The Ship Model Forum

Well, this is testing the limit of my technical knowledge. I am not an FC or an OS, but I have asked a lot of questions, so I will say what I know. The Aegis WDS utilizes a look-shoot, shoot-look discipline. That's mainly because the SPY-1 panels are so powerful that when the missiles fire and rise out of the launchers, if they are hit with a fully power SPY-1 radar, they will likely fry out or detonate. So, literally the radar turns off as the missiles are being fired. I don't know for sure, but when you're pumping out over a megawatt of radar energy, I don't think there is any way that AMDR will be able to get around that problem.

Concerning directors themselves, the SPY-1 panels can act as illuminators if they need to. The reason why they don't fully do that is because having dedicated directors is SOOOOOOO much more effective. When dealing with saturation attacks, having directors to do that last bit of correction is awesome. Keep in mind that the directors only control the very last bit of the missile's flight. The rest of the flight time is done by data link.

Good question, man. I don't know. I just know how Aegis works. We just need a self-defense test ship with Aegis so we can test Aegis under full fire conditions.

Spare parts issues are actually non-issues. Contractors are more than happy to build more replacement parts.

For instance, the Kidd class was "picked clean", but guess what? The US reactivated AND modernized all 4 Kidd-class DDGs for the Taiwanese. This was done for about $200 million a piece. So, honestly, the claim about lack of spare parts aboard modern ships is totally 100% BS.

Concerning making the 2 remaining "first 5" Tico hulls NGFS ships, depending on how many missiles you want to have and if you want to bring the stern up flush with the rest of the hull, you could mount several 8" guns on board. At least you could mount 2 Mk71 guns and 64 VLS. That's what I would do. The Mk71 is a real game changer. The VLS gives you a self defense capability as well as a decent strike capability.

Food for thought!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Hi Dave, all...

Since yo were talking about Mk71 guns...in your suggestion for a 21st century Iowa class you mentioned:

- Modified LHD sensor and electronics suite.
- 96-128 Mk41 VLS tubes (the super structure's missile decks can accommodate up to 160 Mk41 VLS)
- 4 Phalanx CIWS
- 2 RAM
- 6x Mk45 Mod2 upgraded to Mod4 gun mounts.
- 2x Mk160 GFCS
- 9x 16"/50caliber guns
. > 11" and 13" precision guided extended range munitions

Would the Mk71 system fit into the positions of the current 5" guns? 6xMk71 would be quite a puntch... Also, since I read that the Mk45 guns only have fiberglass, non armored, housings...would it be possible to create twin Mk45s and put them in the armored turrets of the current 5" guns creating 12x5" auto loaded guns?

thanks
Uwe

Hey, man!

No, not at all. The Mk71 requires a base ring (20') that is way, way too big to fit in those positions.

My design in this thread has Crane assemble HSLA-80 gun shields instead of the weather shields to provide them a very, very good level of frag protection. Making them duels is something I have "WIFfed" up, and it's probably feasible, but not likely at all. I am even calling for us to not buy new Mk45 Mod4 guns, because it would be cheaper and thus more feasible if we were to pull the Mk45 Mod1 and Mod2s we have in DRMO from the Spruance and first 5 Ticos and upgrade them with the Mod4 kit before installing them on the battleships. Using existing material and as little R&D as possible is the real key and winner to this modernization.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Hi Dave, any updates on this build, any new pictures to show? I've built one Tamiya New Jersey, I'm thinking about starting a second one as a re-activated and modernized Wisconsin with the Pontos set as a base. Hope all is well.

Good afternoon!

I am in San Diego right now attending 4 weeks of school, so unfortunately, no. However, in my building is the Mk45 Mod2 and Mod 4 schools along with a LOT of other combat systems. In the same building is also the Phalanx CIWS school, and they have 4 mounts, one of each of the current variants of the CIWS. During the day, you can hear them test run the guns. It's cool.

I hope to get out early one day to do some good photography of the mounts, radars, and other weapons systems out here, especially for my Iowa. She sits on my dining room table with LCS-1 Flight II gathering dust. There is also a large number of LCS out here, so I am hoping to get some pictures of them as well.

Since you're in your planning phase, hit me up if you have any questions about how to modernize your Wisconsin.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Hello again

It's been a while...
Well, I am still thinking about an upgraded Iowa/Wisconsin and have now started on a 1/700 version, a trial so to say, before i one day will start on a 1/350 subject. I picked up a Tamiya NJ and a Trumpi Wisconsin and I am in the process of upgrading/kit bashing them into a "Wisconsin"...my 2015 version.
I jave so far built the new decks for the VLS before and aft of the rear funnel. I am not quite sure about the VLS layout though. I have serveral version in mind without knowing if that would be doable at all.

1. 2x32 forward of the funnel infront of the CIWS deck, 2x64 aft of the funnel. CIWS deck as it already is...more or less.
2. 1x64 and 2x32 forward of the funnel, delete the CIWS deck there and split in half, mount where Harpoon launchers were left and right of funnel. Additionally 2x64VLS on the rear deck as above. 2x2 Harpoon launchers left and right of the rangefinder tower for the 16" turret. This option would not leave too much space for the rear mast though.

Here are a couple of pics of where I am so far...






An additinal question...the latest version of the CIWS, 1b I think, in a lot of cases sits in a mount that looks a bit like a living room chair...Dave has this on his 1/350 version as well on th efwd structure. What is this and is it required for the CIWS now? I know the AB class destroers have it as well.

thanks
Uwe

what is the current outlook of whether or not the Iowa class will be returned to service and modernized again to augment our fleet? I'm sure Dave is in the "know" about this.

no arguments or discussion about whether or not they fit in modern warfare please.

_________________
Thomas E. Johnson

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

Well, I am a program manager in the navy, specifically the E-2D Training Program and a retired Commander E-2C NFO. My last tour was with 7th Fleet Staff so I have some insight into the OP Plans for the Asia pivot and the budgets for navy procurement. So I will offer the following....

Unfortunately, Never..............

I agree that that is a shame because I did my Midshipman 1st Class Cruise on USS New Jersey. I have had the opportunity to do many things in the navy and standing on the bridge as the officer of the deck guiding her out of Long Beach Harbor ranks up there with any of my experiences.

All 4 Iowa's are Museums. In FY20 SSBNX will crush the navy's budgets for shipbuilding and the new aviation programs will be in sustainment less JSF. The reason the navy is spending $14Billlion+ on the Ford class is to supposedly cut cost in manpower over the Nimitz Class. Battleships are manpower intensive. The Iowa's are not suitable for refit for a number of reasons. Money and the "they do not fit in modern warfare" are two.

The Iowa and Wisconsin are still on the hook to be reactivated in National Emergency, yes. They receive special maintenance to meet that requirement.

I agree with Mark for sure! If nothing happens, no the Iowas are not coming back. However, if we see one or two CVNs get sunk...by all means, two Iowas would come back very quickly as the long-term reactivation of Kitty Hawk and JFK were to begin the 3-4 year reactivation process.

Technically the Iowas can be reactivated no problem. Otherwise, I agree 100% of course. There is no currently running requirement for the BBs, because people want to do things the hard way. However, not a lot of people are aware of the ability to throw 16" or 11" projectiles out to 100nm, which means you don't have to use Tomahawks...saving hundreds of millions of dollars and perform as a massive force-multiplier to any engagement with in 100nm of the coast. If they were, they would likely entertain the idea of BB reactivation. Iowa reactivation and modernization with approx. an 800 man crew is still about 1/3 the cost of a new DDG-51 and over 1,500 fewer people than a Ford CVN's base crew. If counting the air wing, over 3,500 fewer people.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

And carriers aren't? BS!



Let's see, we can spend BILLIONS of dollars for stealthy B-2 bombers and F-22 fighters, and BILLIONS of dollars for new AC carriers, but not spend money for BB's?

@anj4de: Where did you get those photoetch VLS hatches? Are they 1/700 or 1/350?

Again, modernized, they would be crewed by approximately 850 personnel.

As you know, EJM, these are all arguments that have been refuted and neutralized earlier in this several year running thread As we know, it has already been established that, the Blue Ridge-class LCCs are as manpower intensive, far less useful, and have far less life left in them than the Iowa-class BBs.

Great question! I think they're 1/700 by LionRoar, perhaps!

BTW, I am working on a short story about how an Iowa or Montana BBSG would operate in a conflict with the PRC.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Keep in mind, "what is the mission of the ship," and "how many missiles do we have on hand? Is it worth putting 15% of our entire TLAM inventory on a single BB?" The answer is, "no". While I know how many Mk41 VLS can physically be installed in the Iowa-class superstructure, 128 is about as many as should be considered to be honest.

NEAT! However, even though your PE appears to fit, the aft super structure cannot fit a full B-sized module in real-life.


The "chair" is referred to as the "Dog House", and it is a weather enclosure for the base of the unit (where the FC computers are. The Burkes have them, because they are very close to the water line so they get a lot of sea spray, and the houses also reduce the CIWS's radar reflection. Regardless, it's up to you.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Stay tuned for a modern Montana-class USS New Hampshire (BB-70) model to go along with LCS-1 FlightII and Iowa.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Looking forward to it.

Just curious, but if an IOWA BB were reactivated and modernised again, I'd like to know how survivable it would be against current Russian and Chinese anti-ship cruise missiles? Can the Iowa BB armor stop a cruise missile or not? How many cruise missiles would it take to sink a BB? How big would the warheads have to be? I'd be curious to read any info. that is available.

Yes, I have done the research and are purvey to the weapons equivalencies between WWII weapons and modern weapons. The biggest, badest, and heaviest Russian ASCM, the SS-N-19 delivers the same penetration capacity as a 14"AP round fired at 10,000 yards. The second-order affects are overpressure from the warhead detonation, which would have more collateral damage than just the AP round. So, inside a soft target it would be more damaging than a 14" AP round that would punch through a "modern" ship whereas the missile would detonate inside the soft ship. However, against BB armor, it would strike, detonate, and the hull would defeat the missile.

Would the BB be damaged? Yes, of course. Would it be badly damaged? No, not at all. The main deck would be damaged, but the heavily armored 2nd deck would not be penetrated, but if there were any sensitive electronics close by, they would be damaged to a degree.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

"Modern" missiles, being the smaller Mach 3-4 missiles with 500lb warheads would have to carry the 2,200lb warheads of the SS-N-12/19 and maintain the speeds in order to penetrate the armored box of the Iowa-class BBs. That would be a monster missile far larger than ASCM at sea today.

Critics, don't forget that it has been established by NAVSEA that the 70 year old armor of a battleship is significantly more resilient than the best armor today.

The way to do it is hit the same spot repeatedly, and that's not how ASCM seeker heads work.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Sweepers, sweepers, man your brooms!

Something additionally that should be mentioned with modern cruise missiles, is that they are largely high explosive warheads, and thus incredibly subject to the law of the conservation of energy, in that the blast will take the path of least resistance. If the missile's kinetic force is not sufficient to break through the armored bulk of the battleship's protective scheme, that explosive force will for the most part detonate outside, and thus do only external damage, to the battleship. They don't have many shaped charge warheads on modern missiles, because ships these days aren't built to take a hit, so there's nothing they have to really punch through.

_________________
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/

As we know, the super structure would be damaged if struck, but how seeker heads work, the missiles would actually be drawn to the parts of the ship that are armored. If it were drawn to the waterline, it would strike a massive armor belt. If it were drawn to the main deck, it would strike an armored main deck, detonating the warhead, and then would then shower a 7"-10" thick 2nd deck with shrapnel. Fatal damage? I propose, f*ck-mothering no.

Even with the torpedo protection on a Montana, it would be difficult to seriously damage a Montana.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

So is it looking like the navy is interested in reactivating these ships?

_________________
Thomas E. Johnson

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