Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects

Scott Kenny said:
Would have required cutting into the belt armor. It was left at the end of WW2 when there was no intention to use Mo as a museum ship. It was left in the 1960s reactivation. It was left in the 1980s reactivation.
Click to expand...
so to much of a PITA and to costly to fix... lets just call it "of historical importance" you know like a coat of paint over the truth so we don't look cheap or lazy LOL
 
bobtdwarf said:
so to much of a PITA and to costly to fix... lets just call it "of historical importance" you know like a coat of paint over the truth so we don't look cheap or lazy LOL
Click to expand...
Navy's not afraid to say, "not causing operational issues, and too expensive to fix since it's not causing operational issues"
 

Attachments

  • Equatorial_Launch_Sites_mobile_Sea_Launc.pdf
    4.1 MB · Views: 111
I think it may need its own thread in the space projects section. The US Navy had far reaching space plans in 1957-62 but they were thwarthed by the Air Force.
 
bobtdwarf said:
so to much of a PITA and to costly to fix... lets just call it "of historical importance" you know like a coat of paint over the truth so we don't look cheap or lazy LOL
Click to expand...

There's nothing cheap or lazy about not fixing something that isn't broken...
 
Last edited:
F.L. said:
It's my favourite project of Iowa-class conversion. Designed to operate F/A-18s and Harriers.
With a cat and a skyjump. Plus arresting cables.
View attachment 710306
Click to expand...
Wow that's an intensive rebuild... Added a whole Mk26 up forward, replaced 4x 5"38s with 5"/54s and replaced 2x 5"/38s with 8"/55s?
 
F.L. said:
It's my favourite project of Iowa-class conversion. Designed to operate F/A-18s and Harriers.
With a cat and a skyjump. Plus arresting cables.
Click to expand...
While it may be remotely possible to safely catapult F/A-18 from such arrangement, it would be next thing to impossible to land it. Not only the deck is very short, but superstructure would disturb air over deck very seriously. Also, making aircraft elevator part of runaway for Harriers isn't a good idea; it would be subjected to hot engine excaust.

Mk-26 launcher in ftont of main turrets would almost certainly not survive the shockwaves from gun blasts. At very least, some kind of protective dome (collapsible) would be needed. Or "disappearing" launcher, that could be retracted below deck.

Also, there are no radar illuminators on the scheme, so the only thing it could launch is ASROC.

And I utterly fail to see why a battleship may need a 8-inch guns on broadside.
 
Dilandu said:
but superstructure would disturb air over deck very seriously.
Click to expand...
This was envisaged in view of the problems encountered by the Japanese Ise class battlecarriers.
To reduce superstructure wind turbulence, I suggest leaving the tower as it is with its range finder and smooth sides and removing the after stack. Duct this stack’s boiler uptakes forward to one large streamlined funnel similar to that found on the South Dakota (BB-57)-class battleships. As noted on the drawing, also remove any other unnecessary air turbulence-forming clutters on the sides of the main superstructure. A wind tunnel smoke test would be helpful here using various model configurations of the Iowas to determine the best wind flow over the superstructure.
Source : https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1981/july/comment-and-discussion
Click to expand...

Dilandu said:
Also, making aircraft elevator part of runaway for Harriers isn't a good idea; it would be subjected to hot engine excaust.
Click to expand...
This was partly the case on the three Illustrious and HMS Hermes.
hms-illustrious-aircraft-carrier-2.jpg
 
Not to mention the model shown is just a plain Iowa model modified. Look at the WW2 era Boforses, and the aft 5" director behind and above the VLS cells, with a Phalanx in place of the aft main gun director. (Though that shows the Martin Marietta's proposal)
Indeed 5"/54 and 8"/55 mix are not worth it.
Either the artist misinterpreted what Gene Anderson was proposing or Gene Anderson did not know what he was proposing for the New Jersey (If I remember correctly only New Jersey was considered for the Scheme 1 BBV conversion)
The other two, Harold Pulver's and Marin Marietta's proposals were much better.
Martin Marietta:
www.deviantart.com

Iowa Phase II Battlecarrier Conversion by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com www.deviantart.com

Harold Pulver:

Though it would be nice to get hold of the very original documents describing or even sketching up these proposals
 
Tzoli said:
Did you seen the height of the nose of an Iowa? The Phalanx is even higher and also the WW2 era Oerlikon bulwark is there as well.
But I see your point:
Click to expand...
Would Phalanx on the bow survive the main battery fire on forward angles?

P.S. Also, I'm not sure that retaining the rear pair of 5-inch turrets is practical. The fly deck angles basically block a significant part of their fire arcs.
 
Dilandu said:
Would Phalanx on the bow survive the main battery fire on forward angles?

P.S. Also, I'm not sure that retaining the rear pair of 5-inch turrets is practical. The fly deck angles basically block a significant part of their fire arcs.
Click to expand...
Think. How close have to be the enemy ship for the guns to fire at such low angles?
Broadside fire was the expected coastal bombardment for both the 16" and 5" guns.
 
pathology_doc said:
On that note, I'd like to know what's been done with the museum ship HMS Warrior with respect to hull preservation. That thing has been around since 1860.
Click to expand...
If they can keep it from rusting, it works out to thick layers of paint over original metals. But I suspect that the hull plating has been replaced by this time.

As to the USS Constitution, there's almost no wood left from her original construction, it's all been replaced but for a few chunks of keel.
 
pathology_doc said:
On that note, I'd like to know what's been done with the museum ship HMS Warrior with respect to hull preservation. That thing has been around since 1860.
Click to expand...
Well, according to Lambert's HMS Warrior 1860 Victoria's Ironclad Deterrent, the main deck was sealed below the wood surface that shows with an ICI product akin to what's called "Flex Seal" in the US.
flexsealproducts.com

Flex Seal Family of Products | The Official Store

The easy way to patch, bond, seal and stop leaks fast. Featuring our full line of Flex Seal Products.
flexsealproducts.com flexsealproducts.com

This is a liquid rubber-like compound that forms a watertight barrier between the iron deck underneath it and the wood above to prevent rain leaking into the ship and rotting it out from the inside. The hull was cleaned and--I assume--painted with a modern two-part epoxy marine paint that will last decades as a barrier to corrosion of the hull. Most of the original hull was found to be intact to an extent that it didn't need replacement interestingly enough.

Badly corroded iron parts were replaced with steel and welding was used in some areas rather than riveting. Note: You can weld steel plate to wrought iron using special welding rod...
 
On the OT, while it is interesting as an exercise, Shirley the cost would remove any possiblity to proceed to cutting steel. Might even have been cheaper to convert them to nuclear power and use the for the BG command ship they actually performed for a while.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well, according to Lambert's HMS Warrior 1860 Victoria's Ironclad Deterrent, the main deck was sealed below the wood surface that shows with an ICI product akin to what's called "Flex Seal" in the US.
flexsealproducts.com

Flex Seal Family of Products | The Official Store

The easy way to patch, bond, seal and stop leaks fast. Featuring our full line of Flex Seal Products.
flexsealproducts.com flexsealproducts.com

This is a liquid rubber-like compound that forms a watertight barrier between the iron deck underneath it and the wood above to prevent rain leaking into the ship and rotting it out from the inside. The hull was cleaned and--I assume--painted with a modern two-part epoxy marine paint that will last decades as a barrier to corrosion of the hull. Most of the original hull was found to be intact to an extent that it didn't need replacement interestingly enough.
Click to expand...
That surprises the hell out of me.



T. A. Gardner said:
Badly corroded iron parts were replaced with steel and welding was used in some areas rather than riveting. Note: You can weld steel plate to wrought iron using special welding rod...
Click to expand...
Ironically, large steel riveting is just about forgotten as a technique these days.

Not a great loss in general, but for historically significant items it's a bit of a shame.
 
Flex seal on metal is double edged sword. It is not an air barrier so some vapor goes through. It will condense on the metal and when it does it acts hydraulic.
 
MadRat said:
Flex seal on metal is double edged sword. It is not an air barrier so some vapor goes through. It will condense on the metal and when it does it acts hydraulic.
Click to expand...
I'd assume that they laid down some epoxy paint before the flex seal.
 
That source I mentioned earlier cited that the iron main deck was 3/4" thick so I can see that surviving. I suspect the hull was likewise simply thick enough material that it didn't all rot away. Lambert did mention that rainwater and humidity had been bad enough to let stalactites to form as over the years a large number of concrete patches were applied to the main deck.

It seems the restoration when for appearance and durability ahead of historical accuracy for both cost reasons and the inability to source many of the materials and methods used originally.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That source I mentioned earlier cited that the iron main deck was 3/4" thick so I can see that surviving. I suspect the hull was likewise simply thick enough material that it didn't all rot away. Lambert did mention that rainwater and humidity had been bad enough to let stalactites to form as over the years a large number of concrete patches were applied to the main deck.

It seems the restoration when for appearance and durability ahead of historical accuracy for both cost reasons and the inability to source many of the materials and methods used originally.
Click to expand...
I'm okay with that.

Yes, obviously original materials types and methods are best, but when that's unreasonably expensive you do the preservation for appearance and durability then call it as good as you can get.
 
publiusr said:
Alaska was considered a “Large Cruiser”—a step up from Heavy Cruiser?
Click to expand...
Yes... the interior structural/armor design was that of a scaled-up heavy cruiser hull, not a scaled-down battleship hull.

The secondary (dual-purpose 5") battery was the same as that on the USN's heavy cruisers as well. Had the design been a scaled-down battleship one there would have been another pair of 5"/38 twin mounts on the sides instead of the aircraft catapults, with the catapults being mounted aft.
 
publiusr said:
Alaska was considered a “Large Cruiser”—a step up from Heavy Cruiser?
Click to expand...

BlackBat242 said:
Yes... the interior structural/armor design was that of a scaled-up heavy cruiser hull, not a scaled-down battleship hull.

The secondary (dual-purpose 5") battery was the same as that on the USN's heavy cruisers as well. Had the design been a scaled-down battleship one there would have been another pair of 5"/38 twin mounts on the sides instead of the aircraft catapults, with the catapults being mounted aft.
Click to expand...
AIUI, the Alaska class were basically what heavy cruisers would have been without the Washington and London Naval Treaties artificially limiting cruisers to 10,000 tons and 8" guns.
 
SSgtC said:
AIUI, the Alaska class were basically what heavy cruisers would have been without the Washington and London Naval Treaties artificially limiting cruisers to 10,000 tons and 8" guns.
Click to expand...

12 000 tons cruisers, 36 000 tons battleships

15 000 tons cruisers, 45 000 tons battleships

25 000 tons cruisers, 75 000 tons battleships
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well, according to Lambert's HMS Warrior 1860 Victoria's Ironclad Deterrent, the main deck was sealed below the wood surface that shows with an ICI product akin to what's called "Flex Seal" in the US.
flexsealproducts.com

Flex Seal Family of Products | The Official Store

The easy way to patch, bond, seal and stop leaks fast. Featuring our full line of Flex Seal Products.
flexsealproducts.com flexsealproducts.com

This is a liquid rubber-like compound that forms a watertight barrier between the iron deck underneath it and the wood above to prevent rain leaking into the ship and rotting it out from the inside. The hull was cleaned and--I assume--painted with a modern two-part epoxy marine paint that will last decades as a barrier to corrosion of the hull. Most of the original hull was found to be intact to an extent that it didn't need replacement interestingly enough.

Badly corroded iron parts were replaced with steel and welding was used in some areas rather than riveting. Note: You can weld steel plate to wrought iron using special welding rod...
Click to expand...
Interesting! Thank you.
 
SSgtC said:
AIUI, the Alaska class were basically what heavy cruisers would have been without the Washington and London Naval Treaties artificially limiting cruisers to 10,000 tons and 8" guns.
Click to expand...
Maybe a bit bigger than that, they were designed to go hunting whatever super cruisers the Japanese made. Hence why they weren't named for cities or for states, but territories.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The 25kton cruisers were the Des Moines class, though.

Alaska class was 35ktons!
Click to expand...
Baltimore/Oregon City classes: 13,600 long tons (13,818 t) standard; 17,000 long tons (17,273 t) full load
Des Moines class: 17,255 long tons (17,532 t) standard; 20,933 long tons (21,269 t) full load
Alaska class: 29,771 long tons (30,249 t) standard; 34,253 long tons (34,803 t) full load

The treaties all used standard tons, so the Baltimores were 13,500 ton ships, Des Moines was a 17,000 ton ship and the Alaska was a 30,000 ton ship.
The North Carolinas/South Dakotas were the 36,000 ton ships, and the Iowas were the 45,000 ton ships.
 
Design CA2-D of the Alaska preliminary designs displaced 37,800 tons, but at that point it very much at the Battleship end of the scale, with thicker belt armour than an Iowa, the machinery of an Iowa, and a Battleship-style sandwich underwater protection system.

s511-06.jpg

The closest a heavy cruiser got to 20,000 tons (aside from Alaska preliminaries), was the Treaty unlimited design CA-C, which was intended to be protected against super-heavy 8-inch shells, have a speed of 35 knots.

s511-29.jpg
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom