The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:20 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 561 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 1:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
EJM wrote:
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.

"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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
Sweepers, sweepers, man your brooms! :big_grin:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
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/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
Sauragnmon wrote:
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.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 4:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:12 pm
Posts: 1272
Location: Up The Street From Sam Wilson's House
So is it looking like the navy is interested in reactivating these ships?

_________________
Thomas E. Johnson

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2016 2:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
Thomas E. Johnson wrote:
So is it looking like the navy is interested in reactivating these ships?

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:12 pm
Posts: 1272
Location: Up The Street From Sam Wilson's House
navydavesof wrote:
Thomas E. Johnson wrote:
So is it looking like the navy is interested in reactivating these ships?

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!!!


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2016 4:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
Thomas E. Johnson wrote:
I just finished the 1/350 1991 Missouri, and am now working on the 1/200 WW2 version. Huge project....
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2016 9:50 pm 
navydavesof wrote:
Thomas E. Johnson wrote:
So is it looking like the navy is interested in reactivating these ships?

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!!!


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


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2016 8:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:12 pm
Posts: 1272
Location: Up The Street From Sam Wilson's House
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2016 10:13 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2829
don't think so but not certain.
New Jersey remained in mothball fleet until the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act of 1999 passed through the United States Congress 18 October 1998. Section 1011 required the United States Secretary of the Navy to list and maintain Iowa and Wisconsin on the Naval Vessel Register, while Section 1012 required the Secretary of the Navy to strike New Jersey from the Naval Vessel Register and transfer the battleship to a not-for-profit entity in accordance with section 7306 of Title 10, United States Code. Section 1012 also required the transferee to locate the battleship in the State of New Jersey.[45] The Navy made the switch in January 1999, and on 12 September, New Jersey was towed by the tug Sea Victory from Bremerton, Washington to Philadelphia, for restoration work in the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard in advance of her planned donation for use as a museum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_Jersey_(BB-62)
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-20 ... ec7306.htm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
navydavesof wrote:

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.


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 6:52 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2829
is not the uss texas moored in brakish water? those steel hulled ships on the great lakes also have regular maintenance & overhauls compared to museum ships. the oldest freighter on the lakes was 107yrs old til converted to an articulated barge.
http://www.boatnerd.com/pictures/fleet/ ... lenger.htm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2016 5:39 pm
Posts: 144
Location: Medford, Oregon
Busto963 wrote:
navydavesof wrote:

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.


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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:12 pm
Posts: 1272
Location: Up The Street From Sam Wilson's House
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
Thomas E. Johnson wrote:
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?

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 884
Thomas E. Johnson wrote:
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?


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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
EJM wrote:
Thomas E. Johnson wrote:
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?


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. :woo_hoo:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2017 8:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 884
Quote:
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. :woo_hoo:


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2017 10:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 884
@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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 561 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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