What if Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

[navydavesof]

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:

Mk29 SSM4small.png (146.09 KiB) Viewed 5651 times

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!

David

[navydavesof]

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 Now, he TAS-23 radar has been replaced by the SPQ-9B, but the TAS-23 direction system still feeds the inputs from the SPQ-9B into the Ship Self Defense System.

[EJM]

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.

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

I didn't know that.

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 Now, he TAS-23 radar has been replaced by the SPQ-9B, but the TAS-23 direction system still feeds the inputs from the SPQ-9B into the Ship Self Defense System.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.

[navydavesof]

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

Eh, up to you!

I didn't know that.

The little things you wind up learning over years of research.

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.

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.

[EJM]

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?

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

[navydavesof]

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!

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

The same with mine!

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.

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.

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.

[EJM]

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?

[navydavesof]

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.

[EJM]

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.

[EJM]

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.

[navydavesof]

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.

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

Yes, I know exactly where they will go 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.

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?

[EJM]

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.

Just want to say that I appreciate all your advice throughout this thread as well as in PM's. 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

[HvyCgn9]

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!

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

The same with mine!

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.

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.

The attachment WNUS_8-55_mk71_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.

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

Bruce

[EJM]

@navydavesof: Here's something else to ask you (or anybody else) about. I may eventually remove or replace the aft starboard refueling derrick on my future Iowa build. I need some information and/or pictures on how the Iowa battleships were refueled and vertically replenished.

One photo I found on Navsource is this:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/01621c.jpg
Notice how the refueling derrick isn't being used for refueling of the battleship. The black hose lines are still hanging/tied together. There are two other refueling hose lines running from the replenishment oiler to the battleship. But the photo isn't clear enough to see where these hose lines end up connecting on the starboard side of the battleship. Anybody know the exact positions on the starboard side and/or have any better photos? Would there also be similar refueling positions on the port side of the battleship?

Notice the same thing in this pic too.
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/i ... 991_lg.jpg

On Page 7 of this thread, there are a few pics of a king post/tensioner. Did all Iowa battleships have them or just some of them? Where were they stored when not in use? Could they also be used on the port side as well as the starboard side?

[navydavesof]

@navydavesof: Here's something else to ask you (or anybody else) about. I may eventually remove or replace the aft starboard refueling derrick on my future Iowa build. I need some information and/or pictures on how the Iowa battleships were refueled and vertically replenished.

One photo I found on Navsource is this:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/01621c.jpg
Notice how the refueling derrick isn't being used for refueling of the battleship. The black hose lines are still hanging/tied together. There are two other refueling hose lines running from the replenishment oiler to the battleship. But the photo isn't clear enough to see where these hose lines end up connecting on the starboard side of the battleship. Anybody know the exact positions on the starboard side and/or have any better photos? Would there also be similar refueling positions on the port side of the battleship?

Notice the same thing in this pic too.
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/i ... 991_lg.jpg

On Page 7 of this thread, there are a few pics of a king post/tensioner. Did all Iowa battleships have them or just some of them? Where were they stored when not in use? Could they also be used on the port side as well as the starboard side?

A few quick answers
The King post is for refueling other ships so it would not be used while being refueled. That was a big deal about the BBs, the could refuel their own escorts.

The high line may only be on Wisconsin, but I built one for my Iowa, because it's a really good idea. Being that Wisconsin is the culmination of all the lessons learned during he class reactivation program, I would incorporate her more into the other ships even before making my own.

Yes they can take on fuel from 2 spots on each side of the ship.

[EJM]

A few quick answers

Few is right. That didn't help me much.

Yes they can take on fuel from 2 spots on each side of the ship.

But where exactly are those positions? It's hard to tell in the pics, particuarly the Navsource one, but it appears they are on the main deck near the 5" gun spots. One refueling spot is between the starboard aft 5" gun mount and the refueling kingpost. The other one is hard to tell.

About radars and sensors.........

I'm planning to have the following:
1-2x SPQ-9B radars (Do I need 1 or 2 for the six 5"/62 cal. Mark 45 guns I plan to have?)
2-4x Mk.95 illuminators for Seasparrow launchers.
1x SPS-49 radar
1x SPS-48 radar
1x SPS-67 radar
2x SLQ-32 ECM
2-4x OE-82C Satcom antennas
What else am I missing or do I need to have?

Do I need some sort of radar/sensor system for the MLRS I plan to have that I talked to you about in PM?

And lastly, any changes to ship's boats and boat handling equipment?

[EJM]

I know it's been said time after time in this thread that the Iowa class battleships could have been designed/renovated with VLS missile systems in mind. But from what I understand, there are 3 different lengths of VLS cells: Strike, Tactical, and Self Defense. Each one is a different length for accomodating different types of missiles. But which lengths can an Iowa battleship actually accomodate not only between the two funnels, but also on either side of the aft funnel? Because whatever length of VLS cell is put in, it means changing the rooms, passageways, etc. on the inside of the ship. Eventually, somebody's office, berthing space, ventilation ductwork, piping, etc. is going to have to go bye-bye or rerouted.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... tsheet.pdf
http://bemil.chosun.com/brd/files/BEMIL ... 8/4_35.jpg
https://www.dsiac.org/sites/default/fil ... 11-rv1.png

PDF of USS New Jersey blueprints, 1984.
https://maritime.org/doc/plans/bb62.pdf

[navydavesof]

But which lengths can an Iowa battleship actually accomodate not only between the two funnels, but also on either side of the aft funnel? Because whatever length of VLS cell is put in, it means changing the rooms, passageways, etc. on the inside of the ship. Eventually, somebody's office, berthing space, ventilation ductwork, piping, etc. is going to have to go bye-bye or rerouted.

They were going to be Mk41 Mod0/1 Strike length tubes, the really long ones. Yes, all of those spaces would have been eliminated to accommodate the VLS and its supporting systems. Keep in mind that during the reactivation, a LOT of spaces were left vacant and were turned into spaces that can otherwise be combined or will no longer be used regardless.

[navydavesof]

But where exactly are those positions? It's hard to tell in the pics, particuarly the Navsource one, but it appears they are on the main deck near the 5" gun spots. One refueling spot is between the starboard aft 5" gun mount and the refueling kingpost. The other one is hard to tell.

. All of the fittings were removed upon decommissioning. You'll have to look somewhere else I believe.

About radars and sensors.........

I'm planning to have the following:
1-2x SPQ-9B radars (Do I need 1 or 2 for the six 5"/62 cal. Mark 45 guns I plan to have?)

It depends on what you want the ship's capabilities to be. One can provide all radar inputs to the GFCS.

...2-4x Mk.95 illuminators for Seasparrow launchers.
1x SPS-49 radar
1x SPS-48 radar
1x SPS-67 radar
2x SLQ-32 ECM
2-4x OE-82C Satcom antennas
What else am I missing or do I need to have?

That covers a lot of stuff, but again it's a question of what do you want the battleship's mission to be? That will dictate what radars, equipment, etc you put on it. For instance, if you want it to do what I have in mind, then you would build the model I have described in this thread. If yours answers different missions, then you configure it differently.

Do I need some sort of radar/sensor system for the MLRS I plan to have that I talked to you about in PM?

I don't know a lot about the workings of the MLRS. You would need a way to program, guide, and target the weapons.

And lastly, any changes to ship's boats and boat handling equipment?

What do you want the boat capability to be? If you just want it to be standard modern Navy, RHIBs. Because the missions my battleship is arranged to meet, my boat arrangement is going to be totally different than normal ships.

I look forward to the thoughts behind your BB!

[EJM]

The radar systems for my model I will have to think a little bit more on and then get back to you later on. As for the large refueling kingpost, I will be removing that as it will interfere with the firing arcs of the Seasparrow launchers, especially the starboard one, when I add them to a newly built aft superstructure. Gone will be the 2 smaller 26ft. (?) motorboats and I will replace them with modern Navy RHIB's. I'll keep the Captain's gig. The larger 30-40ft. personnel boat may be kept, but I'm not sure. The boat davits will be replaced with a crane type system from my spare parts box.

Will you keep or remove the SLQ-25 NIXIE anti-torpedo system openings at the back end of the fantail? I might keep it on mine, but am not sure yet. With the US Navy developing the new anti-torpedo torpedo called the Countermeasures Anti-Torpedo (CAT) system for use on aircraft carriers and/or other ships, I wonder if something like that couldn't also be used on a battleship? I originally was thinking of placing Phalanx CIWS in each of the fantail 40mm tubs. But now that I remembered about the CAT system, I was thinking that might be better in each of those tubs. I'm just not sure how big or small of a launcher to scratchbuild as I don't know the dimensions of the anti-torpedo torpedos. Although one of the 40mm tubs has a refueling system for helicopters, I'm sure this could probably be moved elsewhere.