The last modernization plan of the Iowas

TomS said:
This one is screaming fake to me. Severl things ring especially untrue
Click to expand...
The title block is 'Dreadnaught Consulting', which was the name Dick Landgraff used for his engineering consultancy efforts. Based on that, I'd say that it's an extremely unofficial proposal from an informed amateur.

Based on his experience, the naval architecture underpinning it is likely to be reasonable. But the selection of combat systems is idiosyncratic at best.
 
I agree very much with this assessment. That said: it does suggest a few things that seem to match the plan in the first post of this thread, replacing the ABL's with VLS and replacing the 5''/38 with 5''/54. Hell, it even looks as if the crossed out 'tags' say 16 cell VLS amidships, matching Tzoli's friend's plan. Could it be these are the same and/or related?

Yellow Palace said:
Based on his experience, the naval architecture underpinning it is likely to be reasonable. But the selection of combat systems is idiosyncratic at best.
Click to expand...
I think this is an excellent summary of the image, but I do have the same feelings about this thread in general tbh.
 
The best conversions are the simplist. Once you start cutting decks open at some point it was probably better to have just built new. Thats why adding aircraft always seemed a no go from the start. Removing a turret for a deep vertical launcher is not a terrible idea, but so few of Mk41-compatible missiles would fit in that space it sounds like a poor choice. But even a small number of very high quality, larger missiles may be worthwhile to some degree, such as navalized GBI or Arrow 3, which far outranges SM-3 and introduces an MRBM defense that is currently non-existent. KISS. Keep it simple, stupid.

I wonder if they were going to convert the 5-inchers if they ever considered off the shelf like the British Mark 6. The 4.5 inch gun compared favorably to the 5's in so many ways and were probably fairly compatible with the below-deck magazine space. Work with the space already there.
 
Last edited:
acelanceloet said:
I think this is an excellent summary of the image, but I do have the same feelings about this thread in general tbh.
Click to expand...
That's fairly consistent with the theme of 'save the battleships' ideas from the mid-late 1990s onwards. More than a few of which originated from the desk of Mr. Langraff.
 
acelanceloet said:
Could it be these are the same and/or related?
Click to expand...

I suspect that it might use the same base drawing. The Dreadnought Consulting one is, as Yellow Palace said, an amateur fan work. The
MadRat said:
I wonder if they were going to convert the 5-inchers if they ever considered off the shelf like the British Mark 6. The 4.5 inch gun compared favorably to the 5's in so many ways and were probably fairly compatible with the below-deck magazine space. Work with the space already there.
Click to expand...

Zero chance of that. The USN has extensive stocks of 127mm and over time has planned several guided rounds for that caliber (that none have ever actually come to fruition is a persistent problem). Switching to a new caliber would just make things worse.

The only new caliber that would have made any sense at all is some sort of Army-compatible 155mm. Even with the HERO Safe issues, it has to be better/easier than a caliber that exists nowhere else in US supply chains.
 
Dilandu said:
Almost certainly a fake. Several obviously different fonts were used, which suggested that parts of text were copy-pasted from different documents.
Click to expand...

I suppose given the known creator of this, "fan art" might be kinder than "fake." It probably wasn't intended to deceive people when first created.
 
Could it be, from this document "Dreadnaught Consulting" by Dick Landgraff was the original info my friend got hold the knowledge of and told me about and hence I've created the drawing and this thread?
 
Without knowing the provenance of what your friend provided, it's hard to be sure. One could have inspired the other, or both could be independently based on a third, older document.

My guess would be that Landgraff's proposal was based either on what your friend unearthed, or that both are based on something earlier. Given that Landgraff actually was responsible for managing the reactivation and maintenance of the battleships in the 1980s, prior to his retirement, it's likely that his unofficial proposals draw on the work he did officially.

It should be noted that pretty much every engineer has a mental file of 'things I would have done differently, if it wasn't for those pesky budgets'.
 
Yellow Palace said:
Without knowing the provenance of what your friend provided, it's hard to be sure. One could have inspired the other, or both could be independently based on a third, older document.

My guess would be that Landgraff's proposal was based either on what your friend unearthed, or that both are based on something earlier. Given that Landgraff actually was responsible for managing the reactivation and maintenance of the battleships in the 1980s, prior to his retirement, it's likely that his unofficial proposals draw on the work he did officially.

It should be noted that pretty much every engineer has a mental file of 'things I would have done differently, if it wasn't for those pesky budgets'.
Click to expand...
What I provided in the very first post was what I given as information about the project. That is all I have.
 
Naval historian Bill Jurens is currently working on an update to Garzke & Dulin’s classic book on American battleships, so I would be interesting to see if it will have any information on potential post-Gulf War modernization plans for the Iowas.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
Naval historian Bill Jurens is currently working on an update to Garzke & Dulin’s classic book on American battleships, so I would be interesting to see if it will have any information on potential post-Gulf War modernization plans for the Iowas.
Click to expand...
You have any more on that?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom