Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[Fliger747]

Also note that the "railing" folds flat when stowed as well.

[Sean_the_Nailer]

Just to add a bit more "use" information, and this is coming from working in the Trades. Generally speaking, there is the basic use/consumption of 2 oxygen cylinders to 1 acetylene cylinder. Even moreso when the use of a cutting torch/brass-axe is prevalent.

Also, the actual design of the acetylene bottle is considerably different than the rest, because it is at 'low pressure' compared to the tall ones that hold gasses. Acetylene is stored as a liquid, in a bottle that is filled with concrete. The porosity of the concrete allows the liquid to 'gas-off' slowly in a controlled manner, so that it is safer. Compared with the typical 'tall bottle' that holds gasses, those gasses are generally filled to ~2,200 psi. Some can be well over 4,000 psi.

Acetylene is generally stored in a bottle in its liquid state under 220 psi.

Hope that helps, and explains a bit why the acetylene bottles are physically different than the gas bottles. Another minor point to add, acetylene bottles are made out of mild-carbon steel, whereas the higher pressure 'gas' bottles are made out of armor steel.

(and, now that I realize that I was replying to a topic that appears to have been on page 199, my apologies to the masses for the completely "off-topic-at-the-moment" post) But, unless it bothers someone, I'll leave it up there simply in my attempt to contribute.

[James M]

That explains why the Acetylene bottles are so heavy.

James

[bigjimslade]

Generally speaking, there is the basic use/consumption of 2 oxygen cylinders to 1 acetylene cylinder.

I'm surprised that it is just 2 to 1. I would have expected 5:2 from chemistry

5 (02) + 2 (HCCH) ==> 2 (H2O) + 4(CO2)

[Fliger747]

The chemistry gets a little more mathematically complex as I suspect each bottle of O2 and Acetylene probably do not contain an equal number of molecules.

[bigjimslade]

The chemistry gets a little more mathematically complex as I suspect each bottle of O2 and Acetylene probably do not contain an equal number of molecules.

If they have the same volume and pressure they should be approximately the same.

PV = nRT

[Fliger747]

A mole of O2 weighs 15.9 g and a mole of Acetylene about 26.6 grams. When we combine them an equal volume of O2 will weigh less. If we combine them by weight it will take a larger volume of O2 to achieve the same desired ratio.

[bigjimslade]

A mole of O2 weighs 15.9 g and a mole of Acetylene about 26.6 grams. When we combine them an equal volume of O2 will weigh less. If we combine them by weight it will take a larger volume of O2 to achieve the same desired ratio.

But they are combined by moles; not by weight.

[Fliger747]

Exactly...

[bigjimslade]

Exactly...

The volume of a mole of a gas under the same temperature and pressure is the same. Thus it should take 5 O2 Cylinders for every 2 C2H2 and that the contents of the C2H2 cylinders will weigh 2-1/2 times that of O2 when the cylinders are have the same volume and pressure.

[Paul_541]

This is the largest the forum will allow:

001 copy.tif

Do you have other files of the booklet of general plans ?

[chuck]

The chemistry gets a little more mathematically complex as I suspect each bottle of O2 and Acetylene probably do not contain an equal number of molecules.

If they have the same volume and pressure they should be approximately the same.

PV = nRT

I thought it was mentioned that acetylene in the tanks are stored as a liquid. The PV=nRT only applies to an ideal gas and would be inapplicable to stored liquid acetylene. Liquid would be much denser and contain far more miles per liter than room temperature gaseous oxygen stored under any practical pressure.

[Sean_the_Nailer]

(deleted the quotes as there were 'too many?)

I'm kinda at a loss for what to say, here. I've attempted to add facts based upon reality and experience and yet others counter with innuendo, fallacy and "hear-say" because someone else typed words elsewhere on the innerwebz so then that HAS TO BE true.

The real world doesn't actually work that way. But then again, this IS a modelling site, right? So all are free to do/say/believe/construct as they see fit. Cinderella on a Speedwagon.

[BB62vet]

Sean,

The topic re. what bottles of which gas/liquid, etc. and how many were carried on board, where they were stored, etc. etc. - well, this has been beaten to death and I've tried to stay out of it. I have little/no experience with the chemical make-up of these gases/liquids and will not comment on that aspect of this subject.

I served in NEW JERSEY during her Vietnam Cruise (1968-69) and we had various racks of steel cylinders of this & that all over the ship. When I built my model of BB-62 (2012-1019) I tried to portray these stored bottles as I could from photos taken at the time. I did post replies early on in the "bottle wars" as there was a question as to "what" gases were carried aboard ship and what colors those bottles would have been painted. I recall researching the net for info on this and posted a couple charts, etc. with this info.

My best suggestion to you is that if you are building a WWII or Korean War era IOWA class BB, there are few color photos showing these stored bottles to go by - and the B/W photos really only show you location, not type. Use you best judgement and keep them grouped; single cannisters of one type probably wouldn't have happened. Thinking logically about the daily usage, etc. - it would be reasonable to assume that the types of bottles stored in a given area may change as these bottles were expended and later replaced. With changes made during yard periods, it's quite possible the original locations of these storage racks would also have been changed. Where these cylinders were stored in 1968 were certainly not where they probably were stored in 1944 or 1953; possible, but not probable.

I hope this somewhat gives you a better feel for how to proceed, etc.

Hank

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Does anyone make PE detail up sets for the Trumpeter 1/700 modern Iowa models? I�m looking for something that has some etched bulkheads with details to place on the smooth bulkheads of the kit along the weather deck, and don�t want to try placing each door & pipe individually.

[lucasner]

I recently ordered Revell's modernized New Jersey Platinum edition, so am looking forward to doing my first Pontos set.

Bit I do have a number of questions since I am planning on doing a "what-if" build along the lines of the proposed "Phase II" modernization that was never done in the 90s. No, I don't intend on building an aft flight deck, but I am going to add VLS cells only for Tomahawks. I am also considering removing her aft 16" turret since I did read a proposal to fill the barbette with VLS (debating the "removing the aft turret would unbalance the ship" argument though).
I do have many questions about what her electronics fit would have looked like if she had stayed in service till around 2012. I'm looking at bringing her electronics up to date with what we would have seen on a CVN at that date. I know "what-if" questions can get ridiculous at times, but I really want to build as accurate as possible a ship.
Specifically:

1. What would be the value in keeping her optical range finders if she had been modified to carry the SPQ-9B? If they were removed, would it make sense for her to have TWO SPQ-9B's in the place of the old range finders?

2. I am going to remove all the WWII era Mk38 directors and replace her old twin 5in/38cal turrets with modern 5"/54 Mk45 mounts. I am confused about what sensors/directors she would carry for these guns. Is the SPQ-9B the only radar that would be needed? Would she have Mk50/60/61 directors just for the guns (I am thinking anti-air as well as anti-surface)?

3. I'm going to add a whole slew of SATCOM antennas, any guidance on where they would have to be? I know there were major concerns about the 16" blast affecting electronics, but I don't know how far/high they would have to be to protect them.

4. Same with Sea Sparrow. I read that Sea Sparrow wasn't considered for Phase 1 due to the same blast issues, but I want to add up to 4 RAM launchers high up on the superstructure and am considering adding Sea Sparrow anyway in accordance with some of the drawings I have seen from the 80's.

5. Since the 40mm/20mm were mounted at various times on top of the 16inch turrets (despite the ferocious blast), would it be bad to mount other modern electronics/guns/missiles on them? I was considering 25mm mounts, maybe SATCOM antennas, etc.

I don't intend to make her a Kirov-like ship with guns and missiles and electronics everywhere, but I would think that there has to be room for significant improvements and additions. Anything that makes sense I am missing?

I know that alot of her initial "Phase One" modernization was limited by the cost...but since I am thinking of a "money is not an issue" Phase II....where could I go with it REALISTICALLY?

Thanks, everyone!

[Thomas E. Johnson]

I recently ordered Revell's modernized New Jersey Platinum edition, so am looking forward to doing my first Pontos set.

Bit I do have a number of questions since I am planning on doing a "what-if" build along the lines of the proposed "Phase II" modernization that was never done in the 90s. No, I don't intend on building an aft flight deck, but I am going to add VLS cells only for Tomahawks. I am also considering removing her aft 16" turret since I did read a proposal to fill the barbette with VLS (debating the "removing the aft turret would unbalance the ship" argument though).
I do have many questions about what her electronics fit would have looked like if she had stayed in service till around 2012. I'm looking at bringing her electronics up to date with what we would have seen on a CVN at that date. I know "what-if" questions can get ridiculous at times, but I really want to build as accurate as possible a ship.
Specifically:

1. What would be the value in keeping her optical range finders if she had been modified to carry the SPQ-9B? If they were removed, would it make sense for her to have TWO SPQ-9B's in the place of the old range finders?

2. I am going to remove all the WWII era Mk38 directors and replace her old twin 5in/38cal turrets with modern 5"/54 Mk45 mounts. I am confused about what sensors/directors she would carry for these guns. Is the SPQ-9B the only radar that would be needed? Would she have Mk50/60/61 directors just for the guns (I am thinking anti-air as well as anti-surface)?

3. I'm going to add a whole slew of SATCOM antennas, any guidance on where they would have to be? I know there were major concerns about the 16" blast affecting electronics, but I don't know how far/high they would have to be to protect them.

4. Same with Sea Sparrow. I read that Sea Sparrow wasn't considered for Phase 1 due to the same blast issues, but I want to add up to 4 RAM launchers high up on the superstructure and am considering adding Sea Sparrow anyway in accordance with some of the drawings I have seen from the 80's.

5. Since the 40mm/20mm were mounted at various times on top of the 16inch turrets (despite the ferocious blast), would it be bad to mount other modern electronics/guns/missiles on them? I was considering 25mm mounts, maybe SATCOM antennas, etc.

I don't intend to make her a Kirov-like ship with guns and missiles and electronics everywhere, but I would think that there has to be room for significant improvements and additions. Anything that makes sense I am missing?

I know that alot of her initial "Phase One" modernization was limited by the cost...but since I am thinking of a "money is not an issue" Phase II....where could I go with it REALISTICALLY?

Thanks, everyone!

I would draw your attention to NAVYDAVE�s thread in the �What If� subtopic in this area of the forum about a remodernized Iowa & Wisconsin. Pretty much all the answers to your questions can be found there.

[BB62vet]

Lucansner,

I agree with T. E. Johnson - this thread belongs over on the "What if" Forum.

However, a couple observations re. your questions:

1) I don't know your extent of knowledge regarding shipboard weapons and their associated fire control systems, but I would suggest that you "bone up" about what guns work with what optical/RADAR fire control systems - these are not separate, but integrated systems to function together either independently or with other systems. Norman Palmar has written several books on this subject. I seriously doubt that the 16"/50 cal main battery would function properly utilizing the SPQ-9B FCS - it's designed for a rapid-fire AA system (MK-86), not an over the horizon type of shore bombardment weapon.

2) SATCOM communications antennae are installed "as needed" and are not just scattered here and there - every system on a ship is there for a specific purpose and the number of those required is based up a criteria and design study of that particular ship's requirements & application, etc.

3) 5"/38 cal guns are installed in shipboard MOUNTS, not turrets. The distinction between turret and mount depends on the size of a particular gun system - for example:

3"/50 cal gun MOUNT
5"/25 cal gun MOUNT
6"/47 cal gun TURRET
8"/55 cal gun TURRET
16"/50 cal gun TURRET

Those are just a few pointers to consider when coming up with a "what if" ship model - at least, when you're putting a tidy amount of time & cash into something like this, I would want to do some research as to the why's and how's and functionality before throwing things together. At least, that's my take on this sort of project.

Hope this helps,

[lucasner]

Thank you for the pointers.

The Phase I Iowa's, I believe, were fitted with the AN/SPQ-9, which the interweb says is, "AN/SPQ-9A, (sometimes pronounced as "spook nine"), is a United States Navy multi-purpose SURFACE SEARCH & fire control radar used with the Mk-86 gun fire-control system (MK86 GFCS). It is a two dimensional SURFACE-SEARCH radar, meaning it provides only range and bearing but not elevation. It is intended primarily to detect & track targets at sea level, on the SURFACE of the water for either gun fire engagement or navigation. It can however, also detect and track low altitude (below 2000 ft) air targets."

According to several sites I found, "The AN/SPQ-9B scans out to the horizon and performs simultaneous and automatic air and SURFACE TARGET detection and tracking of low flying Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs), SURFACE THREATS, and low/slow flying aircraft, UAVs and helicopters." ...and... "The AN/SPQ-9 SURFACE SURVEILLANCE and Tracking Radar, developed by Northrop Grumman Norden Systems, Melville, NY, is a track-while-scan radar used with the MK-86 Gunfire Control system on surface combatants. It detects sea skimming missiles at the horizon even in heavy clutter while simultaneously providing detection and tracking of SURFACE TARGETS and beacon responses. The upgraded SPQ-9B - which uses a high-resolution, track-while-scan, X-Band, pulse- Doppler radar - will enable detection and establishing firm track ranges on subsonic and supersonic sea-skimming missiles. The system concept includes a new air mode that provides a new, low-cost, quality sea-skimmer detection capability and a SURFACE MODE with improved performance in support of the MK 86 Gun Fire Control System and backup navigation."

Am I reading all these references wrong in that the AN/SPQ-9B is only an Air Search radar as you stated?

I assumed that the A/N SPQ-9B was a modernized replacement for the SPQ-9A...which many many references I found say is also used for surface search and gun-fire control. As a surface search radar, I assumed it would provide significantly better range information than a 60 year old optical system.

I am not an expert on Naval weapon systems, but that is why I asked the questions. I also understand integrated weapon and fire control systems (31 years in the Air Force) which is exactly why I was so amateurishly asking what would be "realistic" in this what-if build. I was curious about the SPQ-9B because of what I had read, and as for over-the-horizon targeting, I would think an OPTICAL rangefinder would be just as useless...No?

I also know the difference between a turret and a mount...I apologize for mis-typing in my original post.

Dave

[lucasner]

Thomas E. Johnson,

Thank you, Sir. I absolutely missed the what-if thread on the Iowas. And as you said, I found the answers to several of my questions within seconds of pulling up the thread.

Sorry for posting this int he wrong section, admins.

Dave