Modelling > Sea
Battleship Ideas and Inspiration
Weaver:
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
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:
GTX_Admin:
--- Quote from: sequoiaranger on 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
--- End quote ---
Pound away!
GTX_Admin:
--- Quote from: Weaver on 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.
--- End quote ---
I never knew that. Was it part of a bigger plan to give the Italian Armed Forces a dedicated Nuclear Capability?
Weaver:
--- Quote from: GTX_Admin on January 17, 2012, 02:25:03 AM ---
--- Quote from: Weaver on 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.
--- End quote ---
I never knew that. Was it part of a bigger plan to give the Italian Armed Forces a dedicated Nuclear Capability?
--- End quote ---
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.
Jeffry Fontaine:
For those that are interested, there is an on-going discussion and WIP topic for a Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin battleship at The Ship Model Forum. 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 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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version