The Ship Model Forum

Also, it's pretty easy to scratch build a knuckle boat crane if you want. You can make it look much better than most of the kit parts out there.

Yes, I believe both systems could be used in conjunction with each other. Depending on how long the CAT torpedoes are themselves, and if there are different kinds, I will have a Mk32 SVTT somewhere on the stern on the ship, or I may have to figure out another launcher type.

CIWS was originally considered for those two tubs, but practicality got in the way, and they were moved into the super structure. Sea spray, the blast from Turret 3, and most of all, the danger of incoming helos striking them by accident proclues any type of tall system from being on the stern or in those tubs. My understanding is that the refueling station is for the UAVs. It does not hold enough fuel for helicopters. It's literally a cart with about 100 gallons of fuel. There is a much larger fuel tank inside the stern that was original used to fuel the float planes. I believe (but I am not positive) that was reconditioned for JP-5 to re-fuel the helos.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I actually have 3 spares in my spare parts box. So, no need to scratchbuild.



Yeah, I'm still trying to search for more information and/or photos before I scratchbuild any type of launcher system. The more information I find, then the better I'll be able to make a determination if I want to build and include the system or not.



Turret 3 is not a problem since I won't have a Turret 3 on my model. It's possible I might make the helo pad a bit longer, but not by much so that putting CIWS in the two tubs may be possible. If I put CIWS in both tubs, then the CAT system will go on either side of the ship somewhere amidships, though I'm not sure where yet.

Awesome!


Don't forget, sea spray and the risk of the helos striking your CIWS mouths are a very big concern. Helos would strike your CIWS units at least once every year.

I have a suggestion if you want to add another pair of CIWS or other PDMS. Why not put them on top of the aft most part of your missile deck?

Also, I would suggest your use the space on either side of your launcher for a helo hangar/maintenance facility. You have the space, and you could still have a helo pad large enough to accommodate 2 - 3 birds landing at a time while maintaining aircraft in the hangars.

Just a suggestion. Keep up the good work!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Another option for a possible helo hangar would be to have an under deck one similar to what I've heard and read that the Albany class and Virginia class cruisers had. Is this possible on the Iowa BB? Though the bad part is that after I did some checking, a lot of the crew quarters and ship's services/facilities (Crew's Mess, Library, Laundry, etc.) on the 2nd and 3rd decks under the main deck aft of Turret 3 area would have to be removed or relocated.

Previous thread about below deck hangars.
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=59511&start=60

That is one of my favorite threads. The conversation we kicked off helped me understand and design below-deck hangars for a few of my to-do ships!

Should your BB have a below deck hangar? Not if it's not necessary! The only reason why I went to using them in modern heavy cruisers, large cruisers, BBs, is because of the hazards created by having a main battery turret aft. Since you don't, I would suggest an above deck hangar. You may need as much of that below-decks space as possible, because your VLS may penetrate and eat up some of your 1st deck as well as your ATACM magazine.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The more we discuss this, the more I want to use one of my New Jerseys as a Mk41/57 VLS and medium helo facility BB. Depending on how quickly you start this build, you and I might have a build off!



If I did not expand the helo landing deck to the ship's beam, I would lay out the markings on the aft deck as below on the Nashville.


I am also thinking about expanding the helo deck to the length of the ship to the stern.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I'll let you start or finish whatever you currently have first. A build off would be fun, but my Iowa model is still a few years away from actually getting started. I've got too many other projects (Aircraft, Tanks, Sci-fi, etc.) that are on the "to do" list first.

Do you have links to your other models? It would be fantastic to see more of your work!

The battleship models that I will be finishing are the Iowa in this thread and a 1996 Wisconsin as she may have appeared based on the basic WIP design and my educated guess of additional systems of the time period.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

As it is pretty clear now that the goal of a 350 ship Navy cannot be reached with out reactivating and modernizing older existing vessels, is there any movement in the circles of decision makers to explore re-appropriating these ships back into the navy Dave?

_________________
Thomas E. Johnson

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

No. It is clear to me that SECNAV is not serious about executing the President's demand for a 355 ship fleet. He is obviously not on board with this idea. He just issued a memo stating that we will not do something as simple as reactivate 10 OHP-class FFGs in even the smallest capacity much less modernize them with any worthwhile combat systems.


Kitty Hawk was slated for the scrappers without logical explanation. To suddenly get her out of the running for reactivation, however is inline with the Navy's decisions over the past 15 years to eliminate the threat to new ship building; ie the entire Spruance-class. If we could have 20 Spruance DDs reactivated and added to the fleet for another 15-20 years through a SLEP, then we would not need these dumb LCSs and DDG-1000s....right....sink them....scrap them....get them out of the way.

No, unfortunately under current leadership, they will continue to "accept the risk" of our current force structure and not execute any efforts to grow the fleet under even the easiest circumstances.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

However these findings will not stop me building an economical modernized Iowa-class BB. Heck, this might actually inspire an WIF focused around if the 4 921' Montana-class BBs were constructed and mothballed. After the Iowas had been used, the USN would begin to pull the Montana-class BBs from the mothball fleet for reactivation and modernization.

I have already expressed the modernized Iowa-class as a reduced LHD electronics suite reflecting SPS-49, SPS-48, SPQ-9Bx2, SLQ-32(v)6 perhaps, NULKA, SRBOC and secret stuff, on the electronics front.

Get some.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I will continue with the project of a modernized USS Iowa. As has been stated many times before The electronics will be a surface-combatant version of the LHD electronics suite with a BB customized SSDS I would call SSDS (v)3. While I really want her to have either 128 or 156 VLS, I may settle with the most realistic 96 VLS. This would be okay, because it would be split between TLAMs and ESSM in a mix of 90 TLAM and 6 (quad pack which means 24 ESSM) with 2 RAM and (1 fwd and 1 aft in place of the Mk37 directors) and 4 Phalanx Block 1B.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

This thread has me 100% committed to building my own version!
Can someone explain the logic for keeping the optical rangefinder? And, I would think the radar above the rangefinder would not be necessary due to much MUCH more modern surface search radars fitted, right?
This thread has truly inspired me, thanks!
Dave

Hey, man! Thanks for showing interest! The logic behind keeping the optical range finders is reliable redundancy. The optical range finders are remarkably accurate, and if the updated, electronic gun fire control system goes down, or if the gunfire control radar goes down, you can shift to the optical range finders and still land accurate shots.

To your second question, should be radar on top of the optical rangefinders still be retained? No, I do not believe so. The SPQ-9Bgun fire control radar can suffice, and if I ever finish this model project, I am seriously considering replacing the aft main battery optical range finder with a second SPQ-9B.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance