Register here

Author Topic: Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects  (Read 42480 times)

Offline airman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1040
    • my blogs
Re: Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects
« Reply #30 on: September 26, 2009, 04:00:34 am »
specular name of one of these converted battleship in carrier was Santa Cruz !
writers , bloggers , content-curators ,  music composer and passionate of militaria and uchronia

Offline Longshaor

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects
« Reply #31 on: September 27, 2009, 06:56:12 am »
Thanks for posting this.  I was about to post a question about info regarding the BBG proposals, but then I clicked through the link to the book.  I didn't realize that the entire book was scannable.  I was thinking about modeling one of the BBG designs using the 1/700 Trumpeter Wisconsin.  Now if I could just find some Terrier launchers (and missiles) in that scale...

I'm having the same problem in 1/350!  I've got great drawings of the Talos & Terrier missiles, but I've found nothing on the launchers.
Getting engineers and contractors to cooperate is like trying to herd cats.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects
« Reply #32 on: September 28, 2009, 05:13:55 pm »
specular name of one of these converted battleship in carrier was Santa Cruz !

Surprising that no US Navy ship has been named for the Battle of Santa Cruz. I wonder if the Sea Control Ship (SCS) or V/STOL Support Ship (VSS) had gone into production, if the members of the class would have been named for famous battles.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects
« Reply #33 on: September 28, 2009, 08:28:06 pm »
Surprising that no US Navy ship has been named for the Battle of Santa Cruz. I wonder if the Sea Control Ship (SCS) or V/STOL Support Ship (VSS) had gone into production, if the members of the class would have been named for famous battles.

Probably since the next major class of US Navy surface warships were named for battles: the Ticonderoga class (CG-47).
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Longshaor

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects
« Reply #34 on: October 06, 2009, 12:34:47 pm »
Surprising that no US Navy ship has been named for the Battle of Santa Cruz. I wonder if the Sea Control Ship (SCS) or V/STOL Support Ship (VSS) had gone into production, if the members of the class would have been named for famous battles.


Probably not.  The Navy actually has a (often violated) naming convention for ships.  In ye olden days it was:

Carriers = battles
Battleships = states
Large Cruisers = territories
Cruisers = cities
Destroyers = famous naval personnel
Submarines = fish

Now it's:

Carriers = politicians
Cruisers = battles
Destroyers = famous naval personnel
SSBNs = states
SSNs = cities

So in the current climate we're not going to see a USS Santa Cruz unless a new generation of cruisers is built.

Cheers
« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 12:36:20 pm by Longshaor »
Getting engineers and contractors to cooperate is like trying to herd cats.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2801
Re: Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects
« Reply #35 on: October 07, 2009, 08:17:36 pm »
SSNs are now getting state names, starting with  USS Virginia (SSN-774).

Back when SCS/VSS  was planned, they were still more or less sticking to tradition, though the big carriers had already gone to prominent naval-related people starting with USS Nimitz.  I could imagine the Navy giving SCS/VSS escort carrier names, which initially came from bays and sounds but later were taken from WW2 battles, both on land and at sea. 

Offline sdae102

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 2
Re: Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects
« Reply #36 on: June 26, 2010, 12:58:51 am »
Hello All:

Plse note that the CB1 class were considered such a threat by the USSR postwar that the USSR  designed and started construction on a class of 12 ships(!), of the P82 class CB Stalingrad's design expressedly to counter the CB1 class in 1950 (!)......guess the CB1's impressed the Soviet Navy more than most posters on this board.....And plse don't not reply with the usual drivel about that pathetic deathtrap HMS Hood, which was sunk by the 8" guns of the Prinz Eugen a treaty CA, or the grossly underarmed Scharnhorst class... (11" guns on 32,000t bah, USN BB's on 32,000t mounted 16" guns(!) the CB1's mounted 12" on 27,000t)....Make no mistake, the CB1's would have slaughtered either one in damn short order.... the CB1's were powerful and beautiful ships the epitomy of battlecruiser designs..Sorry for all you CB1 haters but that is the way it is.....Best Wayne

Offline airman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1040
    • my blogs
Re: Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects
« Reply #37 on: June 26, 2010, 03:00:34 am »
Surprising that no US Navy ship has been named for the Battle of Santa Cruz. I wonder if the Sea Control Ship (SCS) or V/STOL Support Ship (VSS) had gone into production, if the members of the class would have been named for famous battles.


Probably not.  The Navy actually has a (often violated) naming convention for ships.  In ye olden days it was:

Carriers = battles
Battleships = states
Large Cruisers = territories
Cruisers = cities
Destroyers = famous naval personnel
Submarines = fish

Now it's:

Carriers = politicians
Cruisers = battles
Destroyers = famous naval personnel
SSBNs = states
SSNs = cities

So in the current climate we're not going to see a USS Santa Cruz unless a new generation of cruisers is built.

Cheers
thanks for info Longshaor !  B)
writers , bloggers , content-curators ,  music composer and passionate of militaria and uchronia

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects
« Reply #38 on: August 25, 2010, 08:09:39 pm »
From Global Security:
Quote
In 1979 the Navy proposed reactivating the Iowa Class under a two-phase program. Under Phase I the battleships would be brought back into service quickly with a minimum of new modifications. This was done, and all four ships rejoined the fleet. The initial plan also envisioned a Phase II, under which the aft turret was to be deleted and a hanger and flight deck added in its place. The hanger would accommodate 12 AV-8B Harrier STOVL jumpjets. The Martin Marietta version for Phase II had a V-shaped flight deck with two ski jumps on the forward edges, on either side of the main superstructure. The flight decks would measure 330 feet by 150 feet. However, by 1984 the plans for these "Battlecarriers" had been dropped.

Line drawing of Iowa-class aviation conversion circa 1981.

Sources:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/bb-61-av.htm

Proceedings July 1981
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s60/scifibugc/
« Last Edit: August 25, 2010, 09:10:46 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects
« Reply #39 on: August 25, 2010, 09:14:03 pm »
"Aircraft Carrier, Converted from BB 61-66 Class"

Quote
Preliminary design plan prepared for the General Board as part of an exploration of carrier conversions of warship hulls then under construction.
This plan, dated June 1942, represents the conversion of Iowa class battleship hulls. It would have produced a ship somewhat similar in external appearance to the Essex (CV-9) class, but with lower freeboard, only two aircraft elevators, one catapult, and an 864' long flight deck set well back from the bow.
The drawing bears the handwritten notation, dated 12 June 1942, "This conversion apparently will not materialize."
The original plan is in the 1939-1944 "Spring Styles Book" held by the Naval Historical Center .

U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph.

Source: http://www.ijnhonline.org/mission_structure.html

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
« Last Edit: August 25, 2010, 09:21:38 pm by Triton »

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7792
  • The path not taken.
Re: Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects
« Reply #41 on: September 16, 2012, 08:28:12 am »
Concept artwork by Wayne Scarpaci of the Iowa-class battleship USS Kentucky showing what she may have looked like had she been completed as a guided missile battleship (BBG). (Via the Wikipedia article on USS Kentucky.)

Before the [1954 plan] conversion was cancelled, she was redesignated as BBG-1. Even with the modest 1954 plan shown in the image, she might have arguably been a far more cost effective conversion than the Boston Class cruisers turned out to be. Later more ambitious BBG proposals included the 1955 Mendenhall/SCB proposals, the Long-Range Objectives Group proposal from later in the same year, and the BuShips design studies of 1956. The BuShips studies proposed the subsitution of two Fleet Ballistic Missile launchers (16 [later 14] Polaris missiles in total) for the previously planned Regulas II or Triton missile launcher in the 1955 proposals.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 08:54:02 am by Grey Havoc »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7792
  • The path not taken.
Re: Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects
« Reply #42 on: September 17, 2012, 04:40:42 am »
Via the Shipbucket Archives, two images of USS Mississippi, during her final role as a testbed:
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7792
  • The path not taken.
Re: Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects
« Reply #43 on: September 17, 2012, 04:50:35 am »
And here's USS Mississippi again, in her first general configuration as a test ship:

Quote
Photo #: NH 86646

USS Mississippi (AG-128)


Photographed in 1947-48. She retains only her after 14" gun turret, but carries numerous smaller weapons and a special radar suite.

Collection of Rear Admiral Frederic S. Withington, 1975.

U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1666
Re: Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects
« Reply #44 on: September 17, 2012, 10:49:28 am »
"Photographed in 1947-48. She retains only her after 14" gun turret, but carries numerous smaller weapons and a special radar suite."

So removing all those other turrets removed a lot of weight. Did they install ballast to keep her from bobbing out of the water?