What if Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

[Sauragnmon]

While this is true, one could say there might be one step higher up the belligerency scale, and that would be, say, a Dixie flag. But, that would be going a little far.

That said, excellent work on the detailing, Dave - seriously wicked stuff there man. Looking forward to more of the awesomeness.

[navydavesof]

While this is true, one could say there might be one step higher up the belligerency scale, and that would be, say, a Dixie flag. But, that would be going a little far.

That said, excellent work on the detailing, Dave - seriously wicked stuff there man. Looking forward to more of the awesomeness.

Thanks! Back to work!

[navydavesof]

Excellent attention to detail. Fantastic work so far. I eagerly await any more updates and the finished product. Is there a specifc year you are going for here?

Thanks, Mr. Gui! I am looking at 2006-2009. Nothing really changed in that time frame, and as a sailor, you know it takes years for any noticable changes to take place on ships.

How is the Mod Spruance going? Is she waiting for this to be completed?

She is waiting for the weather to lighten up. She and Iowa are going to finish at the same time. If the weather does not warm up, the apartment is just going to have to smell like solvent. Freshly applied paint is the smell of victory anyway.

I like the Iowa-style flag on the turret. I wouldn't worry too much about being to pretentious with a big American Flag, after all, one of the non-quantifiable assets that the Battleships brings is psychological belligerency - and the big ass flag plays into that very well.

I agree. There certainly is a sack-factor involved, and that's what presence is all about.

My banker while I was at school was from Lebanon, and he grew up during the Israel/Syria war of the early 1980s. He said he saw New Jersey for a long time, and he remembered very clearly when she began bombardments. The other ships would shoot here and there, but when New Jersey would shoot, it was either a rapid-fire that thundered in the distance, or it was a heavy boom that shook the ground over and over again. He saw it firing it's main battery, and he thought there was something wrong with it when he saw the massive balls of flame coming off it, but then he saw the black specks blast massive holes into the mountain side where he knew the Druz and Syrians were. They told stories about what New Jersey did to the landscape.

Today, it would be:
"And behold there was a great earthquake. We looked to the sea, and saw the terrible grey monster. We ran as we heard it speak with long tongues of flame. It killed many of our men, and it destroyed our might. We trembled at the sound of its name. It's name was Iowa."

[Thomas E. Johnson]

This is looking good. I hope it has an effect on the folks in the Pentagon.

[navydavesof]

Hull work:

Here is some hull work. This is a representation of the decapping plates on the hull of the Iowas. They are joined together by joiner plates.

As any Tamiya builder knows, the New Jersey hull does not have a lot of detail on it at all. It sucks actually. So, here is a little more accuracy for Iowa.

Anchor! A beautiful anchor from WEM. "Professional 350", no kidding, it out classes what the kit provides.

I also scored the hull to get close to the panel lines. It's close.

Here are the NIXIE doors unique to Iowa. In reality, all four are unique, but Iowas are round-ish as opposed to rectangular.

Close-up photography is a beeeotch.

There is one thing I neglected to add yesterday: RAM launchers and RADOMEs. Check those babies out. Mmmm-Mm!

[navydavesof]

Hello true believers! More battleship Iowa.

As you can see, detail as been added to the bridge structure and the Mk37 director mount has been sealed off for the SPG-51 emitters to sit atop.

BRASS BARRELS!!! f-ing a right. A friend of mine on this fine forum has afforded me 5"/62caliber barrels for my Veteran Models Mk45 Mod2 gun mounts. What a guy. They make all the difference.

I received my PE order from Gold Metal Models. These guys, what a deal. I chose the USS Nimitz frett, because it has most of the things I think I would need for this build. The Customer Service has been great, and the artwork on the brass is very impressive. B-a-utiful. There are a couple errors I had to correct, but no real problem. The SPS-49 is a little off, but alright to correct, and the SPS-48 needed some correction, too. The SPS-48 has an opaque shape in it. The correction was easy enough. I used the Krazy Glue I use for mounting the brass pieces to fill in the gaps in the screen of the SPS-48. I wonder how well this solution will turn out when I paint the radar and mast. The back of the SPS-48 is a little more complex than what the frett provides, so I added some Evergreen plastic to accuritize the piece. It looks pretty freaking good in person

Here is a little closer view of the SPS-48. This is as good as I could get it with the parts at hand. It seems the SPS-48 changes from ships to ship. The "E" model is on most ships, but the "G" model is being adapted as money shows up. Whatever; I don't know the difference, so here's some kind of cool-looking SPS-48Eish 3D radar on Iowa. The whole idea is that Iowa is using as much stuff that is in storage as possible [Mk45 Mod2 guns, SPG-51Ds, SPS-48E and SPS-49sE (V)],

A good stern-to-forward look of the superstructure. She's hot. SLQ-9B, SPS-48E, VLS, and a whole lot of awesomeness.

Now, the badass of the badassness: the flag of the United States of America on the top of a 16" gun turret. I think I will have to sand the front of the turret down and get rid of the ladders. Then, I will have to add PE ladders and repaint the front and sides of the turret. No problem for a turret with an American flag on it!!!

Any questions, comments, or recommendations are welcome, guys! HOOYAH!

[Cliffy B]

Looking good man, looking good

MAN!!! Those 5"/62 barrels are looooooooooooooong! Almost makes the mounts look like they'll tip over haha.

[navydavesof]

This is my first time to use decal solvent. I also glossed the paint before I laid down them down. I really can't describe how awesome they turned out. For all of you profecssinoal model makers out there, you know already, but for me, man, it's awesome. The GMM decals are awesome, and I am very, very clad I finally sacked up and ordered them. Now, it's time to paint the rest of the markings on to match them up with modern markings found on DDGs and CGs.

I also detalied up the SPS-49 radar with an IFF cross bar and the radar receiver. I really like how the tiny, tiny parts came out. I really need practice bending the brass to the curve the SPS-49 is and bending the v-shaped backing to match it. I noticed on several modern models posted here, people don't bend the screen face like it should be; instead they leave it flat. Well, I see why! It's a super glue mess!!! Awesome nonetheless.

I have my orders to BUD/s now... ...so i have to wrap this up quick, fast, and in a hurry. It's time to be able to focus on SEAL prep and not building models.

Upward and onward!

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Anymore updates on this build?

[navydavesof]

Anymore updates on this build?

Negative, sir. I she is packed at the moment. My professional future has just vastly changed course, so I will have to see what I can do.

What I do want to do is produce two hulls, one water line, and that just needs paint, and one full hull. The full hull will have the anti-fouling cathodes in the accurate places, perhaps a hydrodynamic wedge, and the paravane eye on the bow.

I do have a question, though. I know that both the red and blue anti-fouling paints are currently being used. Blue has not replaced the red. I have not seen any blue on big ships, only on select cruisers and below. Has anyone seen blue on big ships, and do they have any pictures?

And concerning the red anti-fouling pait, what color do people suggest? The best I have seen so far has been Keith Bender's Salem...God what a ship. Does anyone know what he used or what is a good shade of red?

[carr]

..

[navydavesof]

David,

Forgive me if I'm wrong about this but I understand that you are currently serving in the Navy and about to attempt the SEAL training? Thank you for your service and best of luck!

Best wishes,
Bob

Bob,
Thank you very much for the kind words. Yes, that is correct on both accounts. You asked me that once before, and I forgot to answer you. I apologize. I am active Navy, and I am a small boat guy. I am part of the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC). So, I am an expeditionary small-boat. It's kind of like riverine, we're just the littoral version, so I understand small boat tactics, littoral threat and capabilities, force-protection, blah, blah, and a bunch of practical stuff. We ride around in 34' enclosed cabin gunboats.

I recently temporarily transferred to the SEAL pre-training program, but I apparently have an injury common to small-boat duty: the big, bad slipped disk seems to be part of my life. They�ve always told us about a two hour mission in sea state 2-3 at 25-30 knots is like suffering 750 50mph car accidents�and that�s common for travel. The SEALs, docs, and other guys have told me that if you get this AFTER training (BUD/s) it's fine. If you go into training, there is serious risk of serious permanent damage of one kind or another.

So my SEAL plans are on hold for now and are probably going to get dropped. I am not sure yet if I will ever be able to try for SEALs again, but it's definitely out of my immediate future. Things are up in the air, so I am having to play it by ear. I might have the opportunity to do something really cool and really challenging, but I am not holding my breath. I have to straighten things out.

We'll see what's up.

[carr]

..

[navydavesof]

David,

I'm sorry to hear that. One doesn't apply to a program like that without wanting it badly so I know it must be disappointing. However, while it may sound trite, I do believe that things eventually always work out for the best, even if it's not always in the direction we originally envisioned. Stay positive and continued good luck! Besides, the SEAL's loss is the modelling community's gain.

Regards,
Bob

Bob,
Thank you very much. I am having to confront many of the same huge disappointments and challenges people face in their lives, and I really do appreciate the support. Thankfully since I am a little more mature it has not hit be as hard, but it still sucks terribly.

I hope I can produce a modernized Spruance-class guided missile destroyer and a guided missile battleship worth somegthing and stand up to expectations. Beyond that, I would like to make an Arleigh Burke-class DDG armed either with a light-weight 155mm or a Mk71 Mod2/3 with a stealthy gun shield.

The other addition would be a Phalanx foward, RAM aft, and Harpoon just aft of the RAM mount; the way I think the later Burkes should be.

I would like to do a "new construction" version of the Des Moines-class crusier and possibly a "modern" Montana or Iowa. Neither one would suffer from the angled radar-reduction surfaces; they would instead be covered in RAM. I don't think they would have teak decks though We would see a mix of modern non-skid, warning circles, and possibly an dexternal armor belt.

As they say, one door closed and another opens. At least I have the possibility to produce more model warships and to exercise my creativity and pracitcal upgrade.

F@#k, this is a hard time guys! I really appreciate the support those of you who have sent me messages have. I have to keep in mind this is just life....life in the fast lane...

edit...I would just ask people for their thoughts, and if you're that way, prayers for the best outcome for me. Thanks. I hope I can keep making the best product I can.

Mr Bob, CAPT Potter, and several others who follow this and the Spruance thread, thank you for the interest, input, and support. I hope I don't disappoint!!!

[SumGui]

Fantastic work on both this and the Spruance project.

I'd thought a Mk 71 would like nice on the Burke, say a Flight IIA+ with the RMS and double hangar.

I see the double hangers as an opportunity to ship helos, UAVs, or even a RHIB if there is a away to get a side davit (had a 'back of the napkin' idea for that on an OHP way back...) in there behind a large shuttered opening.

The low observable traits of the Burke lend itself to getting a little closer to shore, and SPY-1 and 64 VLS cells are already aboard (assuming sacrificing the 32 cells forward for the Mk71 + ammo - that hull sheer forward could really crimp the below decks space for the mount).

[navydavesof]

Fantastic work on both this and the Spruance project.

Thank you, sir. Coming from a Kidd-class sailor that means a lot, a whole lot.

The low observable traits of the Burke lend itself to getting a little closer to shore, and SPY-1 and 64 VLS cells are already aboard (assuming sacrificing the 32 cells forward for the Mk71 + ammo - that hull sheer forward could really crimp the below decks space for the mount).

I have been told that the Burkes can suport the Mk71 forward, because it is significantly less than 200,000lbs. At 172,895lbs it fits in the bow just fine with 400 rounds without compromising 200,000lbs, which is apparently some kind of mythical weight limit.

The point is that he Burkes can take a Mk71 forward without reduction in the missile payload. I think that is super sweet. It's a shame that there is only one deck weapon.

What I found at the SWA Symposium is that the 5" and 155mm are on their way to completion, but even the BAE reps (the actual projectile developers) admit that the weapons will not be able to defeat bunkers or even armor unless there is a direct hit (laser guidance).

Hmmm........155mm Copperhead...............8" Paveway weapons............hmmmmmmmmmmm why don't we use existing weapons?

[navydavesof]

Hi, guys! If things even out here for me in the near future, I will get back on Iowa and get her finished. The most recent numbers about where the Navy is going have come out, and honestly, they can go either very pro battleship or stay very anti.

We are going to lose the use of 3-4 CVNs in the next 1-2 years (CVN-65 71, 72, 77). GHWB, CVN-77 is likely to be completed in the next year but the others are not going to be refueled or repaired, instead being turned off and moored up (71 and 72) and Enterprise not being fully repaired and decommissioned early. This drops us to 7-8 usable carriers, not counting yard times for maintenance other than refuels. This drops us well below our 10 carrier minimum. So, how did we even get to this 10 carrier minimum anyway? Why can't we just have 8 carriers?

Well, the 10-12 carrier need is based on a study done by the USN for Congress and recently again supported to Congress. The claim is that we need 10 for bare minimum defense needs and 12 for presence and defense of our allies. So, if we are not being allowed to have 10-12 carriers, what's the number actually based on? The number is based on capital ships capable of delivering quantities of ordnance other ships cannot deliver. As a result, we need 12 capital ships that can deliver very heavy amounts of ordnance (such as comparable to a CVN). What this does is present a need for replacement of the capability lost at a significantly lower cost. When compared to these costs suffered by CVNs, battleship reactivation, modernization, and replenishment of the support structure is the preferred economic and longevity of equipment option. That way we can keep the numbers of capital ships and capability up to a very capable level while not spending all the money we do for carrier refuels, yearly maintenance, etc. Once we get more funding to complete the refuels, get to it. So this is just another heavy reason to reactivate battleships. However, as one can see by reading through this thread there is a lot of anti-battleship sentiment regardless of their existing capabilities, potential capabilities, and economic/cost effective superiority.

As far as weapon direction systems, does anyone know of anything other than the New Threat Upgrade to install aboard the battleships to provide them AAW without going Aegis? Specifically, I ask in degrees of magnitude beyond point defense (ESSM, RAM, Phalanx). I have heard a derivative of the Mk91 WDS is very effective, a derivative of STIR, and the New Threat Upgrade that brought both the Mk74 and Mk86WDS up to the same capability with each other and were only out-classed by Aegis is the whole spectrum. Does anyone have input as to which of these systems would be proper or is there another system you know of?

The mission the AAW system would be to be:
-Install AAW system compatible with Aegis through Co-operative Engagement and other Link systems enabling the capital ship to be an AAW force multiplier and not simply a self defense system.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Whats wrong with CVNs 71 and 72????

[Cliffy B]

Whats wrong with CVNs 71 and 72????

They're up for for CROH (Complex Refueling Overhaul) IE new cores for their reactors and the current administration doesn't want to spend the $$$ or see the need to re-fuel them so everyone is debating on whether or not to do it...

[navydavesof]

Whats wrong with CVNs 71 and 72????

71 has reached the end of her reactor's life, and 72 is really, really close. However, news is that 71 is very close to getting funding approved so it looks hopeful that she will be refueled! Lincoln (72) has been specifically named for decommissioning by President Obama with no statement for disposal from the Navy as of now. It is not a question of finding the funding but finding approval. I hope until funding can be approved for her reactivation, refuel, and modernization the Navy will park her in Bremerton. It would cost a nuclear reactor preservation crew, a cost well worth the benefit of an already-built super carrier until we can refuel her.

It has been postulated that we would reactivate Kitty Hawk for a short time, 5-10 years, because her reactivation and modernization (really just re-installation of equipment) would still be cheaper than the Lincoln's refuel and yearly operating costs (CV is cheaper than a CVN).

The ability to project 12 carriers worth of power, and 12 capital groups with heavy ordnance delivery capacity are what are needed. These Nimitz-class carriers are the most important thing in the Navy, and if we can, we have to do everything we can to keep them all, even if we have to lay one or two up until we get another administration in. The only way to maintain 11-12 groups and 12 groups worth of delivery capability is to reactivate battleships in their place. If anyone is interested, the technological and some of the technical aspects addressing the feasibility of their reactivation, modernization, capability enhancement, and role they would play have already been described in this thread a number of times.