The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:28 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 561 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 29  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Quote:
First - 33nm range is being conservative - that's not even upgrading the guns to a truly modern use of the lessons of the man I term "Our Artillery Lord and Master" one Gerald Bull.

While I share your enthusiasm for pushing forward the technology of gunnery, I understand that even if the battleships were to be reactivated, I don't believe they would receive the kind of gunnery upgrade you're talking about. That is such a departure from traditional gunnery that we would have to spend a long time developing it. The rotating band, for instance, is because the outside of the shell is so hard that it would smash over the rifling so it wouldn't be useful anymore. Os, if you're suggesting the entire exterior of the round be copper or some other soft material that would engage the lands and grooves of the rifling, I understand what you're saying.

The only big deal with the propulsion plants on the Iowas was manning. BAE systems already has a plan produced to automate the plants so three men would be on watch for 4 boilers at a time, and if all 8 were active 6 men would be on watch instead of 8 men per boiler per watch section. So, replacement would not be necessary. Training on the Babcocks/Wilcox boilers is no big deal. Send the Enginemen to school for three months to get back up on the boilers and call it an NEC (C-school). No big deal. :thumbs_up_1:

The only restrictions the 16"/50 cal guns, to my understanding, was chamber pressure. The barrels were SUPPOSEDLY over designed to a margin of 3x but there is no safe way to confidently push into the upper pressures. Heat is not a problem for those barrels. There is no compromising them with temperature from the burning propellants. Better propellant, however, is a completely positive thing. That is something that must be done no matter what. 50 year old shells is one thing. 50 year old powder...no. Let's just make new stuff.

Quote:
First - AEGIS is unlikely, but the fact is, the defensive suite needs to be upgraded.

Indeed. Aegis has its place, and battleships are not it to me. It costs too much, and the SPY-1 cannot take the over pressure; that is established. The SPY-3 might not either.

Quote:
Some form of AAW/ASW suite needs to be installed...

The only ASW I would put on it is ASROC in the VLS tubes. Making this thing a super mission ship is way too much. There were proposals for Aegis and a sonar suite with passive arrays between turrets 1 and 2. There was a battle carrier upgrade, but come one. They tried it on either the America or JFK. I think it was the America. These big ships pushing out greater than 200,000 shp just make too much noise for their own sonar to hear anything of use, and they have escorts.

Quote:
Of course, they also tend to forget the legendary case of Mo vs Wasp Group + Constellation during RIMPAC '91. Over the course of three days, and somehow Connie's planes just couldn't find the Missouri, in BROAD DAYLIGHT, let alone the night engagement when she beat the stuffing out of the Wasp group riding in like the Lone ranger, all guns blazing, knowing Full Well the group had Nothing that could stop her. Yeah, Oops.

No one knows about those engagements. Even when they find out about them, they shrug them off, because the case does not fit their belief structure. To them, battleships are archaic dinosaurs, and that's it. It does not matter what evidence comes forward, such as the comment made about me deriving sexual pleasure from myself :cool_2: Some people will not let facts get in the way of their beliefs. Instead, they will call you names. :heh:

Quote:
...they need a new power plant, and nutshot any stupid beancounter that gets in the way this time.

I am still for keeping the original plants. Automating them takes care of the cost issue. I have asked project lead on the battleship reactivation of the 1980s for his opinion on this. I will let you know what he says. My thoughts are above.

Keep it coming, guys!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Timmy C,

I saw this and thought you might get a kick out of it! :smallsmile:


Attachments:
File comment: "Ooo lima-low-Timma!"
timmypost.gif
timmypost.gif [ 63.44 KiB | Viewed 876 times ]

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:15 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11265
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
I know Dave - if you had came on board earlier, you would've noted that I had him for my signature pic ;)

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
Lovin' this thread guys! After some discussions with my dad lately I noticed no one has brought up China in possible future scenarios. As far as a formidable navy (not including our staunchest allies) China seems to be winning at least they will in the next 5-10 years. They've developed new 100nm+ range SAMs, some really nasty upgraded indigenous SS-N-22s, and a decent force of NUCLEAR submarines; one of the few nations with nuclear subs. They're surface force isn't all that large currently but they have begun building more and more shooters with at least 8 of those nasty SSMs a piece.

If one of our reactivated Iowa BSGs strolled into the Strait they could very easily be attacked by a saturation SSM strike with subs lurking around ready fill the water with torpedoes. Yes the BB will have escorts but face it, SS-N-22s are hard enough to shoot down, imagine a meaner version in a saturation attack! Can we detect those SSMs far enough out in order to get SM-3s on them or do we have to rely on more close range ordnance? CIWS only has enough ammo for what, 2-3 missiles? Then needs reloading....time ships wouldn't have. Yeah you have RAM to back it up but I feel like if one of the BSGs wound up in this hellish situation old Wisky could find herself sailing alone with some decent damage with her escorts either sinking or dead in the water with SSM wave 2 inbound not to mention the SSNs lining up for torpedo shots now that the sonars and helos are out of commission.

I'm not trying to rain on the parade her guys but I figured it was a legitimate concern. Please tell me that scenario isn't as close to the truth as it seems! If I have any facts wrong please correct me.


With an attack like that at least a possibility I'd vote for the cramming of ESSM into as many VLS cells as can be spared and RAM/CIWS all over the BBs. Even without AEGIS can't an SM-2/3/4 shooter still communicate with the AEGIS ships for target info and firing solutions? If so then would putting a decent complement of SM-2/3/4s on the BBs be a good idea?

I guess what I'm asking is what kind of VLS load out is everyone thinking of? I know the BB would primarily be a strike platform so you have TLAMs and Harpoons with ESSM and VLA for self defense. Would adding SM-2/3/4 be trying to assign to many missions to the ship or better protect it in the event of a saturation attack. Given her armor she could probably survive one but would more than likely be a total loss afterwards.



Sorry if any of that doesn't make sense, just some thoughts I had while reading over the other pages.

_________________
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 Oct 25, 2009 1:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
This might generate some ideas gents. Found it with a random Google search :big_grin:

http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=385

_________________
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 Oct 25, 2009 1:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Quote:
China

Indeed. The Chinese suck.

Quote:
If one of our reactivated Iowa BSGs strolled into the Strait they could very easily be attacked by a saturation SSM strike with subs lurking around ready fill the water with torpedoes. Yes the BB will have escorts but face it, SS-N-22s are hard enough to shoot down, imagine a meaner version in a saturation attack! Can we detect those SSMs far enough out in order to get SM-3s on them or do we have to rely on more close range ordnance? CIWS only has enough ammo for what, 2-3 missiles? Then needs reloading....time ships wouldn't have. Yeah you have RAM to back it up but I feel like if one of the BSGs wound up in this hellish situation old Wisky could find herself sailing alone with some decent damage with her escorts either sinking or dead in the water with SSM wave 2 inbound not to mention the SSNs lining up for torpedo shots now that the sonars and helos are out of commission.

Well, you are correct. A saturation attack is one of the worst attacks we have to encounter no matter what ships are in the group. The SS-N-22 is one of the few missiles we have to worry about even on a 1 by 1 basis much less 10-20 or more grouped together closer than about 5000 meters :? The Aegis escorts would be the number 1 defense. The battleship's on board NTU would be the second line of defense and each individual point defense CIWS mounts (Phalanx, RAM, and ESSM) would the last bit. NTU would provide the battleship with a very, very good ASW capability, and yes, as a BBG, the ship would be loaded out with SMs.

Quote:
I'm not trying to rain on the parade her guys but I figured it was a legitimate concern.

BRING THE RAIN!

Quote:
Please tell me that scenario isn't as close to the truth as it seems! If I have any facts wrong please correct me.

Well, dude, saturation attack is a huge concern people have decided to ignore. "Oh we're never getting into that kind of war ever again." Well, Cliff, people ignore threats (hense why battleships are decommissoined).

Quote:
With an attack like that at least a possibility I'd vote for the cramming of ESSM into as many VLS cells as can be spared and RAM/CIWS all over the BBs. Even without AEGIS can't an SM-2/3/4 shooter still communicate with the AEGIS ships for target info and firing solutions? If so then would putting a decent complement of SM-2/3/4s on the BBs be a good idea?

Yes, sir. Mk41 Mod15 with the same mix as a CG or DDG would be most appropriate. NTU (the New Threat Upgrade) is one of the most effective AAW systems assembled and most overlooked. It's just under Aegis. Aegis is superior to NTU, but there are very few qualities of Aegis that trump NTU. The reason why we would not want to put Aegis on battleships is because of all the extra structure that would be necessary to support the SPY arrays (and the overpressure that's too much for the SPY-1 panels). All that's involved in NTU is a second mast, another radar, mid-course guidance, and internal equipment. Thus this system would be a wonderful upgrade to the battleships. In the instance you're talking about, NTU would provide the battleship and the group with a very good capability.

The communication capabilities you have referred to where all the ships communicate with each other is called Cooperative Engagement Capability, and yes, the battleship would see everything anyone else sees and visa versa.

Quote:
Given her armor she could probably survive one but would more than likely be a total loss afterwards.

While you're correct, I believe before we would send a battleship alone, we would assemble a force of one or two carriers and a battleship group. Like you said, while the BSG would hold its own for a while, it needs to have proper air cover and be part of a larger force.

My impression is that the warheads on board the SS-N-22s are by no means heavy enough to penetrate the side or multiple deck armor of a battleship. They would wreck the structure and reduce the long range radars and missile systems. Unless they took a direct hit, the fire-control towers would remain intact and would be able to direct the main battery. So far the only sea-going weapon that could penetrate battleship armor is the SS-N-19 Shipwreck. Even then, internal damage is controlled by compartmentalization and damage control teams.

The only point there is the battleship is not invulnerable but is instead far more resilient than any other ship around.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Cliffy B wrote:
This might generate some ideas gents. Found it with a random Google search :big_grin:

http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=385

Awesome you bringing that up. That model was made for the Naval Surface Fire Support Association back in 2001 I believe. Their proposal was pretty indepth, and a 1/96 scale model was actually constructed from that 1/350 model. My version is similar but modified. Everyone has their own ideas.

Instead of Goal Keeper, I have Phalanx Block 1B and RAM. The rest of my mods are posted earlier. :woo_hoo:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Timmy C wrote:
I know Dave - if you had came on board earlier, you would've noted that I had him for my signature pic ;)

sweet.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Quote:
...better protect it in the event of a saturation attack. Given her armor she could probably survive one but would more than likely be a total loss afterwards.

I would like to address this a little better too. We have to keep in mind that there are very few munitions in the military inventories that equal the penetrative power of the 16" Mk8 armor piercing rounds arriving at around 1200 feet per second for which the Iowa-class battleships’ armor arrangement was designed.
One hit against the ship's armor would get the battleship's attention, but it would most likely not penetrate past the splinter deck armor. The side, turret, citadel, CIC, and propulsion armor would be nearly unaffected. The super structure would get a hole blown in it, the radars might be effected, and phalanx would probably be severely damaged, but the ship would fair far better than if one of her escorts had taken the hit.

While armor does not make the battleships invulnerable, people greatly underestimate the effectiveness of the armor arrangement and quality on the Iowa-class battleships.

The Navy expected the main armor belt to repel direct hits from SS-N-19 Shipwrecks (the biggest and most damaging weapons). While the SS-N-22 has a much smaller and less effective warhead, it is the biggest threat because how it flies. When it impacts, it's delivering a warhead similar to that of a Harpoon. When evaluating the battleships against Harpoon threats from Iran in the ‘80s, the Harpoon was deemed ineffective against any part of the battleship's armor, no matter how it was delivered. The Mack 3 offers more kenetic energy. On the other hand, because the warhead is designed to penetrate the ship before it detonates and it cannot penetrate the armor, the missile might actually hit the armor so hard and so fast that the fuse might be destroyed before it can detonate the warhead. Hmmmm…interesting.

The ship would be damaged, yes, but depending on where the ship was hit, it would still continue on with minimal emergency repairs. Today those would be in the Bahrain shipyards. The concerns were suffering secondary explosions if the Tomahawk or Harpoon launchers were hit.

Something I am wondering about is if the ships CIWS (phalanx and RAM) suite would be expanded beyond 4 mounts. If so where would the additional mounts go? Right now, I am pretty certain the aft platform would get two RAM mounts. I wonder another Phalanx would be installed somewhere else. Any ideas?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:26 pm 
Soft kill is still a kill. Agreed ship might make a shipyard for repair but would be out for the duration.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Guest wrote:
Soft kill is still a kill. Agreed ship might make a shipyard for repair but would be out for the duration.


While that's true, what soft kill are you talking about? The yard time I am talking about is fixing cosmetic or non-mission threatening damage after the fact. :no_2:

Unless we're talking about the upper chain of command taking the ship off the line any time there's any kind of damage, how would you soft-kill a battleship?

I can think of if it hits a mine right, but other than that?

Thanks guys!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Last edited by navydavesof on Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
Well, ostensibly the old Bofors mounts forward of the main guns could be used - emplace a couple of splinter shields around the bases, maybe recess them down a little, and they should be rather good for RAM engaging sea skimmers or aircraft. That's just my thoughts.

_________________
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: Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:06 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11265
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
You should be able to fit a RAM in the two stern 40mm tubs, too.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 282
Location: Snohomish WA USA
Quote:
The ships are shockingly aggressive looking and offer a great deterrant.


I love BBs, but one could point to Lebanon in 1984 and say otherwise.

_________________
Gerard>
Snohomish, WA USA
If you don't know the definition of erudite, you're not.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:22 am 
navydavesof wrote:
Guest wrote:
Soft kill is still a kill. Agreed ship might make a shipyard for repair but would be out for the duration.


While that's true, what soft kill are you talking about? The yard time I am talking about is fixing cosmetic or non-mission threatening damage after the fact. :no_2:

Unless we're talking about the upper chain of command taking the ship off the line any time there's any kind of damage, how would you soft-kill a battleship?

I can think of if it hits a mine right, but other than that?

Thanks guys!


Loss of the radars, fire controls, communications. Outside of the armoured vitals (all or nothing protection) ship is just as vulnerable to damages as a modern vessel. I agree that it is unlikely that she would sink but knock out the ability to see, talk, and control her weapons and she is done. ie: soft kill.
Look at Worden during Vietnam. Damages were in no danger of sinking the ship but cut waveguides and loss of her fire control electronics put her out of action. In the case of the Iowas, can we even repair, much less replace the main fire control range finder?


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Quote:
Loss of the radars, fire controls, communications. Outside of the armoured vitals (all or nothing protection) ship is just as vulnerable to damages as a modern vessel. I agree that it is unlikely that she would sink but knock out the ability to see, talk, and control her weapons and she is done. ie: soft kill.
Look at Worden during Vietnam. Damages were in no danger of sinking the ship but cut waveguides and loss of her fire control electronics put her out of action. In the case of the Iowas, can we even repair, much less replace the main fire control range finder?


Okay, that's what I thought.

Quote:
In the case of the Iowas, can we even repair, much less replace the main fire control range finder?


Yes. Replacing this gear is not an issue. It's not like we don't know how to do this stuff anymore or we can't read plans or follow directions. Directly addressing your range-finder example, while the turret suffered no more damage than two bent bulkheads between the turret rooms, the entire range finding arrangement in Turret 2 of USS Iowa was destroyed in the turret explosion. The whole arrangement was reproduced and is sitting inside a warehouse on Norfolk Naval Shipyard ready to be installed into the turret if the ship is to receive any kind of work.

Reproducing battleship technology is not as hard as people think. The only real challenge is reproduce the quality of armor and manufacturing gun barrels. The armor is the really hard one.

Something people don't realize a lot of the time is that as far as protection goes, the battleships (and all heavy ships of the time) were designed to compensate for soft kills as much as hard kills. The heavy armor on the decks and along the sides, the massive torpedo and mine provisions were all provisions against hard kills. There was a whole other rhelm of protection devoted to soft kills or mission-reducing damage. Protecting against soft kills is a very familiar topic to battleships. As a result, battleships are far less vulnerable to soft kills. That book I referenced last post goes into great depth of soft kill protection. "US Battleships" by Norman Friedman is the best reference one can find. These books illustrates and breaks down in near mission-compromising detail the capabilities of the Iowa-class armor arrangement, and it is very capable.

Compare a Ticonderoga CG to a Des Moines CA. The Tico has one gun director and no optical range finders. The Des Moines had a five radar range finders and a minimim of eight optical range finders. The battleships had a minimum of twenty-nine range finders it could use for its main battery alone. Modern ships were designed to not be hit under any circumstances. The battleships were designed to take terrible damage and continue to fight. For instance the USS South Dakota took over 80 major caliber hits (8” and greater) before it was beginning to approach a soft-kill and needed to leave the fight before it actually suffered a soft-kill. Its main armor was never penetrated, and the ship could continue to fight.

Norman Polmar made that case that a battleship can be rendered defenseless by something as little as a napalm strike, burning away all of its electronics. There are several things wrong with that observation, and a man of his reputation should not over-look evidence. It kind of shows his bias as opposed to factual consideration, which is very, very strange and out of character.

So, for consideration...napalm: A fighter or bomber would have to penetrate the group well enough to deliver a bomb. Everyone would agree this is highly unlikely. Even if it did, a free-fall weapon would be subject to being shot down a long way away by RAM and Phalanx, ESSM, and likely SM-2s. Even then, napalm is not likely going to carpet the entire length of the ship, getting all the electronics, or burn away the optical range finders on top of the fire control towers. It is relatively clear that to create a soft-kill like Norman Polmar has enumerated before would be very hard to accomplish and probably the least likely incident. The ship would have to be sitting there not defending itself at all. They would likely try to throw a missile at the ship first.

