Shipbucket

TimothyC showed me an image of an update of the iowa class using VLS, drawing name BBG 9600. myself being an long time attacker of VLS on battleships (though mostly because of the place some people put them ) and because of the fact that there were goalkeepers on the drawing, I got interested and about 48 hours later I had completed these drawings.
the drawings showed 2 possible 5in guns, twin 5''54 in the original turrets or single 5''/62 in an turret that looked like an small Mk 71 (from above, I have no sideviews)
instead of 8 ABL's this design had 2 32cell VLS blocks. two of the 6 remaining 5in turrets were replaced by an set of 40mm single rapid fire guns and 25mm chain guns. the phalanxes were replaced by goalkeepers.
the source of the image was dreadnought consulting, which I found out, by an link of voyager989, to be Richard A Landgraff. (http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/default2_bioRL.htm) fair enough, he seems to be someone who knows what he is talking about, although I seriously doubt if the goalkeeper positions would be ideal.

I have also upgraded the FCS, as TimothyC and Colosseum pointed out on the IRC that it was quite unlikely the FCS system would be suitable for another 15-20 years of service. I chose to replace her with the Mk 86 FCS (2 sets of it actually) because I consider it reliable for every kind of weapon, even up to missiles in the VLS (interestingly, with Mk 86, the ships could fire SM-1MR or SM-2MR(most likely) but not NSSM.)
the alternative would have been the burkes gunfire control system.

anyways, you guys came here for the drawings of an VLS Iowa class. here are the drawings.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Quite interesting.
Anyway, i heard also of plans for the New Jersey to land the aft 16-inch gun turrets, replacng it with a full VLS battery, or helicopter facilities (there should be a link to the actual document somewhere on wikipedia, although i cannot fin it right now.)

Just a technical question: given the presence of the VLS here, would it be still not possible to fit Sea Sparrow missiles on board?

_________________
My Worklist
Sources and documentations are the most welcome.

-Koko Kyouwakoku (Republic of Koko)
-Koko's carrier-based aircrafts of WWII
-Koko Kaiun Yuso Kaisha - KoKaYu Line (Koko AU spinoff)
-Koko - Civil Aviation

it would be possible to fit sea sparrow missiles on board, but you'd need to modify the FCS for that (most likely, the addition of Mk 95 directors OR the use of the Mk 92 FCS, of which at least the 'egg' could guide NSSM)

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Those concepts were from the original reactivation plans from the early 1980s, which were abandoned in favor of the less expensive austere refit that the ships historically got. This concept is a further refit of the austere reactivation that actually occurred.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

SPG-60 would be the only optical GFCS at this point. Thus I would endeavor to mount one of them quite high up.

(It's not totally clear whether the GFCS situation is yours or from the original concept)

You guys are obviously the experts, but I would think the USN would tend towards just a radar replacement on the Mk.38 (main battery) directors - rather than replacing the entire director. It might be interesting to see the Mk.38 director with a new fire control radar replacing the original Mark 13s currently present.

That said, am fairly sure there was a movement to go to internal director stations with just a radar mounted externally (can't remember where I read this) - so ace's current setup also makes sense.

What interests me most is the lack of air/surface search radar upgrades. I know by this point SPS-10 was getting pretty long in the tooth, and even though there's an SPS-67 mounted atop the conning tower, would still be interesting to see if the SPS-10 antenna could be replaced.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

The Goalkeeper being used seems interesting. Was the US considering purchasing the Goalkeeper at that time?

Interesting idea and one that was achievable, although probably too expensive to be worth it. It seems there were dozens of concepts and plans around the Iowas.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Very interesting work.

External manned directors are, obviously, quite manpower-intensive, and they're pretty heavy as well. I think the Mk 38 would be unlikely to survive an intensive refit; there's just very little reason to preserve a passive optical rangefinder. Active laser rangefinders have arrived by this time, and now you're talking about replacing a couple of tons very high aloft with something that can be picked up by one man. IMHO, of course.
(As I recall, SPS-58 was essentially a solid-state replacement for SPS-10, on the same band and using the same antenna. I think that many ships that received it (lots of stuff just a little too old for SPS-67, Californias and the like) continued to use SPS-58 until their retirement.)

Correction: SPS-67, in some installations, actually just used the old SPS-10 antenna. So we might actually be seeing SPS-67 up there.