amidships VLS deck.

I am not sure about the '62s. I know they have been "hardened" but I don't know against what. The Aegis conversion proposal for the Iowas had a USS Norton Sound style SPY-1 deckhouse arrangement set up with one SPG-62 on top of it built on top of the bridge from the citadel top back and flanking the forward fire control tower and another deckhouse going around the after fire control tower providing another 2 SPY-1 faces and another SPG-62.


I don't know how well the launcher fairs against that kind of over pressure, but it's a fairly simple system. I have placed them on deck houses built over and replacing the forward and aft Mk37 directors. This gives them the best firing arcs.

Have a good one, mate! I look forward to getting back to this build in a few months.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I'm not seeing those pics anywhere in this entire thread. Could this possibly be what you mean?
http://orig10.deviantart.net/46b5/f/201 ... 7bdgr6.png
Notice the locations of the two Mk.29 GMLS, and the four mk.95 illuminator radars.

Also found this thread about IOWA BB modernisation.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... 619.0.html

This is what I meant. This is taken from the Over Pressure Study of the systems aboard the battleship. It shows the positioning of the Mk29 NATO Sea Sparrow launchers and the Mk95 illuminators.


The link you posted is an interpretation of a drawing CliffyB and I collaborated on. The reason I know this is because the guy who posted it in secretprojects, Tzoli, was doing research for a report, and over our many correspondences, I sent him the result of the collaboration between CliffyB and myself. The original picture is very large so here is a smaller version:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

In the attached second picture above, as well as the DeviantArt picture link I gave, I do not like the positions of the Seasparrow launchers as I feel their positions limit the firing arcs of the 5" gun mounts that are next to them.
Second, why can't there be more VLS missiles amidships between the two funnels? Two 4x4 (16 total) VLS sections doesn't seem like enough for that area.

P.S. - Also in that second attached pic, I noticed the Mk.23 TAS radar above the second funnel. If I'm not too mistaken, this is also/was used in conjuction with the Seasparrow launchers, right?
I'm thinking of adding Seasparrow launchers to my Iowa model. Should I also add the Mk.23 TAS or has that been upgraded/replaced by a newer system?