Comparison to "modern" ships, every ship we have today is a soft kill ship or "one-hit-ship". So far, things ranging from a single mine strike to Exocet missiles, and something as minimal as a home-made bomb on a trash barge have produced soft-kills and near hard kills of our most advanced and expensive ships. It is established that these are all attacks that would do little more than get the battleship's attention.

So, considering that there will be VLS installed above decks, a second mast with a big SPS-48 radar on it, SPG-51Ds, and a lot of other modern systems aboard, what kind of soft-kill countermeasures would you guys suggest that would bring the battleship up to speed with the rest of the fleet...or just better protected in general?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:22 pm
Posts: 1260
Location: Santee, CA
Hi Guys,
Okay.
If there was to be a serious re-activation effort to bring back either BigJ or Wisconsin, (my wife's home state), I'm assuming the temporarily placated bean counters would be most thrilled at a minimun cost solution. How about bringing one or two ships back as they are; just make sure that all is functional. Wait to see if these ships have made their presence promising enough and then bring about high cost changes in due time. Until then, these ships would be in a group of more modern ships; still making the Iowa's capabilities useful, but still taking advantage of the other ships company's superior e-defensive and communications capabilities.
Tony

_________________
"You guys make this hobby fun!"
"Some of my dearest friends I have made right here on Modelwarships"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
Timmy C wrote:
You should be able to fit a RAM in the two stern 40mm tubs, too.


I like that idea as well but don't they have a refueling station or two or some cable reels in the tubs right now? Moving cable reels is no biggie but I think fueling stations for the helos couldn't be in a better location. Just my 2 cents.

_________________
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: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Tony Bunch wrote:
Hi Guys,
Okay.
If there was to be a serious re-activation effort to bring back either BigJ or Wisconsin, (my wife's home state), I'm assuming the temporarily placated bean counters would be most thrilled at a minimun cost solution. How about bringing one or two ships back as they are; just make sure that all is functional. Wait to see if these ships have made their presence promising enough and then bring about high cost changes in due time. Until then, these ships would be in a group of more modern ships; still making the Iowa's capabilities useful, but still taking advantage of the other ships company's superior e-defensive and communications capabilities.
Tony

TONY!!!

Always good to hear from you! Well, of the consideraton, there were three potential reactivations: 1. Current configuration 2. Bring up to modern standards without signifiantly improving its combat capabilities 3. Substantially improving the battleship's capabilities.

Following your consideration of reactivation to "current configuration" (which would still include significant upgrades to communications, CEC, and point defense systems), the Iowas would only have 32 TLAMs and likely 16 SLAM (48 land attack cruise missiles total). I can certainly see the NSFS advantages and strike abilities of current 16" artillery at 23nm, but I don't think that would "justify" their reactivation and operation. That's why I think we would have to extend their gunnery range to at least the 120 nm range of the designed ERGM rounds. The VLS arrangement would be easy enough. NNSY and "Bummertown" as one put it would be well equipped to at least give the ships 96-128 VLS tubes for tomahawk and ASROC...at the least before any more AAW technology could be added to the ship's capabilities as you suggested.

Even if we only did the 23nm range 16" rounds, it is still an advantage. 80% of all third-world countries of interest are within 20 nm of the shore, so 23nm would STILL be very effective. 120nm range would be ideal.

With all of the wonderful pieces L' Arsenal makes, do you have any ideas for your own reactivated and possibly "modernized" Iowa-class battleship of your own?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3099
Quote:
You should be able to fit a RAM in the two stern 40mm tubs, too.
It was proposed to put two more Phalanx or Harpoon launchers in those 40mm tubs, but they decided against it. Since those systems are tall, it was feared that rotor blades from the landing helos would possibly hit whatever was in those tubs. I believe RAM would suffer the same issue.

Another issue is that sometimes when the battleship is running at full power, the stern gets swamped. I don't think something like RAM would appreciate that very much.

Quote:
I like that idea as well but don't they have a refueling station or two or some cable reels in the tubs right now? Moving cable reels is no biggie but I think fueling stations for the helos couldn't be in a better location. Just my 2 cents.


I am onboard with Timmy. The Iowas might infact need more helo fuel capacity, so both tubs might be utilized.

What do you guys think about this:

If VLS were installed, the missile decks would have to be raised 1 deck a piece. Since the 32 cell arrangements on the aft missile deck would take up significantly less room than what the ABLs do, what about putting the RAM or phalanx mount back there on either side of the range finder?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 561 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 29  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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

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