Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects

TomS said:
I was debating whether this should go elsewhere, but it is vaguely related to the Iowa Phase II plans.

In November 1982, when the Iowa reactivations were just starting and the elaborate Phase II conversions still seemed possible, a naval architect by the name of Gene Anderson wrote a short article for the US Naval Institute Proceedings proposing a class of "light battleships" built around the four turrets that would be removed from the Iowas in the Phase II process. As far as I know, this was strictly a private notion, not ever seriously considered, but it's interesting to look at.

The proposed design is ~9000 tons displacement, 400 ft length (oa), 84 ft beam, 22 ft draft. Hull shape is largely inspired by contemporary merchant ships (cruise ship bow above water and bulbous bow underwater), with protection consisting of an unspecified armored box above decks around the machinery and command and control spaces and the usual torpedo blisters, voids/fuel, and a triple bottom below the water.

Propulsion would be 4-6 medium-speed diesels, for 20-25,000 bhp, giving a speed of up to 25 knots (consistent with the need to escort 20+ knot amphibs of the era).

Armament obviously gets the most attention. As described:
  • One triple 16"/50 turret, sited so it could traverse 270 degrees (blast overpressure on the superstructure would be fierce with the turret traversed fully aft...)
  • Three to five Mk 45 5-inch guns, with some possibly replaced by Mk 48 8-inch guns or 155mm/50 Vertical Load Gun Mounts firing standard Army/Marine 155mm ammunition. (The drawing has three mounts that look like VLGM, which is probably the most "reasonable" choice here. Edit: Mk 48 is a mistake -- the author probably meant the Mk 71 8-inch lightweight gun.)
  • Two Mk 26 launchers (which would certainly have been replaced by VLS if the design had been seriously considered)
  • Two Phalanx CIWS. (As with other drawings from the era, the shape of Phalanx was not yet known, and an igloo-like structure can be seen standing in for it here).
Sensors are mostly unmentioned, and the drawing shows a fairly basic radar fit. (Taking full advantage of the Standard Missiles in the Mk 26 would call for at least New Threat Upgrade, I would think.) There is supposedly hangar space (in the hull, I assume) for two helicopters as spotters and for other duties as required, including ASW.

Manning is optimistically pegged at about 100 more than an OH Perry frigate (so about 320, of which about 25-30% would be required to operate the 16-inch gun turret.)

The letters that followed this article were not kind...

I notice from that letter that there seems to have been another February 1982 article about a different (?) BB(L) concept in February 1982, but Google Books is being stubborn and won't find it for me.
Click to expand...
I remember reading this article as a teenager thinking this would be an awesome idea. My brother, who is a retired SWO, and I were just having a conversation about the IFS concept and the USS Carronade and in my research came across this article. I would love to find a copy of the original proceedings article about this BBL concept. Is there a link or a Proceedings DBase link to it?
 
BB55LHC said:
I remember reading this article as a teenager thinking this would be an awesome idea. My brother, who is a retired SWO, and I were just having a conversation about the IFS concept and the USS Carronade and in my research came across this article. I would love to find a copy of the original proceedings article about this BBL concept. Is there a link or a Proceedings DBase link to it?
Click to expand...

It's in the November 1982 Proceedings "Professional Notes"


If you have a membership, the PDF version has the actual image, which is not included in the text.
 
the proposed "Phase II" rebuild of an Iowa called the "Heavy Assault Ship". It was an 80s concept to further improve them & never got past the idea bubble stage.
 

Attachments

  • 454632249_487604020668521_247469725589433391_n.jpg
    454632249_487604020668521_247469725589433391_n.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 146
I really doubt anyone in the Navy took this seriously. My conspiracy theory is it’s something the Reagan Administration pushed.
 
I may be miossing something but, as a command system ship with modern systems they may have been very useful but, as has been pointed pointed out, very expensive and time consuming. Nuclear would have been an amazing option but where do the Buck Rogers come from?
 
They were proposing to put 4x4 VLS cells in place of the 5" barbettes for a total of 10x16=160 cells as well as a rather large air group!
 
Tzoli said:
They were proposing to put 4x4 VLS cells in place of the 5" barbettes for a total of 10x16=160 cells as well as a rather large air group!
Click to expand...

10:53 to 11:36
Iowa class 16-cell VLS.PNG
Note: Goalkeeper CIWS and RIM-7 Sea Sparrow

12:59 to 13:14
Iowa class VLS Deckhouses.PNG
Note: As explained by museum curator Ryan Szimanski, the existing 5"/38 handling rooms were built up another two stories above their original height to make room for the Tomahawk VLS.
 
Christopher Wang said:
Iowa class 16-cell VLS.PNG

Note: Goalkeeper CIWS and RIM-7 Sea Sparrow
Click to expand...

To be very picky, not Goalkeeper, just EX-83. The drawings suggest off-mount directors somewhere as there is no radar on the mounts themselves. There's also no evidence of directors for the Sea Sparrow.
 
TomS said:
To be very picky, not Goalkeeper, just EX-83. The drawings suggest off-mount directors somewhere as there is no radar on the mounts themselves. There's also no evidence of directors for the Sea Sparrow.
Click to expand...
The drawing might be just simplified, to reduce the number of small details that would make image hard to make out.
 
Dilandu said:
The drawing might be just simplified, to reduce the number of small details that would make image hard to make out.
Click to expand...

Yeah, probably. No radars shown at all, I think.
 
The Goalkeeper was in service by 1981, so it is not impossible that it was an goalkeeper. That said, some of the flight deck Spruance concepts of the late 1970's (such as the Ghiradella concept and the Adams & Rains design) show EX-83 mountings without additional fire control apart from the Mk 86 GFCS. I would suspect these concepts to be more aligned to those then to the Dutch Goalkeeper
 
acelanceloet said:
The Goalkeeper was in service by 1981, so it is not impossible that it was an goalkeeper. That said, some of the flight deck Spruance concepts of the late 1970's (such as the Ghiradella concept and the Adams & Rains design) show EX-83 mountings without additional fire control apart from the Mk 86 GFCS. I would suspect these concepts to be more aligned to those then to the Dutch Goalkeeper
Click to expand...

The drawings don't include any of the radars added to the EX-83 to make it into Goalkeeper.
 
TomS said:
The drawings don't include any of the radars added to the EX-83 to make it into Goalkeeper.
Click to expand...
Yeah, exactly what I meant ;) I was actually agreeing with that sentiment, I think the Mk 92 CAS eggs were added to the concept to guide the EX-83 mounts against both air and surface targets similar to how it was done in those flight deck Spruances a few years earlier.
 
All the Aegis propolous for the Iowas that I have seen all called for the removal of the 16 inchers.

Which makes sense in multiple ways from Logi, those guns are at best 40 year old and the factory long gone, to the techical, BIG GUN MAKES BIG BOOM.
 
Firefinder said:
All the Aegis propolous for the Iowas that I have seen all called for the removal of the 16 inchers.

Which makes sense in multiple ways from Logi, those guns are at best 40 year old and the factory long gone, to the techical, BIG GUN MAKES BIG BOOM.
Click to expand...
And more importantly, BIG RADAR NO LIKE BIG BOOM. Big gun make big boom, big radar stop working.
 
I wonder...
The failure of th Phase II modernizations (especially the 424 VLS "Fireworks" proposal) then the deactivation of all 4 Iowas with their large capacity of Tomahawks and Harpoon launchers eventually led to the development the abortive Arsenal ship concept with it similarly large VLS capacity?
 
The VLS upgrades of the Spruances added a significant capability to the fleet, as well as the Ohio SSGNs. The Arsenal ship seems to have been an aberration, a concept more than a realistic design.

As for the New Jersey, I might someday use the one with the added hangar and just a couple VLS, since that seems more practical. Maybe with one of the VTOL aircraft instead of helos. But no AEGIS! :rolleyes:
 
Tzoli said:
I wonder...
The failure of th Phase II modernizations (especially the 424 VLS "Fireworks" proposal) then the deactivation of all 4 Iowas with their large capacity of Tomahawks and Harpoon launchers eventually led to the development the abortive Arsenal ship concept with it similarly large VLS capacity?
Click to expand...
Not exactly, the "arsenal ship" idea was around at least since mid-1980s (and may be earlier). Basically since the USN figured out, that with programmable computers, digital datalinks and cooperative engagement capability already in development they don't need launchers and fire control to be on same ship. And since launchers were way cheaper, the idea to build a relatively cheap units with TONS of VLC but no fire control capability was obvious.
 
JoeCalPo said:
The VLS upgrades of the Spruances added a significant capability to the fleet, as well as the Ohio SSGNs. The Arsenal ship seems to have been an aberration, a concept more than a realistic design.
Click to expand...
Well, it was rather solid for her time in 90s - when USN still have far more missiles, than deployed launchers (the current situation is opposite - the missile inventory is not sufficient to fill all those thousands of launchers on dozens of destroyers). And while Oiho SSGN was a good idea, the "underwater monitor" concept is suitable only for Tomahawks; the "proper" arsenal ship was supposed to use all kind of missiles in Navy arsenal (i.e. SAM's, anti-submarine rockets, ect.), thus being able to add more to fleet capabilities than merely a big salvo of cruise missiles.
 

Attachments

  • Gd-OteObMAA56hM.jpeg
    Gd-OteObMAA56hM.jpeg
    267.4 KB · Views: 40
  • Gd-OteOa0AAKavr.jpeg
    Gd-OteOa0AAKavr.jpeg
    536.9 KB · Views: 39
  • Gd-OteMa0AAIQ4V.jpeg
    Gd-OteMa0AAIQ4V.jpeg
    557 KB · Views: 39

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom