What if Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

[Busto963]

Where do the missiles go? How many is appropriate? You and I both commented on a thread of a modern Montana with AGS(L) and a very excessive number of VLS tubes in a very unstable part of the ship. What CIWS system should it have? And how do you balance all of that onto the ship without crowding it and making things dangerous?

When I first looked at the Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS) on DDX I was appalled, but on a BB I think it might work very well (perhaps even better with an internal belt). The heavy armor belt should certainly redirect the blast away from the ship's vitals. And PLVS certainly does free up options for weapons placement. I do not think you have to go with MK-57 either: I believe there are some options for installing individual MK41 tubes.

On the numbers of tubes, well, more is better, but I have a hard time believing that much more than 120-180 does anything more than put too many weapons at risk of being destroyed before they can be employed (ship gets sunk, put out action, breaks down, whatever...). I would look at the mission, figure out how many VLAs, ESSM, SM#, ASCMs and so forth you need, and then ... double it!

[EJM]

@navydavesof: I'm not sure how I'm going to fully design and build my 21st Century BB. I'm just in the very early planning stages right now. As I said, I want to make it "slightly" more futureistic. Not to the point where I want it stealthy or looking like an Arleigh Burke wannabe, but I do want parts of the superstructure, weapons, etc. to be more up-to-date, modern, or whatever you want to call it.
I'll be robbing parts from 2x Arleigh Burke kits, 1x La Fayette frigate kit, and a couple of Gundam robot kits in order to make my future BB. I'll be remaking new scratchbuilt 5" guns from Gundam robot kit parts that will look similar to the guns I did here:
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... trike8.jpg

I am also undecided if I want to replace the 3 16" gun turrets with future looking railgun turrets. If I do make railgun turrets, I may make them similar to the attached pic in this post. If I do use railgun turrets, then that means I'll have to go nuclear power for power generation, etc. I'm undecided on this as well since it means ditching the smokestacks and refueling rig.

As far as armament goes, I'm going to load up like crazy! I want this BB ready for BATTLE!
Preliminary armament is:
3x 16" turrets
4-6 5" guns
128 VLS cells
6-8 Phalanx CIWS
2-4 RAM
6x quad Harpoon launchers
2x Seasparrow launchers
4x Bushmaster chain guns
8x .50 cal guns
2-4 Mk.32 triple torpedo launchers

I might be overdoing it on armament or some of it might not make sense on a BB, but I am building this model for FUN, and not necessarily for "technical believeability".

[navydavesof]

When I first looked at the Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS) on DDX I was appalled, but on a BB I think it might work very well (perhaps even better with an internal belt). The heavy armor belt should certainly redirect the blast away from the ship's vitals. And PLVS certainly does free up options for weapons placement. I do not think you have to go with MK-57 either: I believe there are some options for installing individual MK41 tubes.

Interesting idea. I don't think there is enough room between the armor belt and the hull to install Mk57 modules. The Mk41 comes in modules of 8 missiles per module, and they cannot fit there, either. The super structure, however, can accommodate quite a few. Through correspondance with an Iowa-class program engineer, we have concluded that a maximum of 160 Mk41 VLS tubes can be accommodated in an existing Iowa without chopping the super structure up too much. This takes into account the expansion joint, boiler air intakes, berthing, exhaust uptakes, the VLS deluge plumbing, and director interference. This is also without cutting any of the ship's existing armor. However, to accommodate Mk41 VLS, the super structure amidships and aft will have to be elevated to the O4 level and the existing structure cut down to the main deck. This part of the rebuild would be invasive but not a huge time consumer. Running the new fiber optic, copper wire, communication lines, and deluge plumbing would be more concerning, because that extends into and draws from other parts of the ship as well. One way or the other, 160 is the number, and configuration is key.

On the numbers of tubes, well, more is better, but I have a hard time believing that much more than 120-180 does anything more than put too many weapons at risk of being destroyed before they can be employed (ship gets sunk, put out action, breaks down, whatever...). I would look at the mission, figure out how many VLAs, ESSM, SM#, ASCMs and so forth you need, and then ... double it!

I agree. The modern day mission of a BB would be to the the center piece of a strike group (BBSG). most often, it would be there to show the flag within eye shot of the coast and in port. In combat, it would engage as offensive platform performing precision naval gunstrikes and gunfire missions.

Like the SSBN, a BB is (and is best equipped as) an offensive ship. Especially today, I believe it needs to stay that way. Othewise, it's a huge escort ship with armor, and that is not needed. All of the stuff about long range naval gunnery, precision guided 11" rounds, etc has been hammered pretty deeply in this thread, and I would like to engage with you more about it later on, too, especially about the AirSea Battle.

[Busto963]

When I first looked at the Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS) on DDX I was appalled, but on a BB I think it might work very well (perhaps even better with an internal belt). The heavy armor belt should certainly redirect the blast away from the ship's vitals. And PLVS certainly does free up options for weapons placement. I do not think you have to go with MK-57 either: I believe there are some options for installing individual MK41 tubes.

Interesting idea. I don't think there is enough room between the armor belt and the hull to install Mk57 modules. The Mk41 comes in modules of 8 missiles per module, and they cannot fit there, either.

Okay, BAE and Lockheed Martin have come up with the "Single Cell Launcher (SCL)" which lets you mount an individual quad-packed ESSM MK41 cell "anywhere". Apparently the design is intended for smaller combatants (LCS???), but the utility is obvious. I am sure someone will raise the issue of unproven tech, but this seems to be an straight forward adaptation of a proven launcher http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... ochure.pdf

[EJM]

Question:
How much power would be needed for an electromagnetic railgun to operate? Would a battleship need nuclear power?
Although railguns are nice as a future 21st Century weapon system, it doesn't seem to me like they have the same "Wow" or "shock and awe" factor the way the Iowa BB's current 16" guns do. As soon as an enemy sees that big red muzzle blast coming out of the 16" guns, you know he's going to turn tail and run. ;D With a railgun, you get super long range and probably awesome penetration by the round, but what else?

Thoughts?

[Timmy C]

A firey trail of red-hot plasma as the projectile leaves the barrel at Mach 7: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=116259

[Mark McKinnis]

Question:
How much power would be needed for an electromagnetic railgun to operate? Would a battleship need nuclear power?
Although railguns are nice as a future 21st Century weapon system, it doesn't seem to me like they have the same "Wow" or "shock and awe" factor the way the Iowa BB's current 16" guns do. As soon as an enemy sees that big red muzzle blast coming out of the 16" guns, you know he's going to turn tail and run. ;D With a railgun, you get super long range and probably awesome penetration by the round, but what else?

Thoughts?

In moderm warfare, if the bad guys see your muzzle blast in a war at sea scenario, bad things are about to happen to your team!

[navydavesof]

Okay, BAE and Lockheed Martin have come up with the "Single Cell Launcher (SCL)" which lets you mount an individual quad-packed ESSM MK41 cell "anywhere". Apparently the design is intended for smaller combatants (LCS???), but the utility is obvious. I am sure someone will raise the issue of unproven tech, but this seems to be an straight forward adaptation of a proven launcher...

Well that is very interesting! That does indeed make the Mk41 fit into tight places. It seems to use much of the same technique as the Mk48 Sea Sparrow launcher but with the benefits of the Mk41 system. Neat!

How much power would be needed for an electromagnetic railgun to operate? Would a battleship need nuclear power?

I am a huge fan of the Iowa-class battleships, but to operate rail guns, especially as a main battery, a new ship needs to be built. The Iowas are great for using the 16" guns that are on them, and they can really benefit from modern technology, but not rail guns.

Would a battleship need nuclear power? No. As Seasick would point out, available gas turbine engines and generators could crank out enough power in a ship with the size and fuel capacity of a battleship.

Although railguns are nice as a future 21st Century weapon system, it doesn't seem to me like they have the same "Wow" or "shock and awe" factor the way the Iowa BB's current 16" guns do.

I think so. They create a significant visual presentation. However, I am willing to bet heat accumulation will be a significant problem for the rail guns. What I bet will wind up happening is that the rail guns' Mach 7 uber-duber fast velocities will become a moot point very early in the weaponization of the rail gun. The g-load on a projectile up to Mack 7 is ridiculous. If you're going to fire at super long ranges (beyond 20 miles) you MUST terminally guided your munitions if you want them to have any kind of accuracy. As a result, you must use guided munitions. Guided munitions are controlled by electronic computers. Now, everything you do must be tailored to the guided munitions. The biggest set of problems is going to be that the guided munitions must survive launch.

The electromagnetic fields generated by the gun to achieve those kinds of speeds are ridiculous and would destroy any electronics in a guided munition.

The G forces involved in a Mack 7 launch are very impressive. The longer your barrel, the lower the G-forces, but that means you need a very long barrel to accommodate that. For instance, in order to achieve 2,600 ft/second, a 16" round with a 66' long barrel generates 5,000 Gs while launching a 5" round through a 22' log barrel generates 15,000 Gs. They're talking about trying to make ship-board rail guns as small as a Mk45 5" gun. With a 22' distance to accelerate to Mack 7, or 7800 ft/sec, the Gs will be magnatudes higher.

So, to achieve Mach 7, or 7813 ft/sec, you're going to be shooting your G forces out of cost effectiveness. I am willing to bet to produce guidance technology that will survive that kind of launch-shock as the projectile exits the muzzle, it will actually be more cost effective to fire a $2.5 million or $3 million TLAM or risk a $135 million JSF to drop a JDAM. Unless you're shooting at something in your visual line, Mach 7 sounds really neat, but it is probably impossible and thus out of the question. Shooting an unguided projectile in a straight line at Mack 7 at an airplane or missile in visual range is another story. That would probably work just fine.

What I bet will happen with the land attack capability (ballistic arc) is that the EM propulsion of the rail gun will probably simply take the place of gun powder for propelling the projectile. A type of shielding will have to be developed that will keep the projectile's guidance package from getting burned out as the EM field is pushing the round down the barrel. The muzzle velocity could probably be increased a bit, but because the G forces impressed on the projectile's guidance package are astronomical, in order to achieve very long ranges, projectiles will still need to be rocket assisted.

With what Mark said:

In moderm warfare, if the bad guys see your muzzle blast in a war at sea scenario, bad things are about to happen to your team!

He is very right. While the location of your ship is probably going to be betrayed by radar, there is the chance that it might not be, expecially if the enemy doesn't have an over the horizon radar capability. The glow of gunblasts from over the horizon tells the enemy where the point their anti-ship missiles. The lower the flash the better

On that note, if the battleships were to be reactivated now, they would use a different gun powder. M31A1E3 (if I remember correctly. It might be M31A3E1) was tested and approved to be used for new lots of 16" gun powder. That propellant carries a far smaller flash than the 16"/45 powder the battleships used in the 1980s and early 1990s. There would still be a flash, but it would be greatly diminished in comparison to pictures. To me, that's an advantage. When you have the advantage, like if the team you see on the ground sees their enemy before the enemy sees them, you don't want the enemy to run away anyway because they see a glow on the horizon. You want them to stay right there so you can hit them before they know anything is wrong.

[navydavesof]

Here is a light drawing of the VLS installation for the Iowa-class BBs. The original 96-cell WIP involved a lot of work to both the amidships and aft amidships. Answering the mission requirements of a modern battleship, 96-cells is not enough. The minimum should be 128 and should possibly push to the maximum of 160.

I checked recently with my friends at NAVSEA, and there are still more than a dozen Mk45 Mod2 guns from the Spruance and Ticonderoga-class in storage. If they are indeed in storage, I would pull these and have them retrofitted to the Mod4 and have armored shields built for them in the Mod4 RCS shape.

Construction will begin shortly with a 1/350 Tamiya USS New Jersey augmented with a Pontos USS Iowa detail kit.

navydavesof

Any suggestions?

[GTDEATH13]

Raise the aft VLS a deck in order to clear the uptakes. Add new type rangefinders for the 5" guns. Or remove them completely and add a fire control radar fore and another one aft.

[Cliffy B]

If I'm remembering correctly those VLS cells are NOT centerline but directly port and starboard, IE 4 separate installations so no need for raising to prevent interference.

[EJM]

If I'm remembering correctly those VLS cells are NOT centerline but directly port and starboard, IE 4 separate installations so no need for raising to prevent interference.

Correct. I found these two images on the Net.

[zadmiral]

As much as I love the BBs there is a reality here that cant be overlooked.
Torpedoes don't hit the sides of a ship anymore. They explode under the keel. And are MUCH more powerful than even the long lance from WW2. No torpedo defense system can stop a torpedo.
ONE torpedo under an Iowa class keel would likely sink the ship.
NIXIE is useless.
And you cant protect a BB/CV sized target no matter how you surround it with escorts.
Keep the BBs as museams.

In fact...Im surprised a terrorist group hasn't bought a sub from somebody and wiped out a supercarrier.
I know how USN ASW works and they couldn't stop it...We would sink the sub...but it would sink the carrier/BB.
Hope I didn't give the Tallyban/Al Qaeda morons any ideas.
Z

[navydavesof]

And are MUCH more powerful than even the long lance from WW2. No torpedo defense system can stop a torpedo.

What makes you say that?

ONE torpedo under an Iowa class keel would likely sink the ship.
NIXIE is useless.

What makes you say that? NAVSEA evaluated in the mid 1980s that in order to seriously damage an Iowa's TDS, 6 Mk48 ADCAPs would have to simultaneously detonate in the side OR under the keel. This is because the keel TDS (triple armored bottom and triple keel) was designed to abosorb the detonation of Japanese 12,000lb harbor laying mines. Modern explosives are not all that more energetic than those of WWII torpedoes, much less over 12 times as energetic as a 12,000lb mine. So, why do you think a single torpedo would be a death blow?

And you cant protect a BB/CV sized target no matter how you surround it with escorts.

I certainly disagree. I am very well versed in modern ASW, and while things are more risky now than they were 20 years ago, our ASW kids, especially when they get trained on a T-AGOS, are pretty good.

I know how USN ASW works and they couldn't stop it...We would sink the sub...but it would sink the carrier/BB.
Hope I didn't give the Tallyban/Al Qaeda morons any ideas.

What kind of supporting data or experience do you have? you're trying to paint an apocalyptic scenario where no surface ship can ever go anywhere any time because a submarine is going to sink it no matter what. That is not very believable. Can you support your claims?

[navydavesof]

Keep the BBs as museams.

Also, do you have the first idea of what a modernized Iowa-class battleship brings to the fight?

[zadmiral]

well 13 years ASW experience in the USN. FTAS experience. and a brother in subs. 9 years.
Lotsa hands on at sea doing ASW with Lamps and FFs
Your info on the Iowas bottom protection is erroneous. Or Made up.
The side protection and triple bottom system was designed to withstand a 700lb charge of TNT, In addition, a below the keel explosion will vent the entire explosion into the ship easily rupturing the thin plating there(it is NOT armored). In addition, the 3rd torpedo bulkhead is to rigid, and tests showed with a 660lb warhead that it would not deform properly. This defect was corrected in BB-65,BB-66 designs.
Submarines can easily get off a salvo of torpedoes before they are detected and processed, especially if they approach the target with the outer doors already open and flooded down.
The ships are VERY well protected against shells and bombs however.
By the way...the Tirpitz was destroyed by a 12000lb Tallboy. It essentially disintegrated 1/3 of the ships
beam in way of the explosion. The ship sank in 5 minutes.

References
Friedmans US Battleships..and Summeralls Iowa class Battleships.
Z

[navydavesof]

well 13 years ASW experience in the USN. FTAS experience. and a brother in subs. 9 years.
Lotsa hands on at sea doing ASW with Lamps and FFs...

Awesome. I would love to be able to pick your brain over a beer some day to see how modern ASW and ASW of your time.

Of course, like I have said many, many times, I am not saying the battleships were invulnerable to damage. However, they were the most well protected against bombs, modern missiles, mines, and torpedo strikes of any modern warship design. The Iowa-class TDS was a very effective one, and even the Nimitz-class CVNs employ a very similar TDS to the Iowas.

It is worth noting that by 1986, only the Midway-class had a superior TDS. That was because the Midways originally had a beam of 113', were rebeamed to 121' in 1956, and wound up with another blister pushing them out to 141' in 1986. That was all on top of an interior existing TDS. WOW!

With this in mind, I must disagree with you about the points you made concerning the Iowa-class battleships TDS and under hull armor scheme.

Your info on the Iowas bottom protection is erroneous. Or Made up...References
Friedmans US Battleships..and Summeralls Iowa class Battleships.

I would reference the same sources, several articles published, and the LBNSY drawings below. I would suggest you take another look at Summerall's book also. I don't have it immediately to directly quote from, but if I recall correctly, Summerall stated it would take 4-6 Mk48 torpedoes detonating along the entire length of the ship's side to place the ship in danger. "Placing the ship in danger" was then described as putting the deck at the water line. The detonations needed to be simultaneous to prevent effective counter flooding and other damage control efforts. If you can counter quote from the book, please do, because as I said, I don't have them immediately at my disposal. It's still in my household goods.

Also, The Iowa Class Battleships by Malcolm Muir that described the 12,000 lb bottom sitting mine the keel protection scheme was designed to counter (also in my house hold goods).

The side protection and triple bottom system was designed to withstand a 700lb charge of TNT,

While this is true, the North Carolina was designed to the same tune, and while damage was still done (the strike was at the most vulnerable part of the ship) the effects of the 980lb Long Lance warhead were greatly diminished, and the ship was quickly repaired. In other words, the protection scheme nearly defeated not just a 660 or 700lb warhead, but a 980lb warhead. Since the ship was able to accelerate and continue the fight, one could argue the TDS did defeat the 980lb warhead. This protection scheme is rated very similarly to that of the Iowas.

Your info on the Iowas bottom protection is erroneous. Or Made up...In addition, a below the keel explosion will vent the entire explosion into the ship easily rupturing the thin plating there(it is NOT armored).

Erroneous or made up, huh? Fighting words! I think you would be interested to know that indeed it is armored.

The exterior shell is 45# (1 1/8") MSS *medium ship building steel), the inner bottom is 60# (1.5") STS (specially treated steel), and the interior bottom is 1.5" thick Class-B armor. This results in 4 1/8" of steel between the exterior of the ship and the people/machinery tank on the bottom of the ship. Three of those inches is specifically designated as "armor".

A common diagram found on the internet:

LBNSY Ship's Builder's Drawings:

So, as you can see, it's not just plate steel to keep water out of the inside of the ship. It's armor and pretty good armor at that.

In addition, the 3rd torpedo bulkhead is to rigid, and tests showed with a 660lb warhead that it would not deform properly. This defect was corrected in BB-65,BB-66 designs.

While this was something that as going to be changed, it was not a severe vulnerability. It was a concern of the Class A armor sheering away from the Class B and STS armored bottoms. I cannot directly quote at the moment, but there are stories that heavy amounts of HY-80 were added to the interface of the armor belt and the armored bottom to mitigate this during the 1980s reactivations.

Commander Strafford Morss wrote an article in 1984 evaluating modern weapons effectiveness on the Iowas. Here is the meat of the torpedo portion:

• " The following evaluations are estimates of the damage to be expected by an Iowa class ship. The shock wave from an underbottom proximity explosion assumed to be at least 1000 pound TNT will be absorbed partially by the triple bottom structure. Forward in the area of Turrets 1 and 2, storerooms below the powder magazine could be flooded and flooding of the magazines less likely. Detonation of the powder magazines would be unlikely...
  
  ...Farther aft the two skegs supporting the inboard shafts should help resist underbody damage however the outboard shafts remain vulnerable. The ship has a full void under the ram room three to six feet deep and has better protection than did Bismarck. Some directional control is possible with propellers alone. However the rudders are the most difficult area to protect in any ship...
  
  ...A contact side explosion is expected to result in damage similar to that recieved by North Carolina."[/u]

(remember that was at the most vulnerable part of the ship as well)

• In no case should a single hit be fatal to the ship, but each subsequent hit will increase disruption and reduction in capability making it more difficult for the ship to continue."

I am paraphrasing, but in a conversation I had with CAPT Richard White, a commander at the time, who was heavily involved with the 16" ER program, he told me:

• "I read a damage assessment report when we were working on the 16" sabot program saying that multiple 48 ADCAPs detonating directly under the ship would not breach the armored box and seriously damage the interior of the ship."

This means none of the bubble would vent into the ship, much less all of it.

Submarines can easily get off a salvo of torpedoes before they are detected and processed, especially if they approach the target with the outer doors already open and flooded down.

Well, of course...but what does this have to do with the survivability of a battleship? That's just credit toward the statement "there are two kinds of ships: submarines and targets".

By the way...the Tirpitz was destroyed by a 12000lb Tallboy...

According to Tirpitz: The Life and Death of Germany's Last Super Battleship, it took 3 direct hits from tallboys, and there were several near misses that crushed the ship's TDS. I am not saying that an Iowa could take that, but the Tirpitz was always credited as having comparatively weak deck protection but very, very good side protection. As you alluded to, US battleships on the other hand, put a lot of emphasis on deck protection.

So, I hope the additional information helps. Like I said, the Iowas were not invulnerable, but they were/are very, very, very good. Also, ASW is what the escorts are for. Escort ships are called "escort" ships for a reason; they escort around the really heavy hitters. Hopefully the STGs would be on their game escorting either a CVN or BB, because you and I both know that a submarine is the most dangerous threat out there.

I hoped that help!

[Sauragnmon]

Having spoken to a RCN ASW Operator, he told me a few things about that incident actually, in one of the numerous sessions I spent picking his brain and asking questions. His training and service time is Very recent, including serving on our Upholders, and on our Aurora Sub Chasers over Afghanistan (Apparently, the listening gear is good enough they can hear the cave networks).

First - it's not the first time the Chinese have done it, it appears they like to prank the Americans.

Second - it's actually very highly unlikely that the Song class made it in unnoticed. At the very least, the Subs in the group heard it coming. The USN's got a few interesting developments in sonar with regards to their Hunter Killers, and either the ASW guys were sleeping on the job, or they heard it coming and just didn't say anything. Between the noise of the hull itself in the water, engine sounds, or even the effect that the quietest of submarines generates, the ASW guys on the HK Subs knew it was there the whole time if they were even halfway worth their paycheck.

[navydavesof]

Hey, David!

navydavesof, explain how a chinese sub popped to the surface in the middle of an american carrier task force without the usn knowing it was there til it popped to the surface?

Funny you should ask. I asked the very same question.

I just spent 4 months on one of the Navy's most effective passive/active platforms and worked hand in hand with their ASW team. The most honest answer I can give you is that it was either a failure in the tech, training, awareness, or even quietness of the the SS/SSK was actually too quiet to be heard by the CG/DDG force on hand.

ASW is tricky. like anything, complacency sets in quickly. STGs, like anyone get to be a little self sure...until you bring up cases like the one you noted. Then they hemhaw and crawfish and say, oh we knew it was there ...uh, yeah! We probably saw it.

...yeah, right...

On a good note, they have tightened themselves up in recent years. Will it be enough when a torpedo winds up in the water? We will see...

The Navy is suffering some serious complacency right now, what I call the Neptune's Inferno syndrome, and with upcoming budget cuts, it is only going to get worse.

[zadmiral]

Ok well my computer was down, so now I can answer some of these.
First...Hits on the side of a ship are far different than hits under the keel.
Under the keel hits are completely vented into the ship...as is the Entire force of the explosion. A broken keel is usually the result.
The 1.5 inch sts steel on the Iowas triple bottoms would be easily blasted through. No underbottom system could be feasibly built to protect the ship.
While sts means Special Treatment Steel...it really isnt thick enough to be viable "armor" In addition the "depth" of the underbottom system is insufficient and does not allow for the expansion of the explosion gasses, which get vented into the ship.

Tirpitz,,,although struck by 3 12000lb bombs was really only "sunk" by one of them. The other hits and near misses did not cause fatal damage..

During de-briefing after ASW excercises. Allied "enemy" submarines routinely snuck in and "killed" the CV before they could be processed.
And at the dinner table, My Bro said anytime they wanted they could sneak in and at times stayed right under the CV for days without detection.