• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
They weren't that large! Smaller then a 5" twin turret barbette!
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
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".
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?
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
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
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!
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
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!
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.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,129
Reaction score
3,002
The missiles might be Jupiter - the Navy option before solid fuel progressed enough for Polaris ...
NINJA'D by @Firefinder lol
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
1,800
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?
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
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?
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...
 

RLBH

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
373
Reaction score
245
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".
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.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,129
Reaction score
3,002
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.

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 ?
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,979
Reaction score
3,814
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.
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.
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
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???
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,979
Reaction score
3,814
It was possible. And with regards as to Soviet ASMs, the later ones did indeed have ECM/ECCM built in as standard.
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
what about the Chaff and Flare dispensers against interception missiles? (I mean on the Soviets ASMs)
 

RLBH

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
373
Reaction score
245
Though it could only take out relatively non-mobile and non-hardened targets due to guidance system limitations.
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.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,979
Reaction score
3,814
what about the Chaff and Flare dispensers against interception missiles? (I mean on the Soviets ASMs)
I think some of the early ones had chaff and/or flare dispensers tied in to Radar Warning Receivers.
 

T. A. Gardner

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 18, 2021
Messages
82
Reaction score
147
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???
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.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
672
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
what about the Chaff and Flare dispensers against interception missiles? (I mean on the Soviets ASMs)

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".
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
672
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
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.

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.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,979
Reaction score
3,814
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".
Thought that at least one version of the Styx had countermeasure dispensers?
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
672
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Thought that at least one version of the Styx had countermeasure dispensers?
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)
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,979
Reaction score
3,814
Must have been another missile I was thinking of then.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,129
Reaction score
3,002
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 :p
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
672
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
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

Imagine also, how spectacular would be the explosion, if she would be hit by Soviet air-launched anti-ship missile while preparing her Jupiters... ;)
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,912
Reaction score
804
Not sure that would polish out.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
672
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
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?
 

Julio Garay Terrazas

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Mar 24, 2020
Messages
45
Reaction score
78
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: 66
  • BBCIowabbg1.jpg
    BBCIowabbg1.jpg
    94.2 KB · Views: 67
  • BBCIowabbg2.jpg
    BBCIowabbg2.jpg
    103.2 KB · Views: 69
  • BBCIowabbg3.jpg
    BBCIowabbg3.jpg
    104.2 KB · Views: 65
  • BBCIowabbg4.jpg
    BBCIowabbg4.jpg
    98.5 KB · Views: 65
  • iowa_conversion_1.jpg
    iowa_conversion_1.jpg
    88.5 KB · Views: 64
  • iowa_conversion_2.jpg
    iowa_conversion_2.jpg
    90.8 KB · Views: 65

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
Was is it necessary for the Terrier launcher's to be within a certain distance from the fire control radars?
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.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
672
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Yes, but what about semi-active homers like Terrier or Tartar?

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)
 

Similar threads

Top