What if Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

[carr]

..

[Busto963]

8. Why was developing a vertical strike missile like ATACMS so significant for the U.S. Army?

Hopefully, you'll explain the advantages of the ATACMS. For sake of discussion, let's assume that the missile is overwhelmingly superior to any type of naval gunfire. That leads to the question, why hasn't it been adapted for naval use? It's shorter than the SM-6 and the same diameter so it ought to fit a Mk41 VLS. Since the Army adopted it, I'm assuming the ATACMS is cheap enough to be fired in large quantities unlike, perhaps, the Tomahawk. Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Bob

Okay,

1) I do not look at any artillery system (tube, or missile) as being superior to any other, they are instruments in the band, and have their parts to play. A well run 60 mm mortar crew lobing puny 1.7 kg bombs will easily decide the issue in a fight between two infantry companies where both sides are otherwise evenly matched.

2) Rockets and missiles (e.g. ATACMS and its smaller sized 227mm cousin) have a number of advantages over tube artillery:

• a) Range
  b) Flight speed
  c) Ability to deliver a lot of firepower almost instantly for shock effect, particularly over a wide area - an M270 is effectively known as a grid square removal service for the reason that it can dump 12 missiles into a target in less than a minute, effectively obliteratingpersonal and light vehicles in a 1000 meter square
  d) Ability to (carry specialized munitions that cannot easily be incorporated into shells (or that are reduced in quantity or effectiveness because of g-forces, shell wall thickness etc.) - thermobaric, FAS, chemical agents, mines, etc.
  e) Typically rockets and missiles carry significantly larger payloads than an equivalent sized artillery shell - a missile does not have to survive the centripital accelerations and massive firing impulses that a shell does
  f) Missiles and rockets follow inherently ballistic (high angle) flight paths (I will discuss more later)
  g) The launcher can shoot and scoot - fire and move to evade counter battery fire (most modern tube artillery also has self movement capability either through tracks, wheels or APUs - except of course the USMC, which gave up their self propelled artillery long ago)
  h) missiles and rockets are light and can be launched off of almost any platform from a pickup to a tank
  i) are pretty much all weather

There are of course trade offs. Missiles and rockets:

• a) Are much less efficient (use significantly more propellant) to move the same warhead the same distance as a tube artillery. This makes them more expensive carriers of explosives than tube artillery, but when you put a precision guidance system on any weapon, the cost of propellant becomes insignificant
  b) Leave a lot of smoke and back blast which really gets the attention of tacair and counter battery artillery fire. This means that rockets and missile launchers *have to shoot and scoot* - even if it is not tactically desirable to move.
  c) Require PGMs to prevent collateral damage and most importantly fratricide - meaning more cost
  d) slow reload times

Okay, the trajectory issue: People always cite "accuracy" of weapon system x, but forget about variance and randomness in weapons systems - this is a big issue. The real science in a tube artillery system is in the fuses, not the explosives. It is also where much of the R&D money goes: building more precise, accurate, multi-mode fuses. Unfortunately propellant, and to a lessor extent, fuses contribute greatly to the variance in fall of shot. In layman's terms, the pattern of hits is greatly, and negatively, influenced to a very great degree by variations in propellant and fuses. This is mitigated to an extent by trajectory: they greater the angle of fire, the less these variances negatively influence the pattern of impact around the target.

Consider the problem from the point of view of a simple mechanical time fuse that has to trigger the warhead over a target:

• 1) with a high velocity gun, any variation in initial muzzle velocity has a major detrimental effect on accuracy because the warhead is moving at hundreds of meters per second in the X direction, but has comparatively minimal velocity in the "Z" or vertical component - ergo almost all velocity and fuse timing errors cause error (dispersion) in the "X" (range or deflection). This is why Naval (and their field gun cousins) have very elliptically shaped (think cigar shaped) dispersions of shot. On the other hand, naval artillery is very accurate shooting at targets in the ZY plane. In fact this really played to the allies advantage at Omaha beach - the German positions were in low (YZ plane) cliffs that made it very easy for allied destroyers to pick apart individual German positions with direct fire.
  2) With a low velocity gun, or missile, the projectile is launched or fired at a high angle and variations in velocity are split into X and Z components. This tends to lessen the dispersion of shot and makes the pattern more or less circular. Also, howitzers and mortars can adjust the amount of propellant burned, which means the can have often have several different firing solutions for a given target. They can try to get very high angle shots, direct fire (a la naval gun) etc. They can do other tricks like MRSI - firing multiple rounds at different angles/charges to get them all to land at the same time.

But the real trick with high angle fire comes when you have to shoot into cities, onto the reverse slopes of hills, cliffs, or mountains, and onto flat land. The city is obvious, even in the poorest countries, cities sure to have at least a few multi story buildings, which can obstruct the fall of shot, and a high velocity gun, may not have a firing solution that will allow it to engage a target, because the trajectory of a round takes it into or too close to another structure. Some fuses rely on miniature transmitters and receivers sensors (typically radio) to trigger the warhead at a given height above ground (shower the enemy position with shrapnel. You can imagine this causing issues when a comparatively flat shooting naval gun shoots into a city. You can obviously maneuver the ship, but this takes time , which may not be acceptable against a target that can move, or if you are trying to help friendly troops. Shooting into hills, the high angle shot can often "lob" the round over the offending ridge - again, the naval gun may have to reposition, or simply not have the shot. Flat terrain is the last case - and nothing is truly flat, so just as with buildings, your fuse my get triggered early by slight undulations in the land, or vegetation.

Again, factors like this influence the way weapons get employed, what systems an observer may , or may not want to shoot over the heads of friendly troops, danger close (even if it is less than the rated CEP of a weapon) etc..

This is why the Army really wanted (and got) a near vertical impact capability with ATACMs. It makes the weapon much more effective in urban environments as it is really not limited by terrain, and the you can optimize your warhead effect on target.

And yes, a naval version of ATACMs would not be cheap weapon, but it would be a lot less than Tomahawk.

However, none of these systems, gun, rocket, or missile, are going to do what the USMC wants (wanted) in "Operational Maneuver From The Sea" which was to be able to move a BN(+), or RGT(+) up to 200nm inland and they want (wanted) this capability:

Fires. Successful execution of OMFTS will drive changes in fire support. To improve our mobility ashore, we will increasingly take advantage of sea-based fires and seek shore-based fire support systems with improved tactical mobility. To support rapidly maneuvering forces, we must streamline our fire support coordination procedures to improve responsiveness. To provide effective fires, forces afloat and ashore require the ability to deliver fires with increased range and improved accuracy and lethality. Finally, we will use fires to exploit maneuver just as we use maneuver to exploit the effects of fires.

In other words, the Corps expects the Navy to provide not just deep strike, and aerial interdiction, and strategic transport; they expect the Navy to also provide NSFS up to 200 nm inland, presumably meeting the same standard expected of army, or marine artillery: that is 2 minutes, or less time from call for fire-to rounds impacting! And oh by they way, the Marines got rid of their Self Propelled howitzers, and likely will not have the airlift lift to sustain even a single battery of M777 towed 155mm artillery that far from the amphibs How fast does a projectile have to move to travel even 100nm? Do you see why almost two decades have passed and the Navy is not serious about fielding a NSFS capability that will meet the demands of the USMC under OMFTS? What does that say about the viability of OMFTS? Maybe this explains why the Navy seems to find the USAF perhaps a little more reasonable a partner than the Corps?

[indigodave]

How about if you get a container ship and put 10 to 20 155mm artillery batteries on it. Tempory and disposable in an emergency. In the sense it's not a ship of the line

[Busto963]

How about if you get a container ship and put 10 to 20 155mm artillery batteries on it. Tempory and disposable in an emergency. In the sense it's not a ship of the line

Something like this was done during WWII - albiet with amphibious ships instead of merchant hulls.

The U.S. and UK created a plethora of special support ships firing rockets; naval and land based artillery; as well sometimes even using the artillery of the landing force whilst still embarked upon the landing craft. Some of the larger landing craft like Landing Craft Tank (LCT) would be outfitted with up to two (2) 4.7" or 5" guns, or a plethora of rockets (mostly 5").

Look at USS Carronade (IFS-1/LFR-1), which was pretty much the ultimate expansion of this concept for ideas.

Note, most land based artillery batteries consist of 4-6 tubes; I would hesitate to put more than six (6) artillery pieces on a merchant hull as this risks too much capability. An artillery battalion might get 3-4 batteries. That is a lot of fire power.

I would also add MRLS to shoot ATACMS and GMRLS; possibly some of the IMI 160 mm rockets as well.

[navydavesof]

I would also add MRLS to shoot ATACMS and GMRLS; possibly some of the IMI 160 mm rockets as well.

would the ATACMS satisfy he conventional ballistic missile requirement to you or would something as large as a Trident with a 6000nm range be required? Is there a smaller diameter missile that can achieve the desired effect of velocity of ordnance?

[Busto963]

I would also add MRLS to shoot ATACMS and GMRLS; possibly some of the IMI 160 mm rockets as well.

would the ATACMS satisfy he conventional ballistic missile requirement to you or would something as large as a Trident with a 6000nm range be required? Is there a smaller diameter missile that can achieve the desired effect of velocity of ordnance?

ATACMS is a very short ranged ballistic missile with a range <200 nm; strategist are saying the fleet needs an IRBM with a range of 1500-2000+ nm.

I think that a Trident D5 is too much for most target sets. A conventional warhead Trident is only needed if the fleet is required to destroy extremely well fortified, or very deeply buried bunkers. In addition to purpose built IRBMs, there have been a various proposals over the years to mount a warhead atop an SM-3 missile that would give a ~2000+ nm range. This would be a game changing weapon: with a 100-200 lb HE unitary warhead, or equivalent cluster type, or other special munitions, it would enable the fleet to destroy almost any C4ISR system, suppress air defense networks, wreck: airfields, transportation nods, fuel depots, power grids, communications centers, troop assembly areas, etc.; and it would enable the fleet to operate outside the range of reconnaissance aircraft (or at least to force an enemy to stretch his reconnaissance resources to the limit).

ATACMS is however, the only readily available weapon apart from TLAM that that could realistically support the USMC OMFTS concept and allow them to exploit most of the V-22 combat radius. ATACMS has a reported range of 100-180 miles depending on configuration; Janes reported that a naval version of ATACMS fired from VLS would have a range of 195 nm (presumably due to a different motor). This weapon would also be a game changer for the fleet.

I note that a quad packed GMRLS (227 mm, a 70 km - 90 nm (naval version) range, 200 lb HE warhead, or 404 DPICM bomblets) and the IMI Accular missile (160 mm, 40 km range, 35 kg HE warhead) would also be hugely effective weapons for the fleet, complementing heavier tube systems. Both have inertial/gps guidance. These would be invaluable for counter battery and interdiction fire missions.

In short, the benefit of ATACMS and GMRLS is that Lockheed Martin claims they can take existing weapons, mount new boosters, and fire them from Mk 41 VLS, specifically they claim they can quadpack the GMRLS in VLS. I still see the need for tube naval artillery (in several flavors), but in terms of getting accurate, longer range, and heavier punch fires to almost every surface combatant in the fleet - the possibilities are obvious.

[SumGui]

ATACMS is a very short ranged ballistic missile with a range <200 nm; strategist are saying the fleet needs an IRBM with a range of 1500-2000+ nm.

I think that a Trident D5 is too much for most target sets. A conventional warhead Trident is only needed if the fleet is required to destroy extremely well fortified, or very deeply buried bunkers. In addition to purpose built IRBMs, there have been a various proposals over the years to mount a warhead atop an SM-3 missile that would give a ~2000+ nm range. This would be a game changing weapon: with a 100-200 lb HE unitary warhead, or equivalent cluster type, or other special munitions, it would enable the fleet to destroy almost any C4ISR system, suppress air defense networks, wreck: airfields, transportation nods, fuel depots, power grids, communications centers, troop assembly areas, etc.; and it would enable the fleet to operate outside the range of reconnaissance aircraft (or at least to force an enemy to stretch his reconnaissance resources to the limit).

ATACMS is however, the only readily available weapon apart from TLAM that that could realistically support the USMC OMFTS concept and allow them to exploit most of the V-22 combat radius. ATACMS has a reported range of 100-180 miles depending on configuration; Janes reported that a naval version of ATACMS fired from VLS would have a range of 195 nm (presumably due to a different motor). This weapon would also be a game changer for the fleet.

I note that a quad packed GMRLS (227 mm, a 70 km - 90 nm (naval version) range, 200 lb HE warhead, or 404 DPICM bomblets) and the IMI Accular missile (160 mm, 40 km range, 35 kg HE warhead) would also be hugely effective weapons for the fleet, complementing heavier tube systems. Both have inertial/gps guidance. These would be invaluable for counter battery and interdiction fire missions.

In short, the benefit of ATACMS and GMRLS is that Lockheed Martin claims they can take existing weapons, mount new boosters, and fire them from Mk 41 VLS, specifically they claim they can quadpack the GMRLS in VLS. I still see the need for tube naval artillery (in several flavors), but in terms of getting accurate, longer range, and heavier punch fires to almost every surface combatant in the fleet - the possibilities are obvious.

I have to like almost all of this statement - and it is the first heard for me about any semi-official comments on VLS being able to take the GMRLS.

(I had a kitbash idea years ago that the ASROC pepperbox might be able to be used to take MLRS pods, so it could have followed SMARTROC in service)

I am not a fan of the utilization of IRBMs or Trident, as we are consistently trying to prevent the proliferation of this type of weapon - to use it ourselves (thus forcing the need to counter or match upon potential enemies) causes the proliferation we seek to politically diminish. And you never know what warhead is aboard - I believe it is legitimate for an enemy to assume the worst when they see a long or medium range ballistic weapon inbound, and react accordingly. Too many costs and concerns for this to be an effective weapon for the warfighter, IMHO.

To combine the MLRS systems with Medium (203mm) and Large (406mm) tube systems would be an incredibly effective multilayer fire support system, using Aircraft to fill dense hot-spots or ranges where a call for fire generates too much delay, and releasing them for other missions.

Never forget that belligerency is a primary mission of any Military:

"You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent vessels are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would just bounce off or be of little effect. Then we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us."

-Soviet Fleet Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov,1985- Quote after watching the Iowa in a NATO exercise

[indigodave]

These are Very impressive ships and I'd love to see them back in service. Here in the UK I wish we still had HMS Vanguard. But everyone acts as if they are invincible because modern warships aren't armoured to the same standard. Nearly every Battleship was sunk in world war two by air power. By being over powered by propellor driven aircraft dropping torpedoes or dumb bombs. The Italian fleet was sunk by Biplanes!! The Iowas would have been sunk by the same airpower levels that was used against the Yamato. Modern ships lost their vast amount of armour because it was outdated. You stop the threat outside of the range of the attacker. You take better airpower to sea than your enemy has (America vs Libya in the eighties, Falklands, Vietnam, Korea) or better missile ranges. Submarines are only a threat because they are difficult to detect, their torpedoes have very limited ranges and rates of fire. Submarines hate aircraft, they are a threat and cause the submarine to break off their attack and hide.

But Battleships have a Great role, in peacetime they are the ultimate gunboat diplomacy, inspiring respect and fear. How would Iran react in the straights of Hormuz at the minute if a couple of Iowas were there? In 'limited wars' they can provide firesupport to troops (Korea, Vietnam) or just keep the 'natives' heads down as a fast responce when you shell them on the way past. (Lebenon)

Battleships can't win a war on their own, but as part of a Battlegroup with Carriers and Subs they are the business. Just a pity no one can justify the manpower costs in these times

[SumGui]

Yes - the true strength of the BB, modernized or not, is in a combined arms group where they can use their strengths to the fullest and allow other assets to concentrate on their strong suits - the very definition of a diverse battlegroup.

Dave has put numbers out before showing a great reduction in personnel by removing the legacy 5"/38 mounts, in addition, if automation could be increased in engineering and a few other places, I have seen estimates that the manning could be under 1000. This is not a small crew by any means, but I would rather have 10 CVN + 4 BB than 11 CVN for a similar number of personnel. The diversity makes the fleet as a whole much stronger.


One thing I have to point out: (all count as BB tonnage under the Washington Treaty)
There were 5 major power BBs sunk by aircraft while underway: Prince of Wales, Repulse, Yamato, Musahi, and Roma (w/Fritz X).
There were 5 major power BBs sunk by surface action: Hood, Kirishima, Scharnhorst, Fuso, Yamashiro
There were 2 major power BBs sunk by Submarine: Barham, Kongo
There were 2 major power BBs sunk by combined arms: Hiei, Bismarck
There were 13 major power BBs sunk in port: Royal Oak, Bretagne, Arizona, Oklahoma, Conte di Cavour, Tirpitz, Haruna, Ise, with California, Nevada, West Virginia, Valiant, Queen Elizabeth sunk but returned to service.

The majority of Battleships sunk in WWII were sunk in port; by torpedo, bomb, frogman, or gunfire - all were effective when a BB was in port.

An equal number of BBs were sunk while underway from air attack and from surface attack. In port, any method seemed to suffice...

If you have to give one weapon the most credit, it has to be the torpedo, which could be delivered from submarines, surface ship, or aircraft.

[hvycrsr9]

In other words, the Corps expects the Navy to provide not just deep strike, and aerial interdiction, and strategic transport; they expect the Navy to also provide NSFS up to 200 nm inland, presumably meeting the same standard expected of army, or marine artillery: that is 2 minutes, or less time from call for fire-to rounds impacting!

If they are that far inland (200nm) they should have their own artillery with them!! Its Illogical 2 expect a ship cruising off the coast to provide NGFS in a timely manner....Its the petty policy makers that have crippled procurement in the USN....just look at the Zumwalt class DDG!! No new class of CG/DDG or even FFG has appeared since the Arleigh Burkes!! The two LCS's don't count as they would be useless in an FFG role!!

Bruce

[Busto963]

In other words, the Corps expects the Navy to provide not just deep strike, and aerial interdiction, and strategic transport; they expect the Navy to also provide NSFS up to 200 nm inland, presumably meeting the same standard expected of army, or marine artillery: that is 2 minutes, or less time from call for fire-to rounds impacting!

If they are that far inland (200nm) they should have their own artillery with them!! ...

I agree, but the concept was quite clear in wanting to exploit the range of the V-22, and keeping logistics to a minimum in order to fully exploit maneuver. Professional discussions of OFMTS expressed the desire for the maneuver commander to have the option of leaving his artillery behind (a huge reduction in logistics) and to depend upon sea based fires. As a concept - beautiful; but could it be implemented? I think not.

[navydavesof]

Hey everyone!

As my CGN-42 draws to a close (an pictures to follow in its own thread soon) I will be moving back to more simple projects like the modernized Iowa, DDH, John Paul Jones, and my derivative of the next class of cruiser that would be produced via the CGBL program.

I have placed an order from Freetimehobbies for the Artwox USS New Jersey decks. From the pictures, they look like they will be quite the decks I have been looking for all this time!




The rest of the ship design has been set, and all I have to do is build it.

Like I said, with CGN-42 finishing up there will be time for me to return to the long-ago Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin thread.

[johndon]

Those decks look very, very nice indeed, shame I've glued my Scaledecks down now

John

[Guest]

I am a retired USN MCPO Iowa's turret not repaired and yes if re activated many things in engineering would need replaced or updated I severed on BB-64 until decom switchboards and boilers are to old school and manpower intensive as is the engine rooms But the rest is great so re-engine with diesels or gas turbine

[SumGui]

Those decks look fantastic.

I would have loved to serve aboard a BB - found out after I accepted an A school that I had orders to BB-64 as an undesignated Seaman. Had I known before - I may have said no to A school...

For the sake of argument - if switching over to Gas Turbine propulsion was desired - two of the Burke Class Power plants would do the trick by power - 27000shp X 8 = 216000shp. Considering the plants as fit were rated for 212000shp - pretty close. May even be theoretically realistic to use controls/training, etc from an existing in production design for the refit.

Space? Upperwork re-arrangement for engine module airflow? changes within the hull? I don't know - but an LM2500 module really isn't that picky about where it lives, as long as it gets air, can exhaust, and gets fuel. Electronic controls are much easier to route than the older controls aboard right now...hmm. Never really considered a re-engine this much.

[Guest]

This is an interesting thread and I just must throw in my 2 cents IMHO. Ok, the idea of retrofitting the existing BB's with Nuclear power is a non-starter. Because of the weight and weight distrobution associated with a Rx, as well as all the support systems required it is VERY cost prohibitive to retrofit an existing ship with one. I have some experiance in this area and know of what I speak. When the Bainbridge and Truxtun were built it was decided after keel laying to add Nuclear plants. The change of design nearly sank both projects. Anything can be done if you throw enough money at it but a nuke upgrade just makes no sense. Besides, who would want to put a 50 year plant in a 25 year boat. I agree with the conclusions above about money being why they sank the BB's. The crew requirements were very large for a non-aviation boat. That said, I would:
Upgrade the controls for the power plants.
Upgrade the communications equipment.
Upgrade the habitability as needed.
Upgrade the gun fire control systems.
Upgrade the flight deck to be able to refuel Helo's if it can't already.
Remove all the remaining 5" 38's and install/ retain:
4 Mk-45's,
2 Mk-29 RIM launchers for RIM-7 Sparrow point defence.
4 Mk-13 single arm launchers for Harpoon, and SM-2 MR (160 missiles).
Remove the Harpoon launchers as redundant with the Mk-13.
Retain the 4 CIWS
Retain the Tomahawk launchers as is.
I would upgrade the Radar with:
SPS-48 as well as the SPS-49 installed in the 80's
SPQ-9 Gunfire directors, and SPG-62 or equivelent Missile directors.

All of these systems passed shock testing in previous boats and would, hopefully, survive on a BB.
With the above upgrades it would be more survivable against missiles and maintain the unique capabilities it offers.

In closing I believe Capital class surface ships have not been built since WW2 with the exception of the Kirov's and maybe the Long Beach. The Navys of the world have a horrible habit of preparing for the last war. I believe in the future a largish surface ship armed with a sufficeint supply of anti-ship and anti-air missiles and large caliber or medium caliber, rapid fire guns will be more effective blue on blue then Aircraft. No manned aircraft is capable of much more than 9 g's of turning force making a missile more agile to avoid defensive missiles and guns. Also missiles present a much smaller cross section to hit. I doubt a manned aircraft could survive against a modern air defense ship even with countermeasures. In the Faulklin Island War the only time aircraft attacked ships in the open sea 2 aircraft were lost and the remaining 2 probably missed their target. A 50% survival rate is totally unsustainable in battle.

[Seasick]

The USN's battleships were the type of ship that would benifit the least from nuclear power. The Iowas have tremendous bunkerage for fuel oil. They can go a considerable distance without needing to take oil. Nuclear power also means that if the ship takes a serious hit and the containment of the reactors is compromised the ship could have a radioactive leak that would force it to withdraw from combat and miss over a year while its being repaired. Navy practice would be to place the ship out to sea from land protect it better which would seriously erode the range and capabilities of the 16" guns by forcing them to fire at maximum range.

[navydavesof]

whoops!

[EJM]

@navydavesof: Are you still at work on the modernised New Jersey battleship that you have pictures of scattered throughout this thread? Or do you have a WIP thread in another forum I can take a look at? Your work, plus another modeler's (johndon?) modernised BB have really gotten me intrigued to build another WHIF 21st century Iowa battleship. I can't do any construction now this year as I'm having cataract surgery, but I'm already doing research and making plans for a future build. Below is a preliminary layout of when I tested out the placement of some parts, particuarly some parts from an Arliegh Burke destroyer kit. I want to "slightly" make my BB into a more future looking 21st century BB.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/ ... C03869.jpg

[navydavesof]

@navydavesof: Are you still at work on the modernised New Jersey battleship that you have pictures of scattered throughout this thread? Or do you have a WIP thread in another forum I can take a look at?

Hi, EJM! Thanks for chiming in! I moved duty stations twice since then, and now I am on deployment. Just before I went on deployment, I cracked her out and did a moving damage assessment on her. A lot of her was all busted up, like her masts, and most of it is going to need a lot of fixing. I am going to start her again with some of the old parts. I will be doing a new aft mast and swapping the SPS-49 and SPS-48. The 48 will be on the forward mast, and the 49 will be on the aft.

I may be doing this in conjunction with a 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.

Your work, plus another modeler's (johndon?) modernised BB have really gotten me intrigued to build another WHIF 21st century Iowa battleship.

John has done some really impressive work. His pictures make me really look forward to getting back to mine.

I can't do any construction now this year as I'm having cataract surgery, but I'm already doing research and making plans for a future build.

I hope you recover quickly!

Below is a preliminary layout of when I tested out the placement of some parts, particuarly some parts from an Arliegh Burke destroyer kit. I want to "slightly" make my BB into a more future looking 21st century BB.

Well, your Montana was pretty cool! I would like to make a modern build BB as well. I have put a lot of thought into the configuration of a modern battleship, too. I have two types of ships in mind. One is an Iowa with an aft turret and stern configured like the Vittorio Venetos with a hangar aft/under the guns of Turret 3 and a similar armor and underwater protection arrangement. The other would be a Montana with a CA/CL style stern hangar to accommodate a small number of H-60s. I am undecided on a radar arrangement, but it would be dictated by the fact that she would be a capitol ship acting as the centerpiece of power projection and presence groups.

I am a little undecided about how to arrange the exhaust stacks, too. They could just be enlarged Burke stacks, but they could also be stacks built up like those on the LHDs. Where do the missiles go? How many is appropriate? You and I both commented on a thread of a modern Montana with AGS(L) and a very excessive number of VLS tubes in a very unstable part of the ship. What CIWS system should it have? And how do you balance all of that onto the ship without crowding it and making things dangerous? I like that challenge, and I have most of that nailed down for both of my configurations. The real challenge is deciding what should be totally scratch built and what should be modified from an existing kit. I would be happy to collaborate with you on your design if you would like

When I get back to this build, I will be either restarting this thread or starting a new one. We will see!