Oh, my. If you're going to make this, please, please use these decks at least for the bow:
JimVarnellABH2USN wrote:But I was also thinking of using the deck opening from turret X, enlarge it to hold CH-53's and VS-22'S. I am trying to plan the layout to be compatable with the airwing, I don't want to make it look unbelieveable, but then agian this is a what if.
I would suggest that if you really want this ship to have these kinds of capabilities, you need to remove Turret 3 and cut the super structure back to the after fire control tower.
Then in that place build a hanger similar to those on the AOEs and T-AKEs large enough to house 4-6 large helos (CH-53s, 46s, or MV-22s) and 2 smaller helos (SH-60s).
Instead of only being two doors wide as we see here, it could be 3 doors wide and 2 helo lengths deep. I think the best could probably be a hanger the length from the after fire control tower to the front of Turret 3. I would also suggest that you build the flight deck on top of the barbette of Turret 3. This will provide a little space between the flight deck and the main deck where you can fun your AFFF plumbing for the flight deck.
I was about the "what if" consept as if the Navy recalled the BAMA, MASS., NC back to active duty in responce to the proposed 500 ship navy.
The 500 Ship Navy is not a proposal. It was a statement from the Navy to Congress that the Navy needs 500 ships in order to answer the combatant commanders' needs. That means, in order for the Navy to fulfill all of its responsibilities, it needs 500 ships. How many does the Navy have? Two-hundred and eighty-two and falling.
I really want to maintain the battleship look in the forward section of the ship with the aft section more like an LPH. If the vision in my head can be put into plastic I think it will be a really awsome site and design, maybe uncle sam might even like it...
Oh, I have been down that road. I presented a fully modernized Iowa-class battleship proposal with the lowest cost to the CNO only to be shot down. (Like fools) They are not interested in battleships, and they won't be interested in battleships until we lose 2 or more CVNs. Only then will they be interested in pulling the battleships again.
I think trying to follow your idea of an LPH combined with the existing BB you may want to consider something with the small size of the South Dakota-class in mind. The SoDaks are very small, like I said before, you may want to consider removing the aft 16" turret and replacing it with a large hanger. The hanger could be large enough to fit 6 CH-53s, 6 CH-46s, or 5 VM-22s. You could replace the 5" battery with VLS and Mk45 Mod 4 guns in places. You may be able to fit 4 Mk45 Mod 4s on each side. This is very important, because the 5" is not an effective weapon unless used in high volumes.
Let me repeat this. There is confusion about this. Some people think the 5" round is effective in 90% of fire support missions. They are wrong. It has been known for over 60 years that the 5" round is NOT effective
unless used in high volumes. With this in mind, I suggest you fit 3-4 Mk45 Mod 4 5"/62 caliber guns on each side. This will enable your ship to accomplish many harassment and cover missions with the 5" gun at ranges as far as 13 nm. These would only be moderately accurate (within 100 yards of the target area) and you can push it as far as 22nm with the ERGM propellant charge throwing the 5" round but reducing accuracy to 600 yards.
The thing that will change this is the BTERM and it�s little brother, a standard 5� round with a GPS precision guided kit attached to its nose.
For as much as the USN uses the 5", it's really inaccurate and under ranges. The Mk71 would be sooooo much better.
My question to you is: How much are you willing to rebuild the ship? What are you looking at as
mission and
service life? Then we can really talk what kind of upgrades and modernizations you would need.
Great concept, and I hope it's a great build!
Oh, my. If you're going to make this, please, please use these decks at least for the bow:
[img]http://artwox.com/files/attach/images/185/323/eba97b6df9e99dbf42c4e4bc5e8ed20d_1.jpg[/img]
[img]http://artwox.com/files/attach/images/185/323/5e9af2a663a19e61d949889829d72552.jpg[/img]
[quote="JimVarnellABH2USN"]But I was also thinking of using the deck opening from turret X, enlarge it to hold CH-53's and VS-22'S. I am trying to plan the layout to be compatable with the airwing, I don't want to make it look unbelieveable, but then agian this is a what if.[/quote]I would suggest that if you really want this ship to have these kinds of capabilities, you need to remove Turret 3 and cut the super structure back to the after fire control tower.
[img]http://modelingmadness.com/review/misc/ships/tmcmassb.jpg[/img]
Then in that place build a hanger similar to those on the AOEs and T-AKEs large enough to house 4-6 large helos (CH-53s, 46s, or MV-22s) and 2 smaller helos (SH-60s).
[attachment=0]TAKE hanger.jpg[/attachment]
Instead of only being two doors wide as we see here, it could be 3 doors wide and 2 helo lengths deep. I think the best could probably be a hanger the length from the after fire control tower to the front of Turret 3. I would also suggest that you build the flight deck on top of the barbette of Turret 3. This will provide a little space between the flight deck and the main deck where you can fun your AFFF plumbing for the flight deck.
[quote]I was about the "what if" consept as if the Navy recalled the BAMA, MASS., NC back to active duty in responce to the proposed 500 ship navy.[/quote]The 500 Ship Navy is not a proposal. It was a statement from the Navy to Congress that the Navy needs 500 ships in order to answer the combatant commanders' needs. That means, in order for the Navy to fulfill all of its responsibilities, it needs 500 ships. How many does the Navy have? Two-hundred and eighty-two and falling.
[quote]I really want to maintain the battleship look in the forward section of the ship with the aft section more like an LPH. If the vision in my head can be put into plastic I think it will be a really awsome site and design, maybe uncle sam might even like it...[/quote]Oh, I have been down that road. I presented a fully modernized Iowa-class battleship proposal with the lowest cost to the CNO only to be shot down. (Like fools) They are not interested in battleships, and they won't be interested in battleships until we lose 2 or more CVNs. Only then will they be interested in pulling the battleships again.
I think trying to follow your idea of an LPH combined with the existing BB you may want to consider something with the small size of the South Dakota-class in mind. The SoDaks are very small, like I said before, you may want to consider removing the aft 16" turret and replacing it with a large hanger. The hanger could be large enough to fit 6 CH-53s, 6 CH-46s, or 5 VM-22s. You could replace the 5" battery with VLS and Mk45 Mod 4 guns in places. You may be able to fit 4 Mk45 Mod 4s on each side. This is very important, because the 5" is not an effective weapon unless used in high volumes.
Let me repeat this. There is confusion about this. Some people think the 5" round is effective in 90% of fire support missions. They are wrong. It has been known for over 60 years that the 5" round is NOT effective [u][i]unless[/i][/u] used in high volumes. With this in mind, I suggest you fit 3-4 Mk45 Mod 4 5"/62 caliber guns on each side. This will enable your ship to accomplish many harassment and cover missions with the 5" gun at ranges as far as 13 nm. These would only be moderately accurate (within 100 yards of the target area) and you can push it as far as 22nm with the ERGM propellant charge throwing the 5" round but reducing accuracy to 600 yards.
The thing that will change this is the BTERM and it�s little brother, a standard 5� round with a GPS precision guided kit attached to its nose.
For as much as the USN uses the 5", it's really inaccurate and under ranges. The Mk71 would be sooooo much better.
My question to you is: How much are you willing to rebuild the ship? What are you looking at as [i]mission [/i]and [i]service life[/i]? Then we can really talk what kind of upgrades and modernizations you would need. :big_grin:
Great concept, and I hope it's a great build! :thumbs_up_1: