The last modernization plan of the Iowas

Tzoli

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
1 February 2011
Messages
2,802
Reaction score
3,166
My friend provided me information on a plan which aimed to further modernize the Iowas after the First Gulf War in the mid 1990's!
Here is what he provided me:

Warship Improvement Plan (FY1993-1996)
Mk-41 VLS:
Replacement of Mk-143 Tomahawk ABLs with 96 Mk-41 Mod 1 vertical launch cells. They would have been arranged in 2 x 16 clusters amidships and 2 x 32 aft. Both structures would have been raised by about 1 deck to accommodate the lengths of the tubes. HY-80 would have been used to raise the decks and protect the VLS cells.

5"/54 caliber guns:
NAVSEA sent the plans for the Montana-class twin 5"/54caliber manually operated guns to the Iowa-class Program Managers at Long Beach Naval Shipyard and to Crane Indiana for construction. They would have been manually operated just like the 5"/38s. While the upper handling rooms would have remained in the same place, the base rings would have been moved outboard by 1' to add a greater walking clearance and clearance for the spent casings to accumulate between the back of the mount (when faced outboard) and the super structure. Mts 53, 54, 57, and 58 would have been replaced with the new mounts, providing the ship with 4 5"/54caliber guns per side and 8 total.

NATO Sea Sparrow Missile Upgrade:
Mts 51 and 52 would have been replaced by Mk-29 eight-cell NATO Sea Sparrow missile launchers. The launchers would have been on top of the upper handling rooms. The decks would have been extended all the way to the rail of the ship (platforms built over the main deck and the O-2 level) to provide a place to load the missiles into the launcher. The barrels of the 5"/54 caliber guns would have been 2' (I believe) over the tops of the platforms when trained forward.

There would have been 4 Mk-95 "bug eye" illuminators. Two would have been in place of the port and starboard Mk-37 secondary battery directors. The other two would have been on either side of the after main battery director providing 2 per side.

Radar:
The SPS-49 would have remained where it is, and there would not have been a SPS-48. A main mast would have been built for the TAS-23 radar for the Sea Sparrows.

Aircraft:
A removable hangar would have been built for the Pioneer RPVs and placed just aft of the spillway behind Turret 3. Its roof would have been 1' under the barrels of Turret 3.

Fire Control:
The main battery would have received a Mk-160 Mod 5 GFCS to manage the direction of 16" long range rounds (11" and 13" discarding sabot, and RAP). I do not have any information on what kind of GFCS they would have had for the new 5"/54 guns. To my knowledge, they would have had to get a new one, because the existing one is only good for 5"/38 caliber gun ranges and ballistics.
And such I've made a line drawing based on these aspects:
iowa_modernization_plan_1993_96_by_tzoli-d7bda2o.png
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Very nice drawing, but I cannot see the Mark-23 TAS.

Attached is a drawing showing the Phase 1 upgrade with Sea Sparrow launchers, Mk-95 FCR and Mk-23 TAS (aft mainmast) :

According to this GAO report, "the NATO Sea Sparrow Air Defense System was deleted from the initial configuration because preliminary analysis indicated the system could not withstand the shock blast produced from the firing of the ship's 16-inch guns." (page 5)

It's not clear what specific part of the system was incriminated at the time (FC radars ? Missiles ?)

Last but not least, you'll find some more tidbits on the so-called "modest upgrade" of the early 1990s in Garzke & Dulin US Battleships.
 

Attachments

  • BB-61_Iowa_Phase1bis.jpg
    BB-61_Iowa_Phase1bis.jpg
    87.7 KB · Views: 1,214
Let's see:
1st: Yes you cannot see that Target Acquisition System Radars as I don't know how they look, but nor can see on your drawing as well!

2nd: My drawing have the 4x Mark 95 "Bug Eye" Illuminator Radars (Aft around the main gun rangefinder and front in place of the old secondary gun rangefinders) while due to the low quality of your drawing I cannot! But I do see some small platforms between the two rangefinders aft on both sides.

3rd: The document as well as the drawing you posted clearly talking about and shows the 1980's modernization plan, hence the 4 secondary range finders for the remaining 4 secondary turrets (2 would be plenty), Armoured Box Launchers for the Tomahawks, (but true I did not know Sea Sparrow was considered this early) but my drawing shows the 2nd proposed modernization between 1993-96, hence the VLS system for Tomahawks, Aft removable hanger for the Pioneer UAV's, longer guns and slightly larger gunhouses for the 5inch Mark 16, 54 Calibre guns (old ones are the Mark 12, 38 calibre ones), Sea Sparrow missile launchers with their Illuminator radars.

4th: The only event the missile launchers would be damaged if the 2nd turret would fire at high angle aft directly next to the superstructure, and such event would only occour if the main guns would be used against a moving surface target, which is quite unlikely, so the launchers would be safe if the guns used for bombardment which was their role in this age, so only 90degrees port or starboard.
 
Matt R. said:
According to this GAO report, "the NATO Sea Sparrow Air Defense System was deleted from the initial configuration because preliminary analysis indicated the system could not withstand the shock blast produced from the firing of the ship's 16-inch guns." (page 5)

It's not clear what specific part of the system was incriminated at the time (FC radars ? Missiles ?)
Click to expand...

The Mark 29 box launchers, if I'm not mistaken.
 
Tzoli said:
Let's see:
1st: Yes you cannot see that Target Acquisition System Radars as I don't know how they look, but nor can see on your drawing as well!
Click to expand...

1) Attached below is a pic of the TAS Mk23 antenna (from Friedman's Naval Weapons, 1st edition).

Dimensions are :
* height : 129 inch / 3.28 meters (including pedestal)
* width : 231 inch / 5.87 meters
* depth : 76 inch / 1.93 meters

You'll find a couple of pics showing the Mk23 TAS on a Spruance here

According to the drawing I posted earlier and some sketches from G&D, the Mk23 TAS was apparently supposed to be mounted on a new mainmast (aft) located atop the aft stack. It's not clear what they intended to do with the RPV antenna (IIRC the Mk23 TAS could also provide aircraft control capability).
 

Attachments

  • BB-61_TAS Mk23 antenna.jpg
    BB-61_TAS Mk23 antenna.jpg
    77.2 KB · Views: 1,063
Tzoli said:
2nd: My drawing have the 4x Mark 95 "Bug Eye" Illuminator Radars (Aft around the main gun rangefinder and front in place of the old secondary gun rangefinders) while due to the low quality of your drawing I cannot! But I do see some small platforms between the two rangefinders aft on both sides.

3rd: The document as well as the drawing you posted clearly talking about and shows the 1980's modernization plan, hence the 4 secondary range finders for the remaining 4 secondary turrets (2 would be plenty), Armoured Box Launchers for the Tomahawks, (but true I did not know Sea Sparrow was considered this early) but my drawing shows the 2nd proposed modernization between 1993-96, hence the VLS system for Tomahawks, Aft removable hanger for the Pioneer UAV's, longer guns and slightly larger gunhouses for the 5inch Mark 16, 54 Calibre guns (old ones are the Mark 12, 38 calibre ones), Sea Sparrow missile launchers with their Illuminator radars.
Click to expand...

2) I've updated the sketch I posted earlier : in the red squares, you have the Mk95 FCRs (4 of them) and in the blue square the Mk23 TAS.

3) Phase 1 is indeed, as you've correctly stated, the modernization of the early 1980s. As mentioned in the GAO report, installation of NATO Sea Sparrow was supposed to be part of Phase 1, but presumably cancelled due to "technical reasons" (as stated in the GAO report) and (most likely) financial considerations.

The Phase 1 drawing posted earlier was meant to show the locations of the Mk23 TAS and Mk95 FCRs envisioned at the time.

While Phase 1 is clearly distinct from the so-called "modest upgrade" envisioned in the early 1990s, my guess is that the Phase 1 locations would have been retained for the placement of the Mk23 TAS (not depicted in your sketch), the Mk95 FCRs and the Mk29 box launchers.

On a sidenote, your drawings show the 3rd proposed modernization, since Phase 1 was followed by the never-implemented Phase 2 (which included proposals for Turret III to be removed and a flight deck to be installed instead).

Hope this clarifies the situation.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Matt R. said:
According to this GAO report, "the NATO Sea Sparrow Air Defense System was deleted from the initial configuration because preliminary analysis indicated the system could not withstand the shock blast produced from the firing of the ship's 16-inch guns." (page 5)

It's not clear what specific part of the system was incriminated at the time (FC radars ? Missiles ?)
Click to expand...

The Mark 29 box launchers, if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...

Would you have a source for the problem being related to the Mk29 box launchers ?

Thanks in advance.
 
You only mentioned these two modernizations, the actual 1980's one, and the proposed conversion one with either into an assault support ship for marines, with reworked superstructures to carry and dispatch marines or the 2 flightdeck variant, version 1 where the 3rd turret remained but jumpdecks would be built at the aft or version 2 where the entire aft would be dedicated for a flight deck.

BBG21overheadviewminigavinsloadingintoCH53ECH47Ftn.jpg


Tinian57rw50.jpg



But my drawing as I've said the 2nd modernization, which you seem don't really know much as you do not mentions the removable hanger, VLS and long barrel 5inch guns.
 
Tzoli said:
BBG21overheadviewminigavinsloadingintoCH53ECH47Ftn.jpg


Tinian57rw50.jpg



But my drawing as I've said the 2nd modernization, which you seem don't really know much as you do not mentions the removable hanger, VLS and long barrel 5inch guns.
Click to expand...

Let's try again :

a) Phase 1 : as modernized in the early 1980s (NATO Sea Sparrow omitted)

b) Phase 2 : studies initiated in 1982-83, with nine modification concepts advanced (flight deck aft being just one of these concepts). Deemed too expensive and set aside.

reference : Garzke & Dulin US Battleships 1935-92 (pp.255-263)

c) Modest Upgrade (per G&D) / WIP (per your friend) : studies initiated in the late 1980s, to be implemented in the first half of the 1990s as funding became available. All for ships were to receive these upgrades, of which you'll find a list in Garzke & Dulin's US BBs (see below).

reference : Garzke & Dulin US Battleships 1935-92 (pp.263-264)

I am reasonably well aware of a large number of details involved in this so-called modest upgrade scheme, and I actually used to have some parts of the plans made by JJMA (IIRC).

BTW, none of the pics you posted are Phase 2 designs. The first pic is a fantasy design imagined by Mike Sparks (aka the world's most rabbid M113 lover). The second pic ("USS Tinian") is actually based on a proposal made by Howard Pulver in the July 1980 issue of Proceedings.

More details can be found in Layman & McLaughlin's Hybrid Warship, pp.159-163. A while ago, Ryan Crierie also posted some low-res pics depicted a Phase 2 design with Turret III removed and flight deck aft.

I am delighted to see the great work that you've done on the Modest Upgrade / WIP design, but as it currently stands, the Mk23 TAS radar (listed by your friend as part of the mods to be implemented) is missing. You may (or may not) alter your drawings to correct this omission. FYI, there's no point adding NATO Sea Sparrow and Mk95 FCRs without adding the Mk23 TAS as well.

Hope this helps.
 
One other thing being worked on was updated shells for the 16" guns. These would include rocket assisted shells extending their "reach" out to 120m or so. Additional proposals included shells with terminal homing (probably laser guided) and the ability to deliver submunitions when the shell arrived in the target area. The problem of the shock of the firing was taken into account, but then they only had to work once. Sort of like the "wooden round" concept the Navy started applying to missiles.

At least some of these would be sabots.
 
If I read right these proposals the RAS ones are actually modified 12inch ones, with the extra 4 inch diameter allocated for the rockets. So I assume the submunition ones too were actually smaller calibre ones but adjusted to the 16inch barrels with probably more protective layers or such.


As for the drawings I've updated them, and included the Target Acquisition Radar System above the aft funnel
 
Full caliber APICM and DPICM cluster shells were test fired, so was a 13 inch sabot round. An extended range full caliber HC shell was also test fired and ready for adaption but appears not to have gotten mass produced. All of these were fairly straightforward designs, the sabot round being based on sabot work done in the Vietnam War.


The ultra long range shell was a very exotic 11 inch sabot shell with rocket assist that would have required GPS guidance and thus far more developmental work. It was never much more then a paper proposal. Both sabot designs used DPICM warheads. The rocket assist is inside the back of the shell body, considerably reducing warhead space as is the case with most rocket assisted artillery projectiles.
 
There's a lot of disinformation out there about the extended range shells for the Iowas. Rocket assist was talked about, but never done, as far as I know. There were several different sabot rounds, however.


1) There were a couple of tests of saboted 11-inch (280mm) rounds in the late 1960s. The shells were conventional rounds left over from the Army's Atomic Cannon program. Range was up to around 84,000 yards (77 km) but that used the HARP test rig with two 16"/45 barrels welded end to end.


2) The HE-ER Mk 148, a 13-inch sabot round that was tested in the late 1980s, cancelled in 1991. Range was 70,000 yards (64 km).


3) There may have been another HE-ER type with an 11-inch projectile, also cancelled in 1991.


Distrust any data from the US Naval Fire Support Association (USNFSA) or G2Mil -- these are not trustworthy resources. They invent some data, exaggerate others, and misinterpret most of the rest.
 
I've seen US government documents that mention the 11 inch project. It isn't made up, just very obscure because it was never more then a proposal. I've been aware of USNFSA's BS for fourteen years now, don't get me started.


Its scary though that it appears the proposal for a scramshell actually was real too, just basically a one page proposal someone made that was never given serious consideration. This was coming after considerable serious work on ramjet shells in smaller calibers.
 
Sorry Skimmer, my comment was really intended for Tizoli.
 
There was appparently a Vietnam-era proposal under Project Gunfighter for full-bore rocket-assisted projectiles; a "high mass fraction spin-stabilised rocket assisted projectile" with a 540 pound warhead could reach a range of 278 nautical miles, but was 14" too long for the handling gear. Shortening it would bring the range down to about 200 nautical miles.
 
Grey Havoc said:
On a tangent, found some info on the Navy's original plans circa 1988 for deployment of the AAI/Mazlat Pioneer RPV on the Iowa class.

As a result of a demonstration proving the RPV's capabilities, Naval Air
Systems Command was directed in July 1985 by former Secretary of the Navy John
Lehman to implement a RPV program using off-the-shelf technology. Doing so
would enable an RPV unit to be deployed to the fleet as soon as possible for
intelligence gathering and fleet support.

In order to find the most effective and efficient technology being used,
competitive tests were conducted from October through December of 1985. The
conclusion drawn upon the completion of these test was that the Pioneer, an
unmanned air vehicle marketed by AAI Corporation/Mazlat LTD was the best
suited for the Navy's needs. [Ref. 5:pp. 15-16]

The Pioneer air vehicle has a wing span of 16.9 feet and a maximum gross
weight of 419 pounds. The vehicle is propelled to its maximum speed of 115 miles
per hour by a Sachs SF2-350 (26HP) horizontally-opposed twin cylinder, two stroke
engine. Several payload packages can be employed within the 100 pound
payload limit. Options currently available include the gyro stabilized MKD-200
high-resolution daylight TV camera or the MKD-400 FLIR for night or reduced
visibility operations. [Ref. 5:p. 16]

Mission success in a high-threat environment is very much dependent on the
survivability attributes of the vehicle conducting the mission. Survivability of the
Pioneer is enhanced by its small size, low visual signature, jam resistant data link,
and low radar/IR signature. In addition, the Pioneer's endurance time and altitude
capability make it a viable option for many Naval applications.

