The Ship Model Forum

While I am a huge fan of the 155mm version of the Mk71 for its 75 round ready-service loader, the 155mm Mk45 would benefit from nearly 50 years of 5" operation and lessons learned.

The Mk45 would also enable you to employ the entire US Army and USMC family of 155mm munitions. Throwing 155mm Excaliber RAP rounds from a 62 caliber barrel with a full charge would really, really reach out and touch someone with GPS/laser guidance.

As you can image I have my own configuration

I have the Mk38 Mod2 and Mk45s operate as the close-in ASuW weapons. Point Defense is taken care of by 21-cell RAM launchers and Phalanx Block 1b CIWS.

I can easily agree with that, sounds very similar to my Option three, so clearly the logic is obvious to both of us.

the only real difference seems to be the 76mm.

Of course, the foward and aft Mk37 FC are excellent mounting point for RAM, so a potential conflict on who gets that spot between RAM and the 76mm.

By all means, keep the 16" rifles. As the Bonds' old game keeper says in the movie "Skyfall", as he lays a knife on the table "sometimes the old ways are best". IMHO.

Bob M.

I can understand this. I subscribe to the 76mm idea for my modern CG.

However, my version has 2 RAM and 4 Phalanx Block 1B CIWS with ESSM in 8 of the 128 VLS tubes.

Inspired by an Italian Animoso type layout - replace mount 51 and 52 and the third takes the position of the aft Mk37 FC.

Yes, all 16" guns should be kept. There are 2 things that make the battleships useful: 16" guns and super heavy armor.

If you want to go 155mm, I suggest you use the 155mm version of either the Mk71 or the Mk45. Both were developed on paper and just need to be built and tested at Dahlgren and then embarked aboard a ship for proofing. Neither of those weapons would be able to fire the LRLAP, but that's fine. The Excalibur Increment 1b RAP fired from a 60-62 caliber gun barrel would have a pretty extensive range. It would be fair to suggest it may achieve 50-60nm without having to be the over-done LRLAP. The AGS(L) is unnecessary.

..

Curious about the layout of the 76mm guns... please describe.

GAB

There was series of novels by Peter Albano about the adventures of a seventh carrier that didn't make it to the Pearl harbor attack in 41'. In the second book used some sort of Chinese space-based EMP weapon made jet engines (and I believe that included the gas turbines in ships and rocket motors) inoperable forcing us to revert to radial engines and guns.

I would try and retain all 16" rifles.

The second option might be to remove the aft mount from each ship to use those 4 turrets for a training and maintenance pool (one as an ashore trainer, one for development and testing, two always in some state of rebuild/upgrade to be returned on a rotational basis to the ships).

That space opened up aft would look nice with an LHD/A like deck and hangar on it....after all, this platform would be close in to the potential target.

Also - agree with removal of all legacy 5"/38. Would the addition of two or three AGS-L systems to each side enhance the NGFS capability of the ship?

I would add RAM and 76mm/62s for close in defense against smaller vessels/swarms.


So:

Option 1: Simple and focused: Keep all three 16" Turrets, remove all 5"/38, add RAM and 30mm for close in anti-boat work.

Option 2: All-in Bombardment: Keep all three 16" turrets, remove all 5"38, add three AGS-L per side in their place low, add three 76mm/62 for 360 degree coverage and add RAM

Option 3: Surface action + NGFS: all three 16" turrets, remove all 5"/38, add VLS for ESSM, Strike, and Anti-Ship missiles, add three 76mm/62 for 360 degree coverage, add RAM

Option 4: Littoral Assault Ship: Remove aft 16" turret, add hangar and flight deck aft, remove all 5"/38, add RAM and (fewer than above) VLS for ESSM/Strike/Anti-Ship 30mm for close in swarm defense. With an aviation complement heavy in attack helos combined with UAVs for area surveillance, this could do a fair littoral control job.



Never a dull moment when it comes to options on this platform, especially when we need not be bounded by economic reality here in the Whif forum...



(Edit to add: of course, with Excalibur N5 or Vulcano rounds, the AGS-L could instead just be Mk 45 5"/62 - easier and cheaper, but range and delivery not as much)

The 5" 38 is out of service - a great weapon for its day, but not worth the logistics (new ammunition), training, or manpower.

A modern 5" mount is doable, but seems hardly worth the effort.

A BB should have escorts with 5" guns.

GAB

Keep all of the 16" rifles; and eliminate the secondary armament (5" turrets).

The 5" guns are not worth the manning, but the 16" guns are certainly worth crewing. Manpower is relative; a tube USMC or USA artillery battalion requires far more troops for much less effect.

Consider VLS, and RAM/SeaRAM.

GAB

What ever

I am no mechanical engineer but just maybe there would be less recoil forces and structural stress to deal with upon the ship overall by switching to smaller caliber rifles/guns. With that switch, there would be no need for a saboted projectile and no excess things spewing forth from the muzzle during firing that could damage friendly vessels nearby if they are within the falling arc of the sabot sections.

What about swapping out the 16.0"/406mm weapons for something slightly smaller? Artillery systems have improved quite a bit since the Iowa class first put to sea and it might be more practical and economical to field a main battery of 12.0"/305mm gun from the Alaska class Battle Cruisers? Or perhaps something more recent such as the 11.02"/280mm gun that was known as the M65 280mm Heavy Motorized Gun? The big bang/big gun is still there just a bit smaller in diameter which might provide a slight improvement in rate of fire.

Late in their service life the 16" rifles were exceptionally deadly weapons.

I'd say keep the main battery...in reality that's their big advantage. Imagine the impact 9 11" sub-caliber, hardened AP rounds with guidance would have? Sure it wouldn't have the brute strength of a 2,700lb SuperHeavy slamming into you, but there's still a ton of kinetic energy that those 650lb death slugs will hit home with..and with an easy 70 mile range at that.

These events would have to occur in a future when smart weapons don't work anymore....like maybe some rogue nation develops a new technology that defeats all electronically-guided bombs, cruise missiles, and even sonar. It's a Tom Clancy novel in the making. Something very bad has happened, and as far as weapons go, we're back to the early 20th century. The United States needs to defend itself, and even the nukes are useless because they can't be guided or detonated. What do we turn to?? The Battleships.

While I don't think the Texas would be changing its visiting hours, the other 7 would probably find themselves in the nearest shipyard, being prepared for sea duty once again.

So, without a second thought...you'd keep all 3 turrets!

If you were in charge of modernising the IOWA class BB's during the 1980's, or.........just for the hell of it, let's say for various reasons 1-2 of them were brought back into service now, Would you:
a) Keep all three 16" gun turrets?
b) Remove all three 16" gun turrets and replace with other weapon systems?
c) 50/50. Remove 1-2 16" gun turrets, but keep some others?

Which main gun turrets would you keep and/or remove? For those that you removed, what weapon systems would you replace them with?
Over the years, I've often heard from people who say to remove 1-2 turrets and put VLS missile systems in their place. Whether that is practical and effective, I don't know.