Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects

They weren't that large! Smaller then a 5" twin turret barbette!
 
isayyo2 said:
Archibald said:
Polaris IRBM on a surface ship ? that was the very core of NATO MLF (because nuke submarines were too expensive for European navies) - and was thoroughly shot down as "idiotic".
Click to expand...
Considering all the hoopla over hypersonics and "payloads over platforms" I'd say revisiting large diameters tubes on surface ships would be a good idea. Heck I think that should be the next forum WhatIf?
Click to expand...
Also you can multipack like 7 MK41 missiles cells into even a Polaris size tube like they did with the Ohios SSGNs and Virginias Payload Module.

Also I will like to point out this thread here on Shipbucket.

Someone found the ACTUAL draws for the 4 Talo's Iowa's.

That he got from these two books.

Battleships: United States Battleships, 1935-1992 Hardcover – April 1, 1995​

by William H. Garzke Jr. (Author), Robert O. Dulin Jr. (Author)

ANd this one, (Note I have this one and I Fully recommand it. Even got designs for converting the Iowa's into Fast Replenishment Ships)

​

US Battleship Conversion Projects 1942-1965 an illustrated technical reference Paperback – February 5, 2013​



unknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

unknown.png
 
I would still check the original sketch drawings from one of the US archives.
That large missile looks not like a UGM/RGM-27 Polaris at all!
 
Tzoli said:
I would still check the original sketch drawings from one of the US archives.
That large missile looks not like a UGM/RGM-27 Polaris at all!
Click to expand...
These apperantly are the Sketch drawings from the US Navy Archive for the second book.
That is because it predates the Polaris and is actually uses the Jupiter, the liquid fuel ICBM that was Joint Army-Navy before the Navy decided to split off to looking into solid fuels. Which became the Polaris about five years later or so.
 
The missiles might be Jupiter - the Navy option before solid fuel progressed enough for Polaris ...
NINJA'D by @Firefinder lol
 
Fun though cruisers are, surely the optimum surface to surface missile platform is the nuclear submarine.
The modern cruiser should be a long range SAM/ABM platform to shield a task group or even a coastal area.
Long range ASW like Sea Lance is also better on submarines.
As a bonus VLS allows SSM and ASW to be carried. A large tube VLS or Kirov style slant LS would be essential. Carrying something like Thaad or Arrow?
 
uk 75 said:
Fun though cruisers are, surely the optimum surface to surface missile platform is the nuclear submarine.
The modern cruiser should be a long range SAM/ABM platform to shield a task group or even a coastal area.
Long range ASW like Sea Lance is also better on submarines.
As a bonus VLS allows SSM and ASW to be carried. A large tube VLS or Kirov style slant LS would be essential. Carrying something like Thaad or Arrow?
Click to expand...
If the Army 1000 mile range Strategic Long Range Cannon works, I can see the return of the Monitor-lets be real it be called battleship-classiftation.

A ship with SLRCs and KIE level ABM systems plus the usual SAMs will be a very useful tool to lock down areas, and support the troops cheaply and safely. Since most shipbase ABM Radars max out at about 1000 miles of range, the areas where we will put an ABM ship will be similar to a SLRC ship. Combining the two on one hull will allow you to do STRATEGIC COUNTERFIRES if you wanted too.

Which will be real painful for the SCUD type weapons users, even more so since the Army wants to have the SLRC shells, really hypersonic vehicles using a gun as the booster, to be able to seek out moving targets.

So set up the modern Monitor in a good spot, and it can monitor the area.
...
I'll see myself out...
 
Archibald said:
Polaris IRBM on a surface ship ? that was the very core of NATO MLF (because nuke submarines were too expensive for European navies) - and was thoroughly shot down as "idiotic".
Click to expand...
Remember that Polaris wasn't initially seen as a purely strategic weapons system. It was also seen as having a tactical role to reach out and touch targets beyond the range of a carrier task force's aircraft, in the days when nuclear weapons were seen as the solution to all military problems.
 
You are right. I have some difficulty grasping this (below) was even considered.

in the days when nuclear weapons were seen as the solution to all military problems.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head there. Ah, the 50's and 60's... those were the (scary) days.

What killed that trend, really ? the Cuban missile crisis scary crisis ?

"Prompt global strike" - with another name and in a very different context.

When it was believed that *ballistic missiles* - with or without nukes - could be used as surrogate strike aircraft / bombers.

Things like a non-nuclear Polaris with some kind of cluster-bomb-warhead to wreck an airfield (such as Port Stanley during the Falklands) using a submarine. Who needs Black Buck Vulcans or a JP233 Tornado, really ?
 
RLBH said:
Remember that Polaris wasn't initially seen as a purely strategic weapons system. It was also seen as having a tactical role to reach out and touch targets beyond the range of a carrier task force's aircraft, in the days when nuclear weapons were seen as the solution to all military problems.
Click to expand...
Though it could only take out relatively non-mobile and non-hardened targets due to guidance system limitations. That is why it ended up being a primarily countervalue system, though it would have still have had a sub-strategic role due to the ill-advised cancellation of Regulus II.
 
I wonder... The Regulus II looked like a jet aircraft and likely behaved as such. Could it had been further developed into a sort of UAV? or with defense mechanisms found on military aircraft? (Chaff, Flare, ECM/ECCM)
Does the Soviet Anti ship missiles had such defensive measures???
 
It was possible. And with regards as to Soviet ASMs, the later ones did indeed have ECM/ECCM built in as standard.
 
what about the Chaff and Flare dispensers against interception missiles? (I mean on the Soviets ASMs)
 
Grey Havoc said:
Though it could only take out relatively non-mobile and non-hardened targets due to guidance system limitations.
Click to expand...
I think it's helpful to think in terms of Tomahawk - TLAM-N is pretty comparable to Polaris A1. I think it's generally accepted that TLAM-N was targeted a sub-strategic way against things like airfields and naval bases. Sub-strategic Polaris would probably be used in a similar way.

The former is of course smaller and more accurate, but their range and warhead yield are at least pretty close. In the 1950s, when sub-strategic Polaris was on the table, it the targets would also have been softer, offsetting Polaris's inadequacy against hard targets.
 
Tzoli said:
what about the Chaff and Flare dispensers against interception missiles? (I mean on the Soviets ASMs)
Click to expand...
I think some of the early ones had chaff and/or flare dispensers tied in to Radar Warning Receivers.
 
Tzoli said:
I wonder... The Regulus II looked like a jet aircraft and likely behaved as such. Could it had been further developed into a sort of UAV? or with defense mechanisms found on military aircraft? (Chaff, Flare, ECM/ECCM)
Does the Soviet Anti ship missiles had such defensive measures???
Click to expand...
This wouldn't be as easy as it appears. First, any ECM / ECCM system would require ESM to detect and analyze enemy signals. Without the system knowing what the signal is and what it is for using countermeasures could well be counter productive. Generally, ESM requires some degree of human intervention to analyze signals.
For example, if the missile had some very simple ESM and reacted to enemy signals it is entirely possible that it picks up a surveillance radar signal and reacts automatically by releasing chaff making it's signature much larger and easier to detect. This doesn't distract a surveillance radar the way it would a fire control one trying to pick the real target out of the clutter. Instead, the clutter itself is giving warning of a target which is the purpose of surveillance radar.
Another potential negative is the missile equipped with a library of ESM signal information is captured intact. This would give an enemy useful intelligence on what their opponent knows about their radar systems, etc.
 
Tzoli said:
what about the Chaff and Flare dispensers against interception missiles? (I mean on the Soviets ASMs)
Click to expand...

The first anti-ship missile with fitted anti-interception countermeasures was P-500 "Bazalt" in 1975. Before that, no countermeasures were fitted on missiles themselves, but maritime missile-carrying bombers supported the missile launch with intense jamming "from behind".
 
T. A. Gardner said:
This wouldn't be as easy as it appears. First, any ECM / ECCM system would require ESM to detect and analyze enemy signals. Without the system knowing what the signal is and what it is for using countermeasures could well be counter productive. Generally, ESM requires some degree of human intervention to analyze signals.
For example, if the missile had some very simple ESM and reacted to enemy signals it is entirely possible that it picks up a surveillance radar signal and reacts automatically by releasing chaff making it's signature much larger and easier to detect. This doesn't distract a surveillance radar the way it would a fire control one trying to pick the real target out of the clutter. Instead, the clutter itself is giving warning of a target which is the purpose of surveillance radar.
Another potential negative is the missile equipped with a library of ESM signal information is captured intact. This would give an enemy useful intelligence on what their opponent knows about their radar systems, etc.
Click to expand...

Well, the problem could be partially solved by allowing the missile to use chaff, jammers and flares only on terminal approach - when its most likely to be intercepted. For example, about 100 miles from target the lock is released, and missile started to puff chaff clouds if tracked for some time by continuous radar beam. It's probably possible to equip "Regulus" with narrow-band ESM's, set on detecting signals in the approximate band of Soviet SAM targeting radars, and install detector capable of approximating the intensity of received signal (thus checking could the missile be in danger zone), and its duration (thus checking if the radar is locked on missile).

If all three checks are confirmed - A, the missile is receiving the beam in Soviet targeting radar band, B, the signal is powerful enough for missile to be detected, and C, the beam is staying on missile for some time - then it would release chaffs. And maybe zig-zag a bit, trying to break the lock.
 
Dilandu said:
The first anti-ship missile with fitted anti-interception countermeasures was P-500 "Bazalt" in 1975. Before that, no countermeasures were fitted on missiles themselves, but maritime missile-carrying bombers supported the missile launch with intense jamming "from behind".
Click to expand...
Thought that at least one version of the Styx had countermeasure dispensers?
 
Grey Havoc said:
Thought that at least one version of the Styx had countermeasure dispensers?
Click to expand...
Frankly, never heard of that. There were several version of P-15 Termit (Styx), not counting Chinese:

* P-15 - basic version, radar-guided, launched from hangars, non-folding wing.
* P-15TG - infrared-guided version with IR-seeker
* P-15U - improved radar-guided version, launched from container launchers, with automatic wing unfolding in flight.
* P-15UTG - infrared-guided version of P-15U, with IR seeker.
* P-15M - improved, long-range radar-guided version (nuclear-capable), commissioned in 1972.
* P-15R - infrared-guided version of P-15M.

(there are a bit of confusion about exact model names).

There were also "downgraded", export versions:

* P-20 - export version of P-15U.
* P-21/22 - export versions of P-15M/R.

None of those missiles was equipped with any countermeasures. They hardly would be practical - Styx was envisioned as short-range missile (basic version have 40 km max range), and on such distance it was simpler to use carrier ship jammers to cover the missile. While P-15M version doubled the range, it was 1970s, and the missile was already planned to be replaced with news supersonic missile (which eventually became P-270 Moskit)
 
it just dawned on me that, with 12 to 16 Jupiters, that's mutated Iowa would have launch capability superior to the entire Cape Canaveral, even in the 60's ! :p :p :p
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
it just downed on me that, with 12 to 16 Jupiters, that's mutated Iowa would have launch capability superior to the entire Cape Canaveral, even in the 60's ! :p :p
Click to expand...

Imagine also, how spectacular would be the explosion, if she would be hit by Soviet air-launched anti-ship missile while preparing her Jupiters... ;)
 
A question: where there any plans for "single-end" "Alaska"'s? I.e. for their conversion into missile ship, with the rear turret removed & replaced with missile system, and forward turrets retained?
 
I have these very old images that I download 20 years ago i believe... Excuse me if someone are repeat, but I prefer put the complete serie.
 

Attachments

  • Hawaii_conversion_text_001.jpg
    Hawaii_conversion_text_001.jpg
    61.8 KB · Views: 298
  • BBCIowabbg1.jpg
    BBCIowabbg1.jpg
    94.2 KB · Views: 304
  • BBCIowabbg2.jpg
    BBCIowabbg2.jpg
    103.2 KB · Views: 303
  • BBCIowabbg3.jpg
    BBCIowabbg3.jpg
    104.2 KB · Views: 296
  • BBCIowabbg4.jpg
    BBCIowabbg4.jpg
    98.5 KB · Views: 292
  • iowa_conversion_1.jpg
    iowa_conversion_1.jpg
    88.5 KB · Views: 288
  • iowa_conversion_2.jpg
    iowa_conversion_2.jpg
    90.8 KB · Views: 301
JohnR said:
Was is it necessary for the Terrier launcher's to be within a certain distance from the fire control radars?
Click to expand...
Not necessary it was probably that they were best kept together.
Though I'm not sure if a starboard side radar director could guide a missile launched from the port side.
 
Tzoli said:
Yes, but what about semi-active homers like Terrier or Tartar?
Click to expand...

Early models of Terrier were beam-riders. If I recall correctly, all Terrier-capable ships were fitted for both beam-riding and semi-active models (since, for example, nuclear Terrier RIM-2D existed only as beam-riding model)
 
Skybolt said:
Just after President Kennedy May 1961 call for a lunar landing before the end of the decade, there was a lot of proposals for boosters capable to take a manned lander to the Moon: ever growing Saturns, and Novas built with the most diverse combination of stages, liquid, solid and nuclear. One of the least known proposals, and the only one, to my knowledge, that was totally composed of solid staged (four) for the lunar trajectory insertion of the payload, was proposed in August 1961 by Jet Propulsion Laboratory. NASA headquarters charged Space Technology Laboratories of Los Angeles (Ca) to evaluate the proposal. STl actually did more that that, re-elaboratoed and refined the all-solid Nova concept, using an Apollo based lunar lander as payload (JPL had used a different capsule, that seems the Convair Astro M-1 proposal...).
So, behold these solid behemoths. First and second stages for both configuration were composed by 300-in monolithic solids, third and fourth of the JPL-s one were monolithic 222-in, 165-in for STL.
One of the method proposed by STL to launch this Nova was an offshore based protected by a semicircular breakwater, serviced by a modified Iowa-class battleship with a 1,500-ton crane in lieu of the aft turret.
Click to expand...
nova-jpl-launch-jpg.44064
 
Well it would certainly take an Iowa to resist the blast of such a behemoth detonating at low altitude.

In passing, Hazegrayart (the gifted CGI genius) has done a rather astonishing video of all four N-1 failures. The July 3, 1969 BIG KABOOOOOOM is pretty amazing

(at 2: 57 in the video: and CRAAAACK goes the camera lense ! )

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hZ5Ep06TTk
 
Welp this just posted in a Discord Im in.


USS ALASKA CB-1 V2 guided missile ship study plan 1947 BUSHIPS US Navy CB-2 3
www.ebay.com

USS ALASKA CB-1 V2 guided missile ship study plan 1947 BUSHIPS US Navy CB-2 3 | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for USS ALASKA CB-1 V2 guided missile ship study plan 1947 BUSHIPS US Navy CB-2 3 at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!
www.ebay.com
 
Firefinder said:
USS ALASKA CB-1 V2 guided missile ship study plan 1947 BUSHIPS US Navy CB-2 3
Click to expand...
Full details here:

US Battleship Conversion Projects 1942-1965 an illustrated technical reference : scarpaci, wayne: Amazon.es: Libros

US Battleship Conversion Projects 1942-1965 an illustrated technical reference : scarpaci, wayne: Amazon.es: Libros
www.amazon.es

Pages 78 and 79

description, specs table, two view drawings and art by the author


Soviet counterpart was P82 R1 missile conversion projects variant A and B

Soviet Battleships 1933-1957 an illustrated technical reference : scarpaci, wayne: Amazon.es: Libros

Soviet Battleships 1933-1957 an illustrated technical reference : scarpaci, wayne: Amazon.es: Libros
www.amazon.es

Page 83

Description and sketches
 
Grey Havoc said:
Skybolt said:
Just after President Kennedy May 1961 call for a lunar landing before the end of the decade, there was a lot of proposals for boosters capable to take a manned lander to the Moon: ever growing Saturns, and Novas built with the most diverse combination of stages, liquid, solid and nuclear. One of the least known proposals, and the only one, to my knowledge, that was totally composed of solid staged (four) for the lunar trajectory insertion of the payload, was proposed in August 1961 by Jet Propulsion Laboratory. NASA headquarters charged Space Technology Laboratories of Los Angeles (Ca) to evaluate the proposal. STl actually did more that that, re-elaboratoed and refined the all-solid Nova concept, using an Apollo based lunar lander as payload (JPL had used a different capsule, that seems the Convair Astro M-1 proposal...).
So, behold these solid behemoths. First and second stages for both configuration were composed by 300-in monolithic solids, third and fourth of the JPL-s one were monolithic 222-in, 165-in for STL.
One of the method proposed by STL to launch this Nova was an offshore based protected by a semicircular breakwater, serviced by a modified Iowa-class battleship with a 1,500-ton crane in lieu of the aft turret.
Click to expand...
nova-jpl-launch-jpg.44064
Click to expand...
Do you have the source material or any other further info?
Edit: Fixing autowrong
 
Antonio said:
Firefinder said:
USS ALASKA CB-1 V2 guided missile ship study plan 1947 BUSHIPS US Navy CB-2 3
Click to expand...
Full details here:

US Battleship Conversion Projects 1942-1965 an illustrated technical reference : scarpaci, wayne: Amazon.es: Libros

US Battleship Conversion Projects 1942-1965 an illustrated technical reference : scarpaci, wayne: Amazon.es: Libros
www.amazon.es

Pages 78 and 79

description, specs table, two view drawings and art by the author


Soviet counterpart was P82 R1 missile conversion projects variant A and B

Soviet Battleships 1933-1957 an illustrated technical reference : scarpaci, wayne: Amazon.es: Libros

Soviet Battleships 1933-1957 an illustrated technical reference : scarpaci, wayne: Amazon.es: Libros
www.amazon.es

Page 83

Description and sketches
Click to expand...
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¿
Put images please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom