The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Jul 11, 2025 5:15 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 554 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 ... 28  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 3:39 pm
Posts: 1019
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England
Definitely waterline...

John


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
Dave,

This is cool!

I generally like full hull models, but the hovering V-22 calls out for for a full on diorama!

Where are the escorts, the MK Vs and little birds? :big_grin:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3127
Busto963 wrote:
Dave,

This is cool!

I generally like full hull models, but the hovering V-22 calls out for for a full on diorama!

Where are the escorts, the MK Vs and little birds? :big_grin:

Thanks so much for the kind words, Busto! While she does not embark ballistic missiles, I think she has a good configuration for the near term future. I don't envision her embarking a mags or little birds either. But, the MV-22 is to represent a VERTREP replacement for the CH-47. In this case, she would be providing one of her escorts with several cages of 5-inch GLS/SAL Excalibur rounds.

I wonder about a duo as well. I picture the small NSFS ship/littoral influence ship we have talked about on one side with another ship on her stbd side refueling. The configuration reflects the ship as I have her in a short story I am writing about a modern conflict between us and China. The missile engagements have been fun to describe!

I would really like to see the Navy go ahead with the CGBL. For those who are not familiar, that would be a new cruiser built to the newer damage requirements and specs of the Burke DDGs at a greater length than a Tico CG. She would embark between 128 and 160 Mk41 VLS tubes and an advanced version of Aegis. I would fit her with 2 Mk-71 MCLWGs fitted for either 155mm or 8-inch guns and the advanced Aegis WDS. That would be a fun ship to be part of the dio.

Another I have considered is a dio of the ship being armed via barge and crane at anchorage in Yokosuka, Japan.

I want to work on the superstructure and the masts and the guns all at once...but I know I need to start on the hull first and then work my way up from there.

Are there any more suggestions for here?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3127
As a matte of fact, I think a Des Moines CA with either 2 or all 3 8-inch turrets with Mk-41 VLS and either the Tartar D or maaaaaaybe the Aegis WDS with the stern helo hangar would provide an excellent centerpiece ship.

However, a modern Large Cruiser based on the successor to the Alaska-class CB (an Alaska with better deck and underwater protection and a stern helo hangar) with 96-128Mk41 VLS and 48 Mk57 VLS would be an excellent modern day capitol ship. I would prefer the non-Aegis version for cost.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 4:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
navydavesof wrote:
Busto963 wrote:
Dave,

This is cool!

I generally like full hull models, but the hovering V-22 calls out for for a full on diorama!

Where are the escorts, the MK Vs and little birds? :big_grin:

Thanks so much for the kind words, Busto! While she does not embark ballistic missiles, I think she has a good configuration for the near term future. I don't envision her embarking a mags or little birds either. But, the MV-22 is to represent a VERTREP replacement for the CH-47. In this case, she would be providing one of her escorts with several cages of 5-inch GLS/SAL Excalibur rounds.

I wonder about a duo as well. I picture the small NSFS ship/littoral influence ship we have talked about on one side with another ship on her stbd side refueling. The configuration reflects the ship as I have her in a short story I am writing about a modern conflict between us and China. The missile engagements have been fun to describe!

I would really like to see the Navy go ahead with the CGBL. For those who are not familiar, that would be a new cruiser built to the newer damage requirements and specs of the Burke DDGs at a greater length than a Tico CG. She would embark between 128 and 160 Mk41 VLS tubes and an advanced version of Aegis. I would fit her with 2 Mk-71 MCLWGs fitted for either 155mm or 8-inch guns and the advanced Aegis WDS. That would be a fun ship to be part of the dio.

Another I have considered is a dio of the ship being armed via barge and crane at anchorage in Yokosuka, Japan.

I want to work on the superstructure and the masts and the guns all at once...but I know I need to start on the hull first and then work my way up from there.

Are there any more suggestions for here?

A rearmament diorama sounds impressive, maybe one of the older 14" battleships loading up for a shore bombardment mission. Certainly would give viewers a sense of the awesome amount of steel to be delivered.

For the model in question, refueling/vertreping a smaller combatant would make a great diorama too.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 2:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:49 am
Posts: 280
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Hi all

Yesterday I opened a thread on a possible re-activation of the Iowa class. That was before I spotted this one. It reads:

"I have been reading up and down the web on the Iowa class last night since I have the plan on re-conditioning my 1985 1/350 Tamiya Missouri but without modernizing...so far so good. I have come across a couple of statements that say that the Navy agreed with the current operators to have two of the ships in semi-operational condition so if need be they could be reactivated. Which two are that? I would guess Iowa and Wisconsin? Now...assumiming the worst and 2015 the USN might need a gun boat to shell the Krim penisula, apart from the reconditioning of the hull and propulsion sytems what other changes would be required? Which electronic equippment would be installed and which additional weapons...I guess the 80ties-90ties suite they have now is out of date...

The new 1/350 Tamiya Missouri 1991 seems a nice kit...and the stuff from Veteran models looks also very nice...so this is a very tempting subject of a future that hopefully will not become reality."

...NOW TODAY I read in the papers (e-papers) that Russia has started fortifying the Krim to an "unsinkable aircraft carrier"...so things are not looking good right now. I would rather like to see the Iowas stay were they are as a historical monument but from a purely technical point of view this thread and the questions asked and issues debated are starting to loose their sience fiction character slowly...

cheers
Uwe


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3127
Uwe,

anj4de wrote:
Hi all

Yesterday I opened a thread on a possible re-activation of the Iowa class. That was before I spotted this one. It reads:

"I have been reading up and down the web on the Iowa class last night since I have the plan on re-conditioning my 1985 1/350 Tamiya Missouri but without modernizing...so far so good. I have come across a couple of statements that say that the Navy agreed with the current operators to have two of the ships in semi-operational condition so if need be they could be reactivated. Which two are that? I would guess Iowa and Wisconsin? Now...assumiming the worst and 2015 the USN might need a gun boat to shell the Krim penisula, apart from the reconditioning of the hull and propulsion sytems what other changes would be required? Which electronic equippment would be installed and which additional weapons...I guess the 80ties-90ties suite they have now is out of date...

The new 1/350 Tamiya Missouri 1991 seems a nice kit...and the stuff from Veteran models looks also very nice...so this is a very tempting subject of a future that hopefully will not become reality."

...NOW TODAY I read in the papers (e-papers) that Russia has started fortifying the Krim to an "unsinkable aircraft carrier"...so things are not looking good right now. I would rather like to see the Iowas stay were they are as a historical monument but from a purely technical point of view this thread and the questions asked and issues debated are starting to loose their sience fiction character slowly...

cheers
Uwe


Interesting post. At this point, reactivation and operation of the BBs to augment our declining CVN force is the best option for the USN. Yearly O&M costs for a single BB are about 1/5 that of a CVN. So, literally, all 4 Iowas could be operated by less than the operational costs and manning of a single CVN. Science fiction? Maybe? Feasible? 100% yes.

Based on nearly 10 years active duty in the USN and years of research, the modifications I have proposed can be illustrated as:

- Modified LHD sensor and electronics suite.
- 96-128 Mk41 VLS tubes (the super structure's missile decks can accommodate up to 160 Mk41 VLS)
- 4 Phalanx CIWS
- 2 RAM
- 6x Mk45 Mod2 upgraded to Mod4 gun mounts.
- 2x Mk160 GFCS
- 9x 16"/50caliber guns
. > 11" and 13" precision guided extended range munitions

I am currently building the model I have described. You can go back a number of pages and see pictures of it. I will be getting back to it shortly and begin posting pictures again. I have the Pontos wood decks, and they are NICE!!!

Stay tuned for more. PM me if you would like to know hard core specifics.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 3:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:30 pm
Posts: 346
Unfortunately no matter how many times you repeat the facts you'll always get the same tired responses against re-activation, even when those same arguments can also be used against the carriers. Some people just don't understand or get it in their heads that if your Navy has 10 carriers it doesn't mean that you have 10 carriers available to deploy. They can't be every where that we need power projection, and clearly there are many places where a carrier battle group is overkill and a waste of resources. I especially love the tired argument against the limited range of the 16 inch guns completely ignoring the fact that they are also cruise and anti-ship missile carriers. I have often seen responses on discussion forums criticizing that the Iowa class BB's are too slow! :Mad_6: But the fact is that it will never happen, the economy sucks, our CinC is dismantling our military now that the world is finally "safe" :roll_eyes:, and the Navy is in love with new tech that doesn't work. Meanwhile the Air Force continues to fly 60+ year old B-52's and the Low tech A-10.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 4:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:49 am
Posts: 280
Location: Bavaria, Germany
:smallsmile: ..."now that the world is finally "safe"...Those are daring words that your CIC uses here! Tell that to the folks in the Ukraine who had just taken a large part of their country away by an aggressor that no one will dare to approach other then with words...
One aspect that speaks for a poosible re-activation of maybe two Iowas is that they have a tremedos "cool" factor to them. This may sound stupid but it isn't since the customer group your recruiters (and ours as well) have to approach are youngsters between 17 and maybe 25. For a lot of them I am positive a possible position on a BB would be more attractive then brushing the floors in a Navy computer school...or so! But that's again only my opinion, since when I was in that age I opted to become a paratropper rather then sticking to my profession that was telephone technician. And I tell you...I would not want to miss those years for all the money in the world. :thumbs_up_1:

cheers
Uwe


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:30 pm
Posts: 346
Unfortunately our current administration seem to be complete amateurs in foreign policy. Our President has made us look weak at every turn. These last several years must seem like a holiday to Putin. I have great empathy for the people of Ukraine. It's a very complicated country. I have been there including a visit to the Naval base in Svastopol. I don't understand why our President publicly announced to the world that military options were off the table??? Even if there is no plan for a military response, you don't show your hand especially to Vladimir Putin. You have to make him consider the possibility that all options are open. OK rant over.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 12:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:29 am
Posts: 93
Well tko. Some of what you say is true. but reactivation of these ships is not as simple as adding new weapons and electronic systems.
And the 406's are not useful as they are currently configured. It just seems that those who don't know the condition of the ships..and their main guns think you can just turn the key and sail off. That's not how it works.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 12:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
zadmiral wrote:
Well tko. Some of what you say is true. but reactivation of these ships is not as simple as adding new weapons and electronic systems.
And the 406's are not useful as they are currently configured. It just seems that those who don't know the condition of the ships..and their main guns think you can just turn the key and sail off. That's not how it works.


What configuration would the 406's need to be useful? Are we talking base bleed rounds, sub caliber or something else?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 12:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3127
jasonfreeland wrote:
zadmiral wrote:
Well tko. Some of what you say is true. but reactivation of these ships is not as simple as adding new weapons and electronic systems.
And the 406's are not useful as they are currently configured. It just seems that those who don't know the condition of the ships..and their main guns think you can just turn the key and sail off. That's not how it works.


What configuration would the 406's need to be useful? Are we talking base bleed rounds, sub caliber or something else?

The last several pages illustrate what is possible with major caliber projectiles. With current tech, an 11" round, of which we have 20,000 at Crane, Indiana, can achieve over 50nm unassisted with GPS guidance. It's just a matter of putting he lego pieces together. BAE has already stated that they can adapt existing 11" (280's as you would refer to them) ammunition to be Excalibur Increment 1B SAL/GPS Extended Range rounds and can add new projectiles to their current production line. These modifications would allow them to achieve ranges well beyond 50nm. This tech also applies to 8" (203's) HERA rounds.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Last edited by navydavesof on Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
Quote:
What configuration would the 406's need to be useful? Are we talking base bleed rounds, sub caliber or something else?
The last several pages illustrate what is possible with major caliber projectiles. With current tech, an 11" round, of which we have 20,000 at Crane, Indiana, can achieve over 50nm unassisted with GPS guidance.


I've read them, I was curious if he had a different opinion. We've talked a bit by email on the subject, but its been a bit.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:49 am
Posts: 280
Location: Bavaria, Germany
...getting back to a possible model, are there VLS parts available in 1/350 and 1/700, or can you recommned kits were those are represented in a way that copies can me made by casting resin, please? I am rather new to new Navy stuff, had to look up VLS on Wiki and youtube first to see what was meant.

Another question...and forgive me since I am a total amateur with heavy guns...but would changing the 16" to smooth bore and adopting ammo like the one used for the 120mm tank cannon be an option to be looked at?

thanks
Uwe


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3127
Uwe,

No problem, mate.

anj4de wrote:
...getting back to a possible model, are there VLS parts available in 1/350 and 1/700,
No public resin. I know Flyhawk does 1/700 in PE, but that's super %%%.

anj4de wrote:
...or can you recommned kits were those are represented in a way that copies can me made by casting resin, please? I am rather new to new Navy stuff, had to look up VLS on Wiki and youtube first to see what was meant.
fo'shizzle! The Spruance-class DDs or USS Port Royal/Bunker Hill/Phil Sea will do it for you. Those are CGs with VLS components. PM me for more intel.

anj4de wrote:
Another question...and forgive me since I am a total amateur with heavy guns...but would changing the 16" to smooth bore and adopting ammo like the one used for the 120mm tank cannon be an option to be looked at?
Unfortunately, no. Tank guns, field artillery, and naval gunnery are totally, totally different. Tank guns like to use subcaliber darts that don't use rifling. Tank guns do what are called "straight shots". They shoot at targets that are only a mile or so away. This means that they are firing at pretty much a flat trajectory. As a result, not a lot of stability is required with their projectiles. Instead of rifling, they can use fins or drag cones to keep the round stable. Naval gunnery fires to dozens of miles away, and that requires high angles of fire and long, long, long periods of flighty. That means it has to have the "spinning-football effect" that rifling gives you. As a result, subcaliber darts are not good for super long range gunnery like you get out of naval guns. With naval guns, you need to have rifling so you can use the largest range of projectiles as possible. However, subcaliber projectiles using sabots are just fine (such as the 11" subcaliber round foe the 16" guns).

I hope that helps.

navydave

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3127
jasonfreeland wrote:
Quote:
What configuration would the 406's need to be useful? Are we talking base bleed rounds, sub caliber or something else?
The last several pages illustrate what is possible with major caliber projectiles. With current tech, an 11" round, of which we have 20,000 at Crane, Indiana, can achieve over 50nm unassisted with GPS guidance.


I've read them, I was curious if he had a different opinion. We've talked a bit by email on the subject, but its been a bit.

No problem, broseph. None of it's classified, so PM me if you would like to know more. :big_grin:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:30 pm
Posts: 346
zadmiral wrote:
Well tko. Some of what you say is true. but reactivation of these ships is not as simple as adding new weapons and electronic systems.
And the 406's are not useful as they are currently configured. It just seems that those who don't know the condition of the ships..and their main guns think you can just turn the key and sail off. That's not how it works.


Yes thank you for the slightly condescending remarks. Because you know we don't have ships in the Coast Guard. :roll_eyes: I don't believe I gave the impression that you could just "turn the key and sail them away".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 554 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 ... 28  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group