The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:56 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 561 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
EJM wrote:
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?

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
EJM wrote:
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?
Right up my alley, man!

EJM wrote:
Octuple Mk.29 Guided Missile Launching System and Mk.95 illuminator radars
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.

EJM wrote:
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.
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.

EJM wrote:
Mk.32 triple torpedo launcher.
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.

EJM wrote:
Mk.38 Mod 2 Bushmaster gun system.
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.
Attachment:
Mk38Mod2 BridgeTop1small.jpg
Mk38Mod2 BridgeTop1small.jpg [ 73.37 KiB | Viewed 1254 times ]

I have recently moved that location to the amidships VLS deck.
Attachment:
Mk38Mod2 Platform1small.jpg
Mk38Mod2 Platform1small.jpg [ 87.13 KiB | Viewed 1254 times ]

EJM wrote:
SPG-62 illumination radars
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.
Attachment:
Norton Sound1small.jpg
Norton Sound1small.jpg [ 102.97 KiB | Viewed 1255 times ]


EJM wrote:
RIM-116 RAM missile system
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.
Attachment:
RAMPlatform4small.jpg
RAMPlatform4small.jpg [ 33.42 KiB | Viewed 1254 times ]

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

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 883
Quote:
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'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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 883
Also found this thread about IOWA BB modernisation.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... 619.0.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
EJM wrote:
I'm not seeing those pics anywhere in this entire thread.


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.
Image

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:
Attachment:
BB-64 1991VLS Alt WIP 8 small.jpg
BB-64 1991VLS Alt WIP 8 small.jpg [ 135.45 KiB | Viewed 1190 times ]

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 883
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. :(


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 883
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?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
EJM wrote:
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.
What is wrong with it? Are you expecting to fire the 5" directly forward?

The Mk29 launchers today benefit from the hardening done fitting the design to the 16" over pressure. It is seen here:
Attachment:
Mk29 SSM2small.jpg
Mk29 SSM2small.jpg [ 57.24 KiB | Viewed 1189 times ]

Attachment:
Mk29 SSM4small.png
Mk29 SSM4small.png [ 146.09 KiB | Viewed 1189 times ]


EJM wrote:
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. :(
There is ventilation amidships that limited the VLS arrangement to 2x16 amidships in the original design. In my 2016 Iowa, I have rerouted the ventilation system to instead accommodate 2x32 cell VLS arrangements amidships for a total of 128 VLS tubes in the ship. I think it would work, so I am going with it with my model.

Have a good night, man! :heh:

David

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
EJM wrote:
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?
Yes, the TAS-23 was a very, very good horizon search radar that could detect and lock onto sea-skimming missiles and then cue the Mk95 illuminators to lock onto the targets. Now, he TAS-23 radar has been replaced by the SPQ-9B, but the TAS-23 direction system still feeds the inputs from the SPQ-9B into the Ship Self Defense System.
:thumbs_up_1:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 883
Quote:
What is wrong with it? Are you expecting to fire the 5" directly forward?


Well, you never know if and when a captain might have to fire forward. :big_grin:

Quote:
There is ventilation amidships that limited the VLS arrangement to 2x16 amidships in the original design.


I didn't know that.

Quote:
Yes, the TAS-23 was a very, very good horizon search radar that could detect and lock onto sea-skimming missiles and then cue the Mk95 illuminators to lock onto the targets. Now, he TAS-23 radar has been replaced by the SPQ-9B, but the TAS-23 direction system still feeds the inputs from the SPQ-9B into the Ship Self Defense System.


So if I add Seasparrow launchers, I won't need to add a TAS system. I can just add a SPQ-9B instead, right? Sounds like the TAS-23 has been phased out of Navy service from what you're saying.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
EJM wrote:
Well, you never know if and when a captain might have to fire forward. :big_grin:
Eh, up to you!

EJM wrote:
I didn't know that.
The little things you wind up learning over years of research. :eyes_spinning:

EJM wrote:
So if I add Seasparrow launchers, I won't need to add a TAS system. I can just add a SPQ-9B instead, right? Sounds like the TAS-23 has been phased out of Navy service from what you're saying.
The SPQ-9B is taking the place of the TAS-23 for sure.

This makes me think that your design is a modern one. If you're doing a modern design, why use the octuplet launchers instead of use the VLS ESSM? I am not casting the Mk29 in a poor light, I am just curious. :heh:

What do you have in mind for the secondary battery? My Iowa uses 6 Mk45 Mod0 5" guns removed and preserved from the Spruance-class and have them upgraded with Mod4 kits. This is strictly a cost saving measure. It would shave a few million dollars off the reactivation/modernization cost.

When I get back to the Iowa, I will layout what missions the battleship will be asked to perform and how it will be arranged to accomplish those missions. :big_grin:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 883
Quote:
This makes me think that your design is a modern one. If you're doing a modern design, why use the octuplet launchers instead of use the VLS ESSM? I am not casting the Mk29 in a poor light, I am just curious.


I want to keep most of the VLS cells for Tomahawks. The Mk.29 octuple launchers can also fire ESSM, right?

Quote:
What do you have in mind for the secondary battery? My Iowa uses 6 Mk45 Mod0 5" guns removed and preserved from the Spruance-class and have them upgraded with Mod4 kits. This is strictly a cost saving measure. It would shave a few million dollars off the reactivation/modernization cost.


I was either thinking maybe 4-6 of the following:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-62_mk45.php

Or four of these. I found some on Shapeways which I might buy.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk71.php


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
EJM wrote:
I want to keep most of the VLS cells for Tomahawks. The Mk.29 octuple launchers can also fire ESSM, right?
I understand for sure! Don't let me stop you; I have been being very meticulous when arranging mine to be as realistic as possible. I'm taking into consideration manning, skill sets needed, maintenance parts, etc so I put the ESSM in the VLS tubes instead of adding another weapon system to the ship. You can match the 16 ESSM capability of the Mk29s at the cost of only 4 VLS tubes (tomahawks to your point). However...I REALLY like the look of the Mk29s on the battleship, and I am very much looking forward to building a 1996 WIP Wisconsin with VLS and the Mk29s in place of Mt51 and 52, because it looks SOOOO cool! :big_grin:

EJM wrote:
I was either thinking maybe 4-6 of the following:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-62_mk45.php
The same with mine! :thumbs_up_1:

EJM wrote:
Or four of these. I found some on Shapeways which I might buy.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk71.php
Unfortunately, the Mk71 8" gun is too large to fit where the 5" guns are. It has a 20' base ring, and it requires a LOT of below-deck magazine space.
Attachment:
WNUS_8-55_mk71_front_pic.jpg
WNUS_8-55_mk71_front_pic.jpg [ 27.91 KiB | Viewed 1160 times ]

I mean, look at this big b!tch! It barely fit on the bow of the Hull. The Spruance-class's bows were specifically designed for them, and even that was going to be a tight but comfortable fit.
Attachment:
WNUS_8-55_mk71_pic.jpg
WNUS_8-55_mk71_pic.jpg [ 16.35 KiB | Viewed 1160 times ]

HUUUUUGE!
The Burkes are the only modern ships that really have enough bow area to comfortably have the mount. Of all the Burke-type ships out there, the South Korean KHD-IIIs are the only ones with a long enough and deep enough bow to have the full 500 round Spruance magazine. :big_grin:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Last edited by navydavesof on Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 883
Quote:
Unfortunately, the Mk71 8" gun is too large to fit where the 5" guns are. It has a 20' base ring, and it requires a LOT of below-deck magazine space. Unfortunately it is not feasible on a battleship as they are built.


Interesting. I did find some drawings on the Net of the Iowa battleship with 8" guns. Whether they are official drawings or fantasy stuff, I do not know. I'll have to find the links and post them later.

As for the Seasparrow launchers I want to add which will be 2 of them, will I need 2 or 4 Mk.95 illuminators?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
EJM wrote:
As for the Seasparrow launchers I want to add which will be 2 of them, will I need 2 or 4 Mk.95 illuminators?

How many missiles do you want to direct at once? To my knowledge, the Mk95 illuminators can only direct one at a time.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 2:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 883
Had to do some searching, but here's that drawing I was basing my 8" gun placement on. It's just a drawing from someone's imagination.
http://shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Ne ... on%202.png

But like you said, 8" guns will probably not work on a BB, so I'll backtrack and use the other gun option I mentioned.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 883
P.S. - Sent a reply PM to you yesterday. ;)

On with other stuff.........

Are you planning to keep the same amount of Harpoon launchers and in the same positions on either side of the aft funnel or will you replace these with something else? As for me, I'll probably keep them as they are, but I am also thinking of adding two more quad Harpoon launchers somewhere, but haven't figured out a location yet.

Any thoughts to CIWS and RAM mountings and locations?
SBROC and NULKA amounts and locations?

Eventually, I'll have to draw some plans of my proposals and PM them to you or post them here for you to view. Might take me a few days though.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
EJM wrote:
Are you planning to keep the same amount of Harpoon launchers and in the same positions on either side of the aft funnel or will you replace these with something else? As for me, I'll probably keep them as they are, but I am also thinking of adding two more quad Harpoon launchers somewhere, but haven't figured out a location yet.
Yes, I will keep the same number of Harpoons. Any new ASCMs (such as LRASM) will go into my VLS.

EJM wrote:
Any thoughts to CIWS and RAM mountings and locations?
SBROC and NULKA amounts and locations?
Yes, I know exactly where they will go :heh: I am really looking forward to building it up again! I will be building a new aft mast. The one I already built was a bit too much. It will only need to support a SPS-49A(v)1 and a few small things. The other one I built was for the SPS-48G and a SPQ-9B. I have those two radars elsewhere, so the aft mast can be more modest.

EJM wrote:
Eventually, I'll have to draw some plans of my proposals and PM them to you or post them here for you to view. Might take me a few days though.
Cool, man! Are you looking to do this in 1/700 or 350?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 883
Quote:
Cool, man! Are you looking to do this in 1/700 or 350?


The model I hope to build will be 1/350. I can't stand 1/700. :mad_1:

Just want to say that I appreciate all your advice throughout this thread as well as in PM's. :thumbs_up_1: You are a goldmine of information. You really have given me a lot to think about. I still can't say for certain what the final design of my future modern BB model will be, or whether it will be completely "technically believable", or a work of what if fantasy, or a mixture of both. All I've got figured out for now based on our current discussions is the following (Which is still subject to change) :

2x New style main triple gun turrets in the #'s 1 and 2 positions. Design uncertain.
1x MLRS type launcher to replace the aft #3 main gun turret.
4-6x 5"/62 cal. Mark 45 guns
4-6x 20mm Phalanx CIWS
4x Mk.38 Mod 2 Bushmaster gun system
2-3x RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launchers
6x Quad RGM-84 Harpoon missile launchers
4x 32-cell (Or 2x 32-cell and 2x 16-cell) Mk. 41 VLS for anti-ship, anti-air, & anti-surface.
2x Mk.29 octuple RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missile launchers
2x Mk.32 triple tube torpedo launchers
8x six barreled Mk.36 SRBOC chaff/decoy launchers
4x Nulka decoy launchers
Landing/Parking area for 1-3 SH-60 Seahawks.
Small hangar/storage shelter aft of turret #3 for UAV/RPV’s.
1-2x SPQ-9B radars
2-4x Mk.95 illuminators for Seasparrow launchers.
1x SPS-49 radar
1x SPS-48 radar
1x SPS-67 radar
2x SLQ-32 ECM


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 7:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 764
Location: Adelaide,SouthOZ
navydavesof wrote:
EJM wrote:
I want to keep most of the VLS cells for Tomahawks. The Mk.29 octuple launchers can also fire ESSM, right?
I understand for sure! Don't let me stop you; I have been being very meticulous when arranging mine to be as realistic as possible. I'm taking into consideration manning, skill sets needed, maintenance parts, etc so I put the ESSM in the VLS tubes instead of adding another weapon system to the ship. You can match the 16 ESSM capability of the Mk29s at the cost of only 4 VLS tubes (tomahawks to your point). However...I REALLY like the look of the Mk29s on the battleship, and I am very much looking forward to building a 1996 WIP Wisconsin with VLS and the Mk29s in place of Mt51 and 52, because it looks SOOOO cool! :big_grin:

EJM wrote:
I was either thinking maybe 4-6 of the following:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-62_mk45.php
The same with mine! :thumbs_up_1:

EJM wrote:
Or four of these. I found some on Shapeways which I might buy.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk71.php
Unfortunately, the Mk71 8" gun is too large to fit where the 5" guns are. It has a 20' base ring, and it requires a LOT of below-deck magazine space.
Attachment:
The attachment WNUS_8-55_mk71_front_pic.jpg is no longer available

I mean, look at this big b!tch! It barely fit on the bow of the Hull. The Spruance-class's bows were specifically designed for them, and even that was going to be a tight but comfortable fit.
Attachment:
The attachment WNUS_8-55_mk71_front_pic.jpg is no longer available

HUUUUUGE!
The Burkes are the only modern ships that really have enough bow area to comfortably have the mount. Of all the Burke-type ships out there, the South Korean KHD-IIIs are the only ones with a long enough and deep enough bow to have the full 500 round Spruance magazine. :big_grin:


Check this got my 3D printed Mk71 last week.... :heh: :heh: Mock fit on CGN36 in Mt51 position....Thing is Huge!!

Bruce


Attachments:
DSC_0009aa.JPG
DSC_0009aa.JPG [ 56.18 KiB | Viewed 1134 times ]

_________________
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
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 561 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 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 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