Beyond The Sprues

Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Sea => : GTX_Admin January 14, 2012, 10:16:17 AM

: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: GTX_Admin January 14, 2012, 10:16:17 AM
Hi folks,

An area for your Battleship Ideas and Inspiration.

(http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_Iowa_pic.jpg)

Regards,

Greg
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Maverick January 14, 2012, 12:03:08 PM
Not having naval knowledge, per se, one wonders if a monitor type ship would be a capable design for open water?  I should think that its lower profile would be advantagous compared to a 'normal' ship from a concealment perspective providing one could waterproof the upper structure to prevent swamping.  In reality, it'd be almost like a surfaced submarine, but subs are infamous for low profiles compared to surface ships.

Regards,

John
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Cliffy B January 14, 2012, 12:34:48 PM
Oddly enough, the Iowas show up on radar looking like a tugboat and barge thanks to their profile.  The super high bow sticks up and then everything between it and the forward superstructure is masked.  Accidental stealth  8)  Although, a tugboat pulling a barge sighted in the middle of the ocean doing 30 knots..... ;D
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: elmayerle January 14, 2012, 01:38:44 PM
Some of the FACES II mods proposed for the Iowa-class would be interesting.  For grins, same approach applied to the Montana-class or to H.M.S. Vanguard (plausible since the basic hull is derived from the proposed Lion-class and a battlecarrier version of that class was considered)?
: Inspiration?
: sequoiaranger January 17, 2012, 12:58:56 AM
Not to pound my own drum, but I have a whole website devoted to naval what-ifs--"Furashita's Fleet":

http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/furamain.htm#ijn (http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/furamain.htm#ijn)

...that might provide some inspiration/ideas. I have built a few such ships, in 1/1200 or 1/2000, and one in 1/700 (IJN Scruyu) that I have actually discarded   :icon_nif: for want of room.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Weaver January 17, 2012, 01:30:07 AM
There was always that intriguing idea that they had of fitting Polaris to the Italian cruiser Guiseppi Garibaldi: the tubes were actually installed (four of them at the stern) but the missiles were never supplied. Now imagine a proper array of SLBMs on an old battleship hull....

Picture of a model that shows the GG installation here: http://media.photobucket.com/image/italian%20cruiser%20giuseppe%20garibaldi/mezzimilitari/modmmi08/modellini08-87f.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/image/italian%20cruiser%20giuseppe%20garibaldi/mezzimilitari/modmmi08/modellini08-87f.jpg)


I did a profile of a hypothetical NATO Polaris cruiser a while back. You could imagine a similar installation replacing the aft superstructure and guns on a BB:

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/profiles/NATOPolariscruiser.png)
: Re: Inspiration?
: GTX_Admin January 17, 2012, 02:23:27 AM
Not to pound my own drum, but I have a whole website devoted to naval what-ifs--"Furashita's Fleet":

[url]http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/furamain.htm#ijn[/url] ([url]http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/furamain.htm#ijn[/url])



Pound away!
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: GTX_Admin January 17, 2012, 02:25:03 AM
There was always that intriguing idea that they had of fitting Polaris to the Italian cruiser Guiseppi Garibaldi: the tubes were actually installed (four of them at the stern) but the missiles were never supplied.

I never knew that.  Was it part of a bigger plan to give the Italian Armed Forces a dedicated Nuclear Capability?
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Weaver January 17, 2012, 08:45:47 PM
There was always that intriguing idea that they had of fitting Polaris to the Italian cruiser Guiseppi Garibaldi: the tubes were actually installed (four of them at the stern) but the missiles were never supplied.

I never knew that.  Was it part of a bigger plan to give the Italian Armed Forces a dedicated Nuclear Capability?

Not exactly - at the time, the US was keen to promote the idea of a joint NATO Polaris force, and converting pre-exisiting surface ships was one way to do it without the cost being too alarming. This policy was one reason why Britain went down the Skybolt route rather than going straight for Polaris: there were many who could see the advantage of the latter, but politically, they wanted independent control. It was only after the cancellation of Skybolt that Polaris was offered to us on that basis.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Jeffry Fontaine January 18, 2012, 01:38:32 AM
For those that are interested, there is an on-going discussion and WIP topic for a Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin (http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=46033) battleship at The Ship Model Forum (http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/index.php).  I was following the discussion with great interest until the topic was derailed by one of the members that has a problem interacting with others. 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The original requirement for the Iowa class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_(BB-61)) required that the ships had to be able to transit the locks of the Panama Canal.  The Iowa's were built with a beam of 108.16' (32.97 m).  The lock chambers of the Panama Canal are 1000.0' X 110.0' (304.8 m X 33.52 m).  If that requirement is no longer necessary, a new battleship could be built to a better hull design with improvements in the machinery and propulsion systems. 

So maybe a kit bash with an Iowa class and a Forrestal/Kitty Hawk/Nimitz class carrier hull to make a bigger-better-battleship?  Definitely need a small craft launch and recovery feature at the stern plus a lot of Mk 41 VLS tubes for all of those Harpoon, Tomahawk, and Sparrow ESSM. 
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Dr. YoKai January 18, 2012, 05:25:54 AM
Not having naval knowledge, per se, one wonders if a monitor type ship would be a capable design for open water?  I should think that its lower profile would be advantagous compared to a 'normal' ship from a concealment perspective providing one could waterproof the upper structure to prevent swamping.  In reality, it'd be almost like a surfaced submarine, but subs are infamous for low profiles compared to surface ships.

Regards,

John

 No offense, John, but probably not. What you gain in stealth is lost in much reduced flexibility. From what I've read, the closer a gun is to the water, the harder it is to
 work in any kind of sea. Waterproofing the upper structure will keep the crew dry enough, ( though you might eventually run up against the same problem as a sub-
 running out of air. ) At the height most monitor guns are placed, you'd run into problems with the waves getting in the way.

 Now, I could see high angle fire, coupled with something like a towed balloon, possibly being effective, but there you're talking about gun carraige design that doesn't
start showing up much before the end of the Monitor's popularity...

 This is all written from considering the American Civil war period monitors- the American monitors of the early 20th Century had their guns mounted a
bit higher, and were capable of much higher elevation than their Civil war ancestors-but as far as I know, they were still intended for relatively calm waters
close to shore-their hulls weren't deep enough for the heavy seas of the open Ocean..
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: ChernayaAkula January 27, 2012, 05:57:28 AM
"Yamato" with a Nelson-style turret layout!  >:D

All big guns forward, making for a small profile when charging the enemy. As Yamamoto Tsunetomo wrote in Hagakure: "The Way of the Samurai is one of immediacy, and it is best to dash in headlong."

(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/Yamato1945.jpg)

SOURCE (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Yamato1945.png) of the original image
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: GTX_Admin March 08, 2012, 02:46:38 AM
what if the Bismarck actually made it back to France after Operation Rheinübung and was able to be repaired.  Options then?  I am thinking that it would have participated in the Channel Dash in early 1942, along with the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and Prinz Eugen.  What other ideas?
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Logan Hartke March 08, 2012, 03:19:31 AM
The most it could have done is tied up British assets.  The Germans did not accomplish much with their surface fleet in WWII.  Look what happened with the Tirpitz.  I see little reason to expect that they could have done much more with the Bismarck.  Despite the success of the Channel Dash, it was a strategic step back, as the German fleet was essentially voluntarily going back in its pen.  It was admission that they could accomplish little from the coast of France, which was the great fear in the first place.

Had the Bismarck survived, the British would have expended a great amount of effort to neutralize it, which they likely would have accomplished.  I can imagine the British would suffer heavy losses in bombing raids, commando raids, etc against occupied France with the Bismarck in port, but they would have success in the end.

The only thing is that with the Bismarck, the Germans would have been more inclined to "try something" in the Atlantic.  I can see an attempt at another Atlantic raid in the late fall or winter of 1941 after repairs on the capital ships in Brest were completed.  This may have caused some havoc among Allied convoys at worst, but the greatest risk would have been to the German ships themselves.  I really cannot seeing such a stunt ending well for them if attempted (unlikely).

Cheers,

Logan
: IJN "Yokozuna"
: sequoiaranger March 08, 2012, 03:20:54 AM
The year's top sumo wrestler gets the title of "Yokozuna" in Japan. Here is the battleship equivalent:

(http://i681.photobucket.com/albums/vv173/sequoiaranger/yokozf10.jpg)

I have a small (1/2000) model of it half-started somewhere--maybe I will finish it to go with my carrier "Yonaga".

For story and color illustration...

http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/yokozu_f.htm (http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/yokozu_f.htm)
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: dy031101 March 20, 2012, 12:18:58 PM
Although probably not what Maverick has in mind, his monitor question brought me to the idea along the line of Matsushima class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsushima_class_cruiser) or even Courageous class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courageous_class_battlecruiser) light cruisers, small warships with big guns.  And Allied interpretations of the idea are likely to have better fire controls and DP secondaries compared to their Axis counterparts somewhere down the road......

=========================================================

I am rather interested in the 16"/L50 gun that the Lexington class battlecruiser would have used...... the Wikipedia entry for the Iowa class battleship claimed that a Bureau of Ordnance actually came up with a preliminary design for a turret that could carry the 50 caliber guns in a barbette that could have fitted into the new battleship.  Does anyone know anything more about that preliminary design?  Such as how it looks like?
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: GTX_Admin April 25, 2012, 04:27:41 AM
Hmmm...tempted to buy one of these:

(http://images.bidorbuy.co.za/user_images/752/135752_100225153849_Kirov_Battle_cruiser.jpg)

As the starting point for a modern Stealthy Russian Battle Cruiser.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Cliffy B April 25, 2012, 04:34:03 AM
DO IT!!!!!!
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: ChernayaAkula April 25, 2012, 06:01:12 AM
DO IT!!!!!!

DO IT NAAOOUGGHHH!
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Cliffy B April 27, 2012, 07:48:12 AM
How about a little turn of the century whiffing?

(http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/026/1/a/megalomania_by_radomski-d4no86d.jpg)

http://radomski.deviantart.com/art/Megalomania-281626213 (http://radomski.deviantart.com/art/Megalomania-281626213)
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: GTX_Admin April 29, 2012, 02:53:07 AM
Stealing an idea from the land world, why not use Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) (see examples below) or one of its variations on modern warships as a counter to ASMs (which often have HEAT ty

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/M60A1-Patton-Blazer-latrun-2.jpg/800px-M60A1-Patton-Blazer-latrun-2.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/T72_Georgia.jpg/800px-T72_Georgia.jpg)

If nothing else, it would certainly give a different look.

Regards,

Greg
: Reactive Armor Plates?
: sequoiaranger April 29, 2012, 03:47:06 AM
>If nothing else, it would certainly give a different look.<

Yes, like a "quilted" battleship!

I think a "problem" would be the flexing of a ship while at sea--a tank probably flexes very little.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: finsrin April 29, 2012, 04:08:19 AM
Battleship-Carrier drawing is inspiring for a huge kit-bash.  Start with a 1/350 battleship hull to build 1/700 top side.  Or something like that.
If I had the skills and time..........

To take this further - Does someone make a 1/144 to 1/256 Arizona hull for r/c.?
The 1/144 would be ~1470ft  built as 1/350.
The 1/256 would be ~1594ft built as 1/700.
Could build an over the top massive Battleship-Carrier.  Pick your era, 1920's to today.
: Re: Reactive Armor Plates?
: RussC April 29, 2012, 08:48:53 PM
>If nothing else, it would certainly give a different look.<

Yes, like a "quilted" battleship!

I think a "problem" would be the flexing of a ship while at sea--a tank probably flexes very little.

There are rubberized soundproofing tiles coating most modern submarine hulls. These flex a lot going to depth and back again. A great trick done to show newbie submariners the principle of it all is to get a compartment that goes across the beam of the boat with subdivisions, usually a torpedo room or the crews' mess- and tie a string from one side to the other taut at eye level before the dive. At depth that string will be either sagging a few feet or even dragging on the deck.
   If there are welds or glues that can stand this, surely tiling a warship in chobham and reactives can be done. Of course there is a big difference between an RPG and those big excocet class ASM's! But you could place thick ones over the extreme vitals like the propulsion, magazines and officer's lounge...
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: jcf May 19, 2012, 02:41:32 AM
Hey Bill,

Trumpeter make a 1/200th scale Arizona.

Jon
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: GTX_Admin May 19, 2012, 02:47:19 AM
Random idea:  Tirpitz gets stripped down and turned into an early arsenal ship armed en masse with A-4/V-2 ballistic missiles and/or Fi-103/V-1 missiles.

Alternatively the same concept but using a fictitious third Bismarck class hull...or even a converted Graf Zeppelin.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: GTX_Admin June 24, 2012, 12:42:57 PM
Hmmm...tempted to buy one of these:

([url]http://images.bidorbuy.co.za/user_images/752/135752_100225153849_Kirov_Battle_cruiser.jpg[/url])

As the starting point for a modern Stealthy Russian Battle Cruiser.


Starting point ordered...in larger scale too!!!

(http://www.modelhobbies.co.uk/shop/images/images050808/TU04520.jpg)
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: ChernayaAkula June 24, 2012, 01:37:20 PM
As the starting point for a modern Stealthy Russian Battle Cruiser.

Starting point ordered...in larger scale too!!!


What is it with the larger scale? Instead of building in the One True ScaleTM (1/72), you build 1/48. Instead of the proper 1/700, it has to be 1/350!  :icon_ninja:

Some inspiration...

Project 21956 (eventual Sovremenny/Udaloy-replacement)

(http://spkb.air.spb.ru/news/publications/d_r_asia_01_08/1_1.jpg)

Project 22350 Admiral Gorshkov-class frigate

(http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/5977/pr22350s1fh7.jpg)

As your attorney, I advise you to invest in styrene stock. Heavily! 

: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: GTX_Admin June 24, 2012, 03:15:09 PM

What is it with the larger scale? Instead of building in the One True ScaleTM (1/72), you build 1/48. Instead of the proper 1/700, it has to be 1/350!  :icon_ninja:


Some might say that I am trying to compensate for something ;)...I prefer to just be called a heretic... :icon_swat:
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: tigercat August 11, 2012, 05:04:31 PM
Not having naval knowledge, per se, one wonders if a monitor type ship would be a capable design for open water?  I should think that its lower profile would be advantagous compared to a 'normal' ship from a concealment perspective providing one could waterproof the upper structure to prevent swamping.  In reality, it'd be almost like a surfaced submarine, but subs are infamous for low profiles compared to surface ships.



Well I believe there were some B Class Submarines that were converted to surface patrol boats

There was a class of Submarine Monitors built in WW1

so if you combine  the 2 ideas you could convert your M class to low profile seagoing monitors

Possibly as some kind of commerce raider i guess of just givent that they'd probably be faster than your conventional monitors to get coastal bomabardment capabilities off foreign shores quicker.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Artoor_K December 02, 2012, 03:08:31 AM
What about some underwater & flying Yamato  ? :)
(http://i417.photobucket.com/albums/pp258/wacek80/zplayer-2008-03-31-20-58-34-29.jpg)
(http://i417.photobucket.com/albums/pp258/wacek80/vlcsnap2011082917h51m24.png)

"Super Atragon" anime also features very nice airplane designs :)
(http://i417.photobucket.com/albums/pp258/wacek80/jet3.jpg)
(http://i417.photobucket.com/albums/pp258/wacek80/jet1.jpg)
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: GTX_Admin December 02, 2012, 04:19:39 AM
err...hot linking doesn't always work
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Artoor_K December 02, 2012, 05:12:45 AM
err...hot linking doesn't always work

Sorry , now linking corrected.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: GTX_Admin December 02, 2012, 06:32:27 AM
Oh yeah!
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: GTX_Admin April 14, 2014, 02:27:40 AM
Don't ask about the source...

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/imagejpg2_zps98a4de53.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/imagejpg3_zps6f6c105f.jpg)
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Diamondback April 14, 2014, 02:51:29 AM
Yeah, those who think me a whackjob would HATE to read that guy. LOL :p

Particularly with no way to recover those three Hornets in the fantail hangars... remember, even the fanatical Hitlerjugend said "um, We Don't Think So" to the idea of one-way-trips.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: mrvr6 April 14, 2014, 03:17:29 AM
1200 feet 16 x 20" guns

(http://i43.tinypic.com/308fjm8.jpg)

(http://i43.tinypic.com/2yxeyoh.jpg)

(http://i40.tinypic.com/2u7yrs1.jpg)

im considering deleting the funnels and making it a 60s nuke powered monster
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: kerick April 14, 2014, 03:28:37 AM
Don't ask about the source...

([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/imagejpg2_zps98a4de53.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/imagejpg3_zps6f6c105f.jpg[/url])


If I were captain of such a ship (not every going to happen, but...) The first thing I would say is get those _________ tanks off my ship!!!
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Volkodav April 14, 2014, 08:55:43 AM
Don't ask about the source...

([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/imagejpg2_zps98a4de53.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/imagejpg3_zps6f6c105f.jpg[/url])


Yes saw that on the original site after a google picture search, mmm.... best not go there I required mind bleach afterwards and I don't like doing that to often.  The first mention of Gavin should have been enough warning to me to stop reading!
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: kerick April 15, 2014, 12:31:09 AM
I've read some of the "Gavin" fanatics stuff. That term is a good warning sign.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Diamondback April 15, 2014, 01:50:37 AM
Yeah, dude makes Michael Savage at his foaming-at-the-mouth worst seem rational... O.O

There a few nuggets of good ideas in the mix, but they're like wading through the sewers to find a diamond ring.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: kerick April 15, 2014, 05:56:08 AM
There has to be a few points of truth to make the rest of it even plausible to the ear of some folks. Works on nearly every subject too. Except whiffery, we know there is no truth there, just fun!
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Diamondback April 15, 2014, 06:00:56 AM
Not quite... I've tried to keep my WHIFs as "this could ACTUALLY be built given parts and budget", other than fast-forwarding a little on Artificial Intelligence (ok, a LOT on Human Level AI) and Adaptive Camouflage.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as big of a fan of heavy Naval Gunfire Support as anybody, but that joker gives Battleship Fanboys a VERY Bad Name.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: elmayerle April 15, 2014, 06:38:44 AM
Don't ask about the source...

([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/imagejpg2_zps98a4de53.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/imagejpg3_zps6f6c105f.jpg[/url])

*cringe* that aft turret looks rather less than fully functional with two flight decks; I'd argue for replacing it with a suitably sized VLS capability.  As 'tis, it's an example of gratuitous overkill and not well thought out as a large arc of fire for the rear turret is blocked and I'd hate to think of what the shock impacts from the rear turret firing would do to the aircraft in or on that hanger.  Interesting concept, barring the turret, reminds me of some of the FACES II concepts, but poor development.

What could get very interesting is a FACES II conversion for a Montana-class or, for the RN, an equivalent conversion for HMS Vanguard if she'd been retained in storage instead of being scrapped in 1960.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Volkodav April 15, 2014, 10:27:50 AM
The whole flight deck and hanger arrangement looks as if it has just been dropped onto the unmodified BB model and could just as simply be lifted off again. 

As far as BB modernisations go I like the ideas people were presenting on my KGV thread with Mk13s replacing secondary armament rather than the big guns improving the ships defences (and offensive) capability and retaining the reason to keep the BBs at all the big guns.  The UK designs with their mid ships hangers and secondary armament positions / magazines would have been great for various air defence, anti-ship, anti-submarine and surface attack missiles.  If fewer big guns were needed then supress the after turrets for more missiles of simply for a very large hanger and flight deck for lots of Helos, ASW, attack, assault, troop accommodation etc.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: elmayerle April 15, 2014, 10:33:01 AM
Norman Polmar's book on US Battleship design included a profile drawing of a proposed "assault ship" conversion of the Iowa-class with the aft turret and catapult replaced by a hangar deck, flight deck, et al. for helicopter assault.  I'm thinking two of those and two FACES II conversions would make a formidable task force for landing over hostile beaches.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Volkodav June 15, 2014, 12:54:24 AM
Courageous and Glorious, due to their dubious combat power, are classed as Heavy Cruisers under the Washington Treaty and transfered to the RAN in 1922.  The ships are renamed Australia and Canberra and serve in WWII following complete Renown style reconstructions in the late 30s.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: GTX_Admin May 29, 2016, 05:51:09 AM
Something different:  The 40mm anti-aircraft gun emplacements of the USS New Jersey had the guns removed, were sealed, and became swimming pools for the ship’s reactivation during the Vietnam War. These are the only known swimming pools installed on an active US Navy ship. The pools were removed when the Iowa-class battleship was again activated in the 1980’s.

(http://67.media.tumblr.com/e48861b9e895c189c6cce7c2014c568b/tumblr_ncb35iynmq1txx6x7o3_r1_1280.jpg)
(http://66.media.tumblr.com/3f6faa6de948bbc270f4e250a96c1939/tumblr_ncb35iynmq1txx6x7o4_r2_1280.jpg)
(http://66.media.tumblr.com/3d5f20d6833d54480e1c72a9c94cd0c3/tumblr_ncb35iynmq1txx6x7o5_1280.jpg)
(http://66.media.tumblr.com/490454f513f7ef76140233cf1162a167/tumblr_ncb35iynmq1txx6x7o1_400.png)
(http://66.media.tumblr.com/c9db9a9c7489f585240c591783f768bf/tumblr_ncb35iynmq1txx6x7o2_400.png)
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: mrvr6 May 29, 2016, 05:58:02 AM
lol
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Volkodav May 29, 2016, 08:11:10 PM
Just imagine if a fire mission came in and someone was asleep floating in the pool.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: GTX_Admin May 30, 2016, 02:51:24 AM
Kind of reminds me of this South Park episode:

https://youtu.be/-HxK8yRYna8
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Volkodav August 31, 2016, 05:35:22 PM
How about post Suez the decision was made to convert the King George V Class battleships into commando assault ships instead of converting Albion and Bulwark, which were instead, along with Centaur, fully modernised as per Hermes.

Thinking surpressing Y turret or even moving it to B position to replace the twin (if it can be done) and building a raised flight deck with hanger and troop accommodation beneath.  Former aircraft hangers used as accommodation briefing rooms etc. bost deck / catapult space converted for amphibious craft.  Maybe Tartar in place of some or all of the 5.25" mounts.

: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: ysi_maniac March 11, 2018, 09:16:07 PM
I found first profile in the internet marked as HMS Barham. I think that its bow is fictional. Am I right? Anyway I like mentioned bow and grafted it in HMS Warspite and HMS Royal Sovereign.

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/drawShips/Barham_Warspite_RoyalSovereign.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/drawShips/Barham_Warspite_RoyalSovereign.jpg.html)
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: GTX_Admin March 12, 2018, 01:58:41 AM
What if more ships went for the Nelson class "all forward" style main armament arrangement?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/HMS_Nelson_%281931%29_profile_drawing.png/1600px-HMS_Nelson_%281931%29_profile_drawing.png)

Imagine a Iowa or Yamato class in this arrangement.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Volkodav March 12, 2018, 09:28:56 PM
I have a Nelson that is going to end up as a two turret forward battlecruiser
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: ysi_maniac March 21, 2018, 01:07:15 AM
US FlyingBattleship 1st iteration

USS Massachusetts 1/720 + P-38 1/72

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/drawShips/FlyingBattleship_US01.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/drawShips/FlyingBattleship_US01.jpg.html)
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: ysi_maniac March 22, 2018, 11:06:49 AM
US FlyingBattleship 2nd iteration. The definitive WEAPON

USS Massachusetts 1/720 + P-38 1/72 + M10 1/72 (tracked modules must be considered as bogies)

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/drawShips/FlyingBattleship_US02.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/drawShips/FlyingBattleship_US02.jpg.html)
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: SebastianP March 24, 2018, 06:06:42 AM
You may have seen pictures of the US Navy's heavy cruisers in the 1950s rocking 3-inch autoloaders in place of the Bofors mounts they were originally designed with. What's kind of less commonly known is that plans were made to perform the same upgrades on *all* surviving US warships during the 1950s, even the ones that were in mothballs with little chance of activation.

In other words, there exist plans somewhere (I've seen a few of them online, but damn if I can find them again now) showing the intended installations for 3-inch twin mounts on the Iowa-class, South Dakota-class, and North Carolina-class; as well as the Alaska-class, Cleveland-class, Fargo-class, Atlanta/Oakland/Juneau-class, and all the modern destroyers.

Of the larger ships, aside from the heavy cruisers only a single Cleveland (CL-83 USS Manchester) and the Juneau-class were actually upgraded. It would be rather lovely to see some of the others in plastic though.

Oh, and the reverse is also true - if the war had continued another year and the Des Moines and Worchester class cruisers had been completed to their original designs, they'd have had Bofors guns as well, with a quad mount in place of each twin 3-inch mount. As far as I know, neither of these ships exist in plastic (only resin...) but that too would be an awesome thing to see realized. :)
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: GTX_Admin April 05, 2018, 06:03:13 AM
What if Ballistic Missile subs never got a look in (for what ever reason).  Could we possibly have seen battleships evolve into Ballistic Missile Ships?
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Jeffry Fontaine April 05, 2018, 10:36:09 AM
The USS Long Beach was designed to carry the Polaris missile amidships (in the vicinity of the port and starboard 5.0"/L38 turrets) but that was never implemented.  There was also an Italian Cruiser that was planned to carry the same Polaris armament.  So depending on where you put them, the Battleship could certainly accommodate a half dozen at the very least. 
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: GTX_Admin April 05, 2018, 01:05:02 PM
Yeah, was aware of the USS Long Beach - see below:

(http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/missiles-and-rockets-feb-61-polaris-long-beach.jpg)

I was actually thinking of something a bit more dedicated.  Basically a surface ship equivalent of a SSBN.  One might think arsenal ship but I was thinking of purely ballistic missiles such as Polaris/Trident as opposed to cruise missiles/SAMs etc.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: tankmodeler April 06, 2018, 01:10:10 AM
I was actually thinking of something a bit more dedicated.  Basically a surface ship equivalent of a SSBN.  One might think arsenal ship but I was thinking of purely ballistic missiles such as Polaris/Trident as opposed to cruise missiles/SAMs etc.
For a surface ship I don't think there is any way of not carrying a defensive armament. Even the nuke boats carry some self defense torpedoes and tubes. Ships are nowhere near as hidey" as subs and if nuke boats didn't exist, you can imagine a lot of effort would be expended to ensure that the whereabouts of every BBB (!) was known at all times.

In the event of a war, you'd have to imagine that the BBBs would be the first targets of everything in range, especially enemy subs. And since there wouldn't be any way to really hide the BBB, unlike the way an SSBN can hide, it would probably spend it's days pinging away like mad, escorted by a bunch of DDs and FFs also pinging away like made and probably accompanied  by a sea control or ASW carrier with more fixed and rotary wing ASW assets, all pinging away like mad in an attempt to find the one SSK that may be sitting near the bottom and waiting it's turn to sink a strategic asset.

The cost to operate the Naval side of the strategic triad would rapidly explode, making it very unlikely that ICBMs would actually be mounted on surface ships at all. It would be almost impossible to protect them long enough for them to be worth the expense.

Just some logical extensions. You mileage may vary...  ;)

Paul
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: GTX_Admin April 06, 2018, 02:21:01 AM
For a surface ship I don't think there is any way of not carrying a defensive armament.


When did I indicate "no defensive armament"?

I also wasn't saying that such a concept was logical.  SSBNs have been used for a reason.  this was more a whiff/alt reality exercise to help provide inspiration for ideas.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: tankmodeler April 06, 2018, 10:18:28 PM
For a surface ship I don't think there is any way of not carrying a defensive armament.


When did I indicate "no defensive armament"?

I also wasn't saying that such a concept was logical.  SSBNs have been used for a reason.  this was more a whiff/alt reality exercise to help provide inspiration for ideas.

Sorry, I interpreted this:

"One might think arsenal ship but I was thinking of purely ballistic missiles such as Polaris/Trident as opposed to cruise missiles/SAMs etc."

to be a ship armed with only the ICBMs.

Apologies.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: elmayerle April 08, 2018, 01:30:30 AM
The USS Long Beach was designed to carry the Polaris missile amidships (in the vicinity of the port and starboard 5.0"/L38 turrets) but that was never implemented.  There was also an Italian Cruiser that was planned to carry the same Polaris armament.  So depending on where you put them, the Battleship could certainly accommodate a half dozen at the very least.
According to US BATTLESHIP CONVERSION PROJECTS 1942 - 1965, an Illustrated Technical Reference by Wayne Scarpaci (great book, highly recommended), there were studies in the late 1950's for converting both Iowa-class battleshps and Alaska-class battlecruisers to carry and launch Polaris missiles.  All had enhanced AA defenses, those studied variants that did away with the forward main batteries, too, had considerable enhanced AA capability in their place.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: tankmodeler April 10, 2018, 12:57:34 AM
there were studies in the late 1950's for converting both {I]Iowa[/I]-class battleshps and Alaska-class battlecruisers to carry and launch Polaris missiles.  All had enhanced AA defenses, those studied variants that did away with the forward main batteries, too, had considerable enhanced AA capability in their place.

Given the depth of the turret mechanisms, you could probably fit the Polaris and even Trident launch tubes into the ships without protruding above deck. For Tridents, you could get something like 18-19 launch tubes in each turret hole. That's a humongous 57 tubes per Iowa.

If you cleared the decks of gun houses and added a nice armoured cover to each launch tube. that would clear the way for a LOT of Talos, Terrier or Standard1 Missile launchers. In a refit mode you could easily fit 120+ Mk 41 VLS tubes, switch 6 of the 5" mounts over to the newer Mk 45 single automatic gun system, fit 4 each 20mm CIWS and SeaRam mounts, plus decoy systems and still have room to deploy and service 4-6 MH-60 helos for antisub work.

That's a pretty potent ship, to be sure.

But still a magnet for enemy forces. One that in a peer-to-peer war would receive a nuke right from the outset.

Paul
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Volkodav February 10, 2019, 12:21:00 AM
How about the Iowas reactivation in the 80s saw a pair of the remaining 5" twins replaced with Mk-13 GMLS, one on each beam and four or more directors mounted around the superstructure, main radars would have been improved too.  The four quad Harpoon launchers could have been deleted from the design and the missiles carried in the Mk-13s.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: tankmodeler February 12, 2019, 02:00:03 AM
How about the Iowas reactivation in the 80s saw a pair of the remaining 5" twins replaced with Mk-13 GMLS, one on each beam and four or more directors mounted around the superstructure, main radars would have been improved too.  The four quad Harpoon launchers could have been deleted from the design and the missiles carried in the Mk-13s.
Interesting, but to what end? Just curious what you think the role of those ships might be?

Longer commissioned relevance for the BBs? They were reactivated predominantly for surface bombardment tasks in a permissive environment. They really had no other tasking in a peer-to-peer war. Adding air defence capability implies use in a more contested environment. In which case the BBs as reactivated really didn't bring enough capability to be worth protecting.

Now, if the rear turret was removed and several hundred strike length VLS cells for Tomahawks were added, or if a flight deck was added aft and Harriers or F-35s were shipped, now you have a peer war land attack or sea control asset that needs protection. In that case removing the last of the 5" mounts and replacing them with Mk 13 or AAD VLS farms makes good sense.

The reactivation of the BBs was at a time when they could have been fitted with Mk 41 VLS instead of the Mk 13 system but they could have used a couple of VLS farms for AAD and one Mk 13 on each beam to fire Harpoons. Mind, the rate of fire of harpoons (1 per 22sec) from the Mk 13 means that you really can't put together a saturation attack. A better option might have been several quad box launchers aft along with the Tomahawk cells.

The ship could be rebalanced by the loss of the turret and barbette armour with the inclusion of bunkerage for a lot more oil allowing them to be used to refuel accompanying escorts. So maybe a RAS mast on each beam.

The BBs are such huge and capable platforms that you really can fit a load of fun stuff into a WHIF concept.

Paul
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: elmayerle February 12, 2019, 03:11:41 AM
VLS cells and a flight deck sounds like some of the FACES II concepts that were floated.  Those would be formidable ships if so equipped.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: finsrin February 12, 2019, 06:25:52 AM
Reads like good concept to explore in styrene.
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: GTX_Admin February 12, 2019, 01:36:24 PM
Just some inspiration from my recent travels:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/9A80C5EA-D18F-4302-A8FB-2E3E873BD3E2_zpsci1o0boa.jpeg)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/6624DC46-D8A3-4517-978B-21EBD43321BC_zpsabqtrc0x.jpeg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/73ADA6F7-6172-4667-AF10-EF0540C16CC3_zpsj1ep8tam.jpeg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F5F0A157-21CB-4D75-9DA5-EA9F4EF94CB4_zpsq1pdpl18.jpeg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/115582F2-8D49-46F3-B06F-C768AF6CA2E3_zpsyb4ot3la.jpeg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/5E16AE98-A90D-4929-B594-50BCE478AE16_zps5zxse7we.jpeg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/4A16F68D-9D78-4AF5-AF78-48CD9121E215_zpsxsb02pra.jpeg)
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: tankmodeler February 13, 2019, 12:28:13 AM
VLS cells and a flight deck sounds like some of the FACES II concepts that were floated.  Those would be formidable ships if so equipped.
For a more extreme, but possibly more useful major refit...

Remove the B and Y turrets. Build an above deck hangar w/ an elevator to below deck maintenance spaces and place an F-35-capable VTOL flight deck on the aft hull. Add fuel and weapon storage in the old accommodations and 16" ammo spaces below that.

Remove all twin 5" mounts and reshape the superstructure to permit 64 standard length VLS cells immediately aft of the rear funnel and in front of the new hangar, plus at least 64 more standard length VLS cells in 4 farms down each beam where the 5" mounts roughly were.

Add 96 strike length VLS cells in the area of the B turret. Store additional ammo for the A turret in the existing old B turret lower barbette and provide a method of transferring ammo when out of combat from the B barbette to the A barbette.

Add three CWIS and three SeaRam mounts on each side.

Replace one twin 5" mount on each side with a single Mk 45 5" mount.

In the space between the funnels, add 4 quad harpoon/NSM box launchers on each side.

Eliminate the old directors, the masts and the high, armoured conning tower and replace with SPY-6 radars, optical sensors, and install the AEGIS combat system.

Add torpedo and air weapon decoy systems and active and passive defense systems.

Clean up the superstructure to reduce signature as much as possible. IR suppress the funnels.

_Keep_ the old mechanical ballistic computer for the remaining 16" turret (to date, nothing electronic is actually better than that chest-freezer sized calculator).

And, since we're being totally irrational about this...

Replace the 4 geared steam turbines with six LM2500+G4  gas turbines linked to generators with motors driving the props and loads of spare electrical power for the new sensors and battle systems and allowing space in the hull for another LM2500+G4 to be added (or, go ahead, add it now, add it now!) to provide an additional 35,320 kW of electrical power for advanced electric weapons to be installed later.

_That_ would be a modern battle wagon.

Aaaaannnnnd, now I wanna to go buy an Iowa kit...

"Port side Harpoons all launched, sir!"

"Right, bring her around smartly and fire another broadside, Mr. Christian!"
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Jeffry Fontaine February 13, 2019, 11:57:13 AM
Something to consider for a modern surface combatant in the role of a BB might be to take a look at a carrier hull as it is a much larger hull with plenty of room for VLS installations along the outside edge of the hull.  Plus there is the advantage of having the squared off stern which could possible be modified with a well deck to launch and recover RHIB and similar small craft.  While it might not be practical to use a 1:350th scale carrier hull for direct conversion to a battleship, perhaps a smaller scale hull could be adapted through the wonders of "Scale-O-Rama?" to become a 1:350th scale hull.  The best hull shape I can see for such a project would be based on any hull from the USS Forrestal (CV-59) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Forrestal_(CV-59)) and later.  Maybe a  1:400th scale would work for the scale-o-rama effort?  There are a few carrier models in that scale.   
: Re: Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
: Volkodav February 19, 2019, 09:40:22 PM
The idea was an intermediate refit providing improved self defence capability for minimal increase in cost over reality and no decrease in real world surface attack capability.  Standard and Tartar for that matter had a surface attack capability, not with the range and surface skimming of Harpoon, but they could be guided into surface targets.  Tartar in the wing positions was an upgrade config seen on the later CA conversions.