No Iowas

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
seasick	No Iowas	Lead	[-]
Posts: 4393 (10-Feb-2008 00:29:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Instead of the Iowas, other ships are pressed into service to take Tomahawks to sea: 1. USS Long Beach has the entire Talos magazine removed and room is made for 4 ABL on the stern. 2. USS Albany and USS Chicago are given refits to stay in service until the 1987-1989 time frame. The Talos launchers and magazines are removed along with the SPG-49 radars. 4 ABL forward and aft. The Mk11 launchers are replaced with Mk13 mod5 currently in production for the Perry class. The SPS-43 is replaced by the SPS-49 version in production for the Perry class. An again a modified version of the Mk92 fire control system and STIR is fitted. The egg lands on the roof of the bridge where the SPS-39 used to be. One STIR radar is fitted for each Mk13 launcher. The ASROC is landed and Harpoon fitted in its place. The 5inch/38 open mounts are each replaced with a 20mm Phalanx. 3. Finally one Newport LST is converted to deploy with 8 ABL. Visit Smart Ship Development Lab on the Naval Fiction Board, new episodes weekly.
Dave AAA		#1	[-]
Posts: 5378 (10-Feb-2008 01:28:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The Iowas were low mileage, and the sixteen inch and five inch guns were, at least potentially, useful for NGFS. It mean that we're bothered by fanboys today (if we want to engage them at all), but back then, it was a reasonable idea.
xht1sw		#2	[-]
Posts: 33 (10-Feb-2008 08:19:46) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Instead of installing the ABLs, how about refitting the Mk 12 launchers to handle Tomahawk instead of Talos? Both missiles are of somewhat similar size.
Dave Bender	Alaska and Des Moines class	#3	[-]
Posts: 6110 (10-Feb-2008 16:45:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	If the Iowa class BBs are not created and/or maintained in the mothball fleet then I think the 33 kt U.S.S. Alaska and U.S.S. Guam would be retained in mothballs. Two Des Moines class cruisers (Des Moines and Salem) were also sitting in mothballs during the early 1980s. Rebuild the stern section, replacing the rear turret with Tomahawk missile launchers.
James1978	RE: Des Moines Class	#4	[-]
Posts: 584 (10-Feb-2008 18:55:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Dave Bender wrote: Two Des Moines class cruisers (Des Moines and Salem) were also sitting in mothballs during the early 1980s. Rebuild the stern section, replacing the rear turret with Tomahawk missile launchers. They actually took a pretty detailed look at them in the early 1980s as part of the 600 Ship Fleet. They could have carried the same number of Tomahawks and Harpoons as the Iowas, but would have been cramped and had less room for growth. There is a good article in the May 1984 Naval Engineers Journal that details the ship checks on both Des Moines and the Iowas and has illustrations on how Des Moines would have looked post modernization. You can find the article here, Des Moines info starts on pg.11 of the file.
Dave Bender	Des Moines Modernization	#5	[-]
Posts: 6112 (11-Feb-2008 00:12:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Nice! You retain 6 x 8"/55 RF guns forward for short range work and add Tomahawk missiles aft for long range missions. If the Alaska class were still in mothballs I assume the conversion would be similiar, except they would have a bit more room aft to play with.
xht1sw		#6	[-]
Posts: 34 (11-Feb-2008 07:22:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	If the Alaskas were still around, would any of the main turrets need to be pulled out? They were fairly large ships, almost as large as an Iowa, and might have made a good Tomahawk conversion while keeping all of her 12" battery. Check out the schematics at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cb-1-schem.htm.
Dave Bender	Would any of the main turrets need to be pulled out?	#7	[-]
Posts: 6114 (11-Feb-2008 16:33:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Maybe not. However guns larger then 8" are not terribly useful for shore bombardment. I'm surprised they didn't remove the rear turret from the Iowa class just to free up a bunch of space.
g lof2		#8	[-]
Posts: 206 (11-Feb-2008 22:20:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"Maybe not. However guns larger then 8" are not terribly useful for shore bombardment. I'm surprised they didn't remove the rear turret from the Iowa class just to free up a bunch of space." Removeal of the 2000 ton turret from the Iowas would cause unknown problems with ship stablity, in fact I worked with a couple of others student during that time to design a replacement for the turret. (We we a bunch of crazed Juniors that what to get published). We came up with an 'casement' that would hold 122 VLS missiles and a hanger for 4 SH-60s. The problem was it raise the CG and had no firecontrol for Standards.
Dave Bender	Unknown problems with ship stablity	#9	[-]
Posts: 6117 (12-Feb-2008 00:14:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Removing 2,000 tons of deck mounted weight should improve ship stability. However you will need to fix ship trim, to keep the stern from riding too high. You may need to add additional trim tanks in the ship stern if the new Tomahawks and associated equipment weigh less then the turret. The Des Moines cruiser proposal got around this by installing a relatively heavy generator in the barbette space.
Obi Wan Russell		#10	[-]
Posts: 124 (17-Feb-2008 10:41:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The bulk of the weight of a 2000ton turret isn't on deck, but below deck in the barbette extending almost all the way down to the keel, as well as the magazines and handling rooms. Removing the aft turret will make the ship bow heavy and unbalanced, so any equipment/armament you replace the turret with will have to include a significant below decks component. If the turret is removed, you would have to give consideration to retaining the barbette's armour below decks simply for it's weight, and using the existing space for VLS tubes for example.
Gunnersmate04	HAWAII	#11	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 59 (19-Feb-2008 18:36:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Using HAWAII would have negated the need to remove any turrets, as she was only completed main deck down. What a waste. GUNNER
Dave Bender	Hawaii only completed main deck down.	#12	[-]
Posts: 6185 (20-Feb-2008 19:35:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Removing a gun turret is easy provided a large crane is available. Cutting out the barbette requires a lot more effort. I suspect that is why all the proposed installations (including Des Moines) kept the aft turret barbette in place.
bbgator	Removal of after turret	#13	[-]
Posts: 295 (12-Mar-2008 22:41:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Removal of the after 16" turret on the IOWAs would require a MAJOR industrial effort. We have a group of the engineers who planned the reactivation of the ships visit IOWA for the planning of the phase II modernization and they told us the only feasible way was to cut the stern off and build a new one. At the time, there was no industrial capacity to remove the barbette in place. bbgator
g lof2		#14	[-]
Posts: 216 (13-Mar-2008 06:33:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	That was only if you wanted that big flight deck 'everybody' said was necessary, It was possibible to do less radical changes by simple lifting the aft turret out and removing parts of the armored rings, it was just that the result of this change was not considered sexy enough.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

No Iowas

No Iowas

Quick Reply