Installation of the RPV system aboard the USS Iowa (BB-61) began in April
1986. A rocket-assisted takeoff capability was introduced as the battleship's answer
to catapult launches and a net was designed for shipboard recovery. However, the
Pioneer's introduction has not been without casualty. During the system's first
deployment aboard the Iowa in 1986, four out of five air vehicles were lost. After
the first cruise, the Navy and AAI formed so-called "tiger teams" of specialists to
work on the problems which had been identified, and air operations resumed
shortly thereafter. The Pioneer was deployed aboard the Iowa again in July 1987
and has been flying ashore and afloat ever since. To date the system has acquired
over 600 flight hours of which more than 60 hours have been at night. The first
U. S. Marine Corps companies have been formed and have conducted night fire
support exercises with the optional thermal imager. During the latest trials
onboard the battleship Iowa, the RPV logged more than 110 flight hours, 20 of
which were flown at night employing the forward-looking infrared sensor.
[Ref. 5:p. 16 & Ref. 6:p. 10251]

A Navy baseline review of the AAI/Mazlat Pioneer remotely piloted vehicle
program has endorsed the concept of a short-range unmanned vehicle for over-the
horizon surveillance and targeting and recommended procuring the system in
quantity.

Pending Department of Defense approval, the Navy will pick up its option to
procure four more Pioneer systems to support an operational evaluation in 1989.
Each system consists of eight RPVs, one ground control station and a tracking
control unit. A full-scale production decision is scheduled in Fiscal 1989.
Eventually, the Navy wants to procure 43 systems, including 344 RPVs, for over the-
horizon targeting, surveillance, and support of amphibious operations.

The base line review follows extensive field testing of the system by the Navy
and the Marine Corps that was intended to determine whether there was an
operational need for a short-range RPV system and what the final configuration
should be. [Ref. 7:p. 251]

The Pioneer RPV system has performed remarkably well and has proven quite
cost effective considering it was an off-the-shelf system that was intended to be a
stop-gap solution to an existing problem and that it was employed without the usual
operational test and evaluation required of major Navy systems. There have been
several problem areas identified, however, and work is presently being done to
correct these deficiencies and to implement improvements. Some of the critical
issues include finding an alternative-fuel engine capable of running on JP-5 or
diesel fuel to replace the current engine. A command/control data link needs to be
developed that will expand the effective control range beyond the 100 nautical mile
limit. It is considered by some that the Pioneer air vehicle is slightly deficient in
pitch authority, requiring a rather lengthy and flat glide slope be used during
recovery, thereby increasing the time spent in a critical transition region. Such a
deficiency also necessitates that a higher approach speed be utilized which in turn
increases the danger of the recovery to personnel and to the air vehicle.

The Navy has identified several low Reynolds number airfoils, such as the
Wortmann FX 63-137 airfoil, which might offer superior performance over those
currently in use, especially at conditions of high lift encountered in the landing
mode. 1 With the use of such an airfoil and some "fine tuning " of the stability
parameters, the handling qualities of the Pioneer RPV or a similarly configured
vehicle could possibly be improved upon.
Click to expand...
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a201884.pdf
Click to expand...
 
I know this is a somewhat dated thread. Question. What would have been the likely VLS Load-out? Certainly TLAM. But anything else? Would have the Cooperative Engagement System or another type of data-link been a part of the upgrade to allow Aegis equipped escorts to guide any Standard Missiles (SM-2s) which might have been carried in the new VLS? What was the anticipated service life? Could have ESSM been added to the VLS load? Without the Sea Sparrow, could have larger VLS blocks been added in later modifications?
 
Ironmiked said:
I know this is a somewhat dated thread. Question. What would have been the likely VLS Load-out? Certainly TLAM. But anything else? Would have the Cooperative Engagement System or another type of data-link been a part of the upgrade to allow Aegis equipped escorts to guide any Standard Missiles (SM-2s) which might have been carried in the new VLS? What was the anticipated service life? Could have ESSM been added to the VLS load? Without the Sea Sparrow, could have larger VLS blocks been added in later modifications?
Click to expand...

Almost certainly the VLS would have been all Tomahawk (mostly TLAM but maybe some TASM might have survived in the sort of alt hist that allows the upgrade to go forward).

I think CEC might have been fitted eventually but only to provide better track data for Sea Sparrow (the same reason amphibs and CVNs got CEC). The idea of using ships as remote magazines isn't actually core CEC; an Arsenal Ship sort of arrangement where missiles are fired on command from off board is an extended capability that is not common (if it exists at all right now).

Probably ESSM would have eventually replaced the Sea Sparrow but still in the Mk 29 launcher (again, as in amphibs and carriers). You could eventually delete the Mk 29 and put ESSM in the VLS but I doubt these ships could have served that long.
 
Removal of one turret (blasphemy, I know) would make room for a goodly number or missiles, I would think.

Get rid of that aft turret…you could have drone rails to either side maybe?
 
Seems weird only putting one Sea Sparrow box launcher per side. Yes, I know that the Mk29 box couldn't take the muzzle blast. Still seems weird that they only included one launcher box per side in the plans before that was discovered. I would have stuck a second pair into the aft 40mm tubs (assuming that the Mk29 box could survive the muzzle blast).
 
Scott Kenny said:
Seems weird only putting one Sea Sparrow box launcher per side. Yes, I know that the Mk29 box couldn't take the muzzle blast. Still seems weird that they only included one launcher box per side in the plans before that was discovered. I would have stuck a second pair into the aft 40mm tubs (assuming that the Mk29 box could survive the muzzle blast).
Click to expand...

Two launchers with four channels of fire seems like a reasonable number. Only the CVNs have more than that. And that's mainly because the firing arcs are constrained by the flight deck.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Two launchers with four channels of fire seems like a reasonable number. Only the CVNs have more than that. And that's mainly because the firing arcs are constrained by the flight deck.
Click to expand...
Yes, 3x Sea Sparrows and 3x Phalanxes. Usually 1x SP and 2x Phalanx on the left side and 2x SP and 1x Phalanx on the right side. The Phalanx being on the island superstructure.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Seems weird only putting one Sea Sparrow box launcher per side. Yes, I know that the Mk29 box couldn't take the muzzle blast. Still seems weird that they only included one launcher box per side in the plans before that was discovered. I would have stuck a second pair into the aft 40mm tubs (assuming that the Mk29 box could survive the muzzle blast).
Click to expand...
That's probably about the worst place you can put them. Lot's of spray, and sensitive electronics typically don't like seawater. Also the firing arcs would be suboptimal at best, and the launchers would be hard to reload.
 
There are numerous possible positions for them:
- In place of the 2nd pair of 5" turrets
- On top of the 16" turrets,
- Extend the middle platform holding the Tomahawk launchers to provide space for the Sparrow launchers
- In place of the Harpoon launchers, and move the Harpoon launchers to the position where the old 3rd pair of 5" turrets were, near the boat handling equipment though that needs to be redesigned or extend the Tomahawk platform towards the front so the Harpoons could be placed next to them.
- Remove the centreline 5" gun directors, place the aft Phalanxes in their position and put the Sea Sparows in place of the aft Phalanxes. That is both blast free and provides excellent firing arcs and also provides phalanx coverage on the extre aft and forward positions and basically improves the broadside phalanx coverage by 50% from 2 to 3 mountings.
 
All very interesting for discussion but, how would she have managed with the original engines and machinery? Is this the sort of thing that makes more sense with new propulsion? Nuclear even? This would (Shirley, I know) allow more of a free hand with deck and upperwork mods.

This would of course cost half a body or more let alone a few legs.
 
Tzoli said:
There are numerous possible positions for them:
- In place of the 2nd pair of 5" turrets
- On top of the 16" turrets,
- Extend the middle platform holding the Tomahawk launchers to provide space for the Sparrow launchers
- In place of the Harpoon launchers, and move the Harpoon launchers to the position where the old 3rd pair of 5" turrets were, near the boat handling equipment though that needs to be redesigned or extend the Tomahawk platform towards the front so the Harpoons could be placed next to them.
- Remove the centreline 5" gun directors, place the aft Phalanxes in their position and put the Sea Sparows in place of the aft Phalanxes. That is both blast free and provides excellent firing arcs and also provides phalanx coverage on the extre aft and forward positions and basically improves the broadside phalanx coverage by 50% from 2 to 3 mountings.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely no way you're putting the Sea Sparrows on top of the 16" turrets. Too much wiring, too much weight, and you're exposing the missiles directly to the 16" gun blast
 
As I understand it, the propulsion systems, if maintained could probably have lasted until around 2010-15, but steam plants, especially high pressure steam plants are the main factor in the lifespan of steamships. If they HAD been reactivated and rearmed the ships would almost certainly be decommissioned by now, but they would have potentially provided useful testbeds for long range guns like AGS, flagship facilities and generally provided a decent stopgap and learning experience to a later destroyer like SC21/DDG1000. Remember too that this was the '90s and both the Defense and Diplomatic bureaucracies thought that the future of western navies was inshore, pounding the coasts of developing nations into rubble. For that at least, these old ships were well suited.
 
The seasparrow box launchers confuse me. When exactly did ESSM become a thing. It seems that ESSM would give the ships a real air defense capability and the ability to quadpack them would allow a fairly deep magazine without cutting into the Tomahawk batteries that were these ships main raison detre'.
 
Brickmuppet said:
The seasparrow box launchers confuse me. When exactly did ESSM become a thing. It seems that ESSM would give the ships a real air defense capability and the ability to quadpack them would allow a fairly deep magazine without cutting into the Tomahawk batteries that were these ships main raison detre'.
Click to expand...

ESSM IOC was mid-2004, so several years after this planned modernization. And I'm not sure the Mk 25 quadpack was available at IOC.

Edit: First USN deliveries of ESSM went to AEGIS ships, so yes, Mk25 was available from the outset. Not sure why I thought it went into the Mk 29 on the carriers and big-deck amphibs first.
 
Last edited:
that_person said:
There is absolutely no way you're putting the Sea Sparrows on top of the 16" turrets. Too much wiring, too much weight, and you're exposing the missiles directly to the 16" gun blast
Click to expand...
A 16" turret with an armour to withstand 16" shells could not support a few tons of the sea sparrow launcher? Very unlikely! Viring might be a problem but not that much. The blast would be a lesser issue because you are behind the blast not in front of it like at the forwardmost 5" turrets.
 
Where were the twin 5"/54 caliber guns going to come from? The Midways only had single 5"/54 caliber gun turrets (mounts). Was the plan to recycle the Midway guns and place them in newly built turrets (mounts)
 
that_person said:
That's probably about the worst place you can put them. Lot's of spray, and sensitive electronics typically don't like seawater. Also the firing arcs would be suboptimal at best, and the launchers would be hard to reload.
Click to expand...
That's a relatively dry spot, though. The sensitive electronics are all encased in the mount, or are up with the illuminators. And it gives a 180deg plus field of fire. For reloading, point the mount completely forward (or aft, whichever way the Mk29s reload), parallel to the ship centerline. Reload over the helicopter deck.
 
Ironmiked said:
Where were the twin 5"/54 caliber guns going to come from? The Midways only had single 5"/54 caliber gun turrets (mounts). Was the plan to recycle the Midway guns and place them in newly built turrets (mounts)
Click to expand...

I really don't think they had a serious plan regarding the 5"/54s.

I've seen two variations on the " plan" to replace the 5"/38s with 5"/54s.

1) Build entirely new guns and mounts using the Mk 41 twin plans designed for the Montana class.

2) Recycle Mk 16 guns from the Mk 39 single mounts on the Midways but build new twin mounts as above.

Either way, this looks very unlikely. Building new mounts in the 1990s using paper plans drawn in the 1940s would be a total nightmare, even setting aside the challenge of making new guns/tubes. And you almost certainly would need to redesign the turrets to meet modern safety and maintenance standards, making this a huge effort for the secondary armament on four ships.

I'm not even sure there were enough available Mk 16 guns to build 16 new twin turrets. There were about 50 Mk 16 guns in Mk 39 mounts on the Midways (18 each on Midway and FDR, but apparently only 14 on Coral Sea). Of those, 15 mounts went to the JMSDF for some of their early destroyers and one went to White Sands as a test fixture for 5"/54 guided projectiles sometime in the 1970s. That leaves 34 guns for 16 twin turrets, which is enough but only just. And I'd bet that some number of guns went to Japan as spares.

AAnd of course, a purely manual turret like the Mk 41 would have been a manpower black hole compared to more modern guns.

I stand by the idea that reworking the ammunition stowage/hoist for Mk 45 guns would have been much easier and more effective.
 
TomS said:
I stand by the idea that reworking the ammunition stowage/hoist for Mk 45 guns would have been much easier and more effective.
Click to expand...
Agreed, it would have been far simpler to pull the twin 5"/38 turrets and drop in single 5"/54 Mk42 turrets. Mk45s would have been even better, but I think that swap would have been a lot more involved.
 
1690837635391.png
I am not sure if this has been posted here before, but I had this image in my archives which seems related to the above discussion. It seems to be a similar or related plan of futureproofing an Iowa class ship. It seems to have offered far less VLS and for some reason it chooses to place 4 Goalkeepers on board, but to my surprise I noticed just now it does not keep the original gun but instead goes for 5''/54 guns or even 5''/62 singles.

I suspect I have this in higher quality (including maybe even more information) ..... somewhere....... but this one has been rescaled to shipbucket scale as reference for these old drawings of mine so was easier to find:
 
acelanceloet said:
View attachment 704937
I am not sure if this has been posted here before, but I had this image in my archives which seems related to the above discussion. It seems to be a similar or related plan of futureproofing an Iowa class ship. It seems to have offered far less VLS and for some reason it chooses to place 4 Goalkeepers on board, but to my surprise I noticed just now it does not keep the original gun but instead goes for 5''/54 guns or even 5''/62 singles.

I suspect I have this in higher quality (including maybe even more information) ..... somewhere....... but this one has been rescaled to shipbucket scale as reference for these old drawings of mine so was easier to find:
Click to expand...

This one is screaming fake to me. Severl things ring especially untrue

1) Goalkeeper on a ship ostensibly being retrofitted in the mid 1990s -- the USN never had any serious interest in that gun after the 1970s. PLius, the fdrawings are clearly Phalanx, not EX-83.

2) "40mm Rapid-fire gun" -- this doesn't match any proposed USN weapon in the modern era that I know of. And would be highly redundant to the 25mm Bushmasters also shown.

3) the VLS drawings are weird and don't really match how Mk 41 is divided.

4) it draws the twin 5"/54 as if it was a twin 5"/38 with longer barrels. In truth, the 54-cal guns needed more length behind the trunions so the gun houses were deeper. Which is why the plan in the OP moved the guns outboard a bit for clearance.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom