The Ship Model Forum

I think you're right. Oh, well, it's a project for down the road. I hope to get to it later this year. I am currently doing the LCS-1 Flight II. :big_grin:

Hate to say it but you might have to buy another kit(sucks but I've done it). Otherwise I would contact Stevens International since I believe they are the distributer for Trumpy kits.

I am back on Guam. Getting my projects in order, I took an inventory of my USS North Carolina kit, and I found that I am missing the trees for the main battery. I have everything else, but I don't have the 16" guns. Can anyone help me out with this, either with contacting Trumpeter to get the trees or to get a set of the old YMW South Dakota/north Carolina turret replacement kit.

Anyone, please let me know. I would really appreciate anything you have. I will be building the 1990 USS North Carolina this year. Of course I would like to have main battery turrets to go with it. : D

Thanks so much, guys!!!

navydavesof

- posted this in the wrong thread. Silly me.

Back from deployment! Back onto this project soon. A couple of other projects will proceed first BB61, LCS-1Flight II, etc. Stay tuned, because the progress will progress! Any further questions or questions are welcome!

Also, as a second thing, what armament additions would YOU add to the LCS+25' design? What kind of extra missions would you think about, and how would you employ them?

Thanks, guys!!!

[quote="Cliffy B"]Build a new ship :big_grin:

In all seriousness though, what was her material condition at that time? I still find it hard to believe a ship that's been a museum IE NOT mothballed, since the 1960's would still be viable and worth the effort the bring back. Please explain as much as you can/you're allowed.[/quote]The JJMA scheme for [i]North Carolina [/i]was drawn up as [i]Wisconsin [/i]was being pulled in 1987 and was for a 1990-1991 commissioning.

There were lots of "phases" of the battleship program that effected everything from their reactivation schedule and which ships were to be reactivated to their weapons load outs and sensor packages. For instance, the Iowas were originally planned to receive 16 Tomahawks and 8 Harpoons. However, they wound up getting twice that!

In one of these earlier phases of the battleship reactivation program, [i]Missouri [/i]was excluded from the reactivation list so she could be preserved as a museum, and [i]North Carolina [/i]was in her place. He also said that when they had removed all of the spare parts from [i]North Carolina[/i], she had refloated, and most of her equipment was in [u][i]very [/i][/u]good condition. As you can tell, the original [i]North Carolina [/i]plan did not last very long. My contact said that one of the biggest reasons is because it would have been pretty difficult to squeeze the Iowa-class weapons payload modernization on [i]NC[/i].

I asked a retired JJMA engineer I talk with about this, and he described the [i]North Carolina [/i]modernization scheme a little better. He said that after JJMA had done work on the Des Moines-class Modernization scheme, NAVSEA had issued a directive to make configuration plans to modernize the [i]North Carolina [/i] with the same weapons payload as the Iowa-class battleships following [i]Wisconsin[/i]'s modernization. He said that they could have only achieved the same payload by using the Mk41 VLS. The aft two 5" upper handling rooms would have been replaced with 16 VLS cells a piece providing the full 32 tomahawk missile compliment. However, JJMA had also just finished the Warfighting Improvement Program modernization for all 4 Iowas (which they wanted to do on Wisconsin right off the bat), and they expanded the VLS from 32-cells to 96-cells. They also incorporated 4 CIWS and 2 NATO Sea Sparrow missile launchers.

So, after weighing the complications caused by the overpressure from the 16" guns, the existing structure, accommodating the entire Iowa-class modernizations scheme plus the WIP conversion, I think I may have come up with a pretty solid arrangement. It would cut four of the 5"/38caliber mounts and need to build a new couple of masts and some new super structure to accommodate the VLS and the Sea Sparrow launchers. The full WIP would be feasible, and the Sea Sparrow launches could be accommodated without deleting even more 5" guns. If I jump into this project this year, I will describe and illustrate it. :big_grin:

Build a new ship :big_grin:

In all seriousness though, what was her material condition at that time? I still find it hard to believe a ship that's been a museum IE NOT mothballed, since the 1960's would still be viable and worth the effort the bring back. Please explain as much as you can/you're allowed.

After talking to a couple of JJMA and LongBeach engineers, what I have been able to get is that there was indeed a modernization scheme generated by JMA

1990s USS North Carolina reflecting the modifications JJMA and LBNSY were drawing up to modernize her after the modernization of the four Iowas. She would have been modernized right out of the gate with the WIP package for the Iowas for a 5 modern battleship force.

If one were to make a model of this, what scale and what pieces would you choose?

I think maybe the following would be good:
Trumpeter 1/350 North Carolina
[list]Veteran Models:
Phalanx
Harpoons
ECM and SRBOC
Boats
SH-60 Seahawks[/list]

So, the challenge is to fit 96 Mk41 VLS tubes, 16 Harpoons, 4 CIWS, ECM and SRBOC, 1990s boats, a helo deck, etc onto the WWII fit North Carolina.

How would you suggest this be done?

There are a couple of things that make me chose [i]North Carolina[/i] over [i]Massachussettes[/i]. Because [i]NC[/i] is longer and has more above deck structure to carry more offensive modern weaponry. These ships are not to directly take the place of a carrier. The upcoming budge only allow 9 CVNs in the entire fleet. However, we could modernize and operate 4-5 BBs for the cost of [u][i][b]one[/b][/i][/u] (a [u][i]single[/i][/u]) new CVN. This would enable the USN to operate the offensive fire power and capital ship strength of a 9 CVN force, and at the 1 additonal CVN we could operate 5 BBs.

With this in mind, the 5th BB would cost significantly more than the 4 Iowas to reactivate and modernize. The Iowas had a lot of work done to the in the 1980s. The 5th BB would have to receive a lot of those modifications and recieve the new stuff. The 5th BB would cost a LOT more, but she would very, very, very much be worth it.

I chose [i]North Caolina[/i], because she is long enough to embark the largest number of secondary battery and VLS missile tubes. [i]Masachussettes[/i] would not be able to embark as much. [i]North Carolina[/i] would also benefit the most from a modernization. I would remove the corroded outer hull plating and replace it with new, welded hull. I would retain the paravane bow bulge incase it was needed :heh:

Her super structure could accommodate 4 VLS locations. Between the forward fire control tower and stack 1 would be 2 x 32-cell VLS arrangements in a 2 x 2 module arrangement. Spanning between the number 2 stack and the aft fire control tower would be 2 x 32-cell VLS arrangements in a 1 x 4 module arrangement an either side of the centerline. This missile arrangement would accommodate 128 VLS cells and EIGHT 155mm guns or 160 VLS cells and FOUR 155mm guns.

Attached to the aft 155mm gun mounts would be hangers (port and star board) would be able to accommodate 2 Fire Scout UAVs. A RAST type system could take the fire scouts out to the stern for launch or recovery. O ther UAVs could be launched from crew-served weapons mounts.

In total, SIX 155mm guns and 128 or 160 Mk41 VLS tubes could be utilized aboard [i]North Carolina[/i] with 4+UAVs to really influence the mission capability of the ship.

While I LOVE the concept, the reality is the USS Massachusetts would be a better choice for an "emergency" 5th BB. At least she's been drydocked recently, the USS NC hasn't moved since the '60s and it thoroughly stuck in the sand/mud/silt of the Cape Fear River. This is evidenced by her barnacle line sitting 3 feet or so above the mud at low tide! Plus, the Massachusetts is a "newer" ship with less time in commission.

I have been to both the Massachusetts and the North Carolina multiple times, I have not been to the Alabama- so I wonder about her current status...

Its hard with a deck plan but, if you're going to keep the turret, then loose everything between the aft stack and the turret, except the director tower. Then wrap the hangar around the tower from the stack to the back of the turret, leaving enough room (more than there is now, for the turret to rotate.
Height would be up to where the 02 deck is now, or a little higher. Doors facing aft, port and stbd.

The main deck is a bit narrow as you get toward the stern, so I'd widen it to the beam of the ship at the aft bulkhead of the hanger all the way to the stern. Fair the overhang to the hull from the flight deck edge to a little above the boot topping. Sort of a "hurricane stern" of sorts.

Top of hangar useful for antennas and lighter weapons.

Are the turret optical rangefinders really of continued use, given their 15 line of sight limitation? Could their weight be used elsewhere?

[quote="Russ2146"]I don't think there is landing space for a helicopter unless you eliminate turret #3 or maybe broaden the fantail with sponsons port and stbd. That would also permit a main deck hangar and loosing the aft director tower. http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/015505.jpg[/quote]Thanks for the input!!!

There is still plenty of space for a helo landing platform aft of Turret 3!!! The hanger (if any) is for you to decide! I already have my concept in mind. How would yours work? :big_grin:

I don't think there is landing space for a helicopter unless you eliminate turret #3 or maybe broaden the fantail with sponsons port and stbd. That would also permit a main deck hangar and loosing the aft director tower. http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/015505.jpg

No main battery turrets in the Trumpeter kit I have!!! DAMN IT!!!