Just thought of this idea for a possible future ship project.
What would a 1990's (or later) Iowa class battleship look like with all three 16" gun turrets replaced with the U.S. M270 MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System)? Take the upper box structure with the missiles off the tracked chassis and put it in the spaces formerly occupied by the 16" gun turrets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System
Anybody have any other thoughts of how the ship superstructure might change to accomodate storage and reloading of the missiles? Thoughts about radar and sensor systems to track/guide the missiles? Any other additions and deletions?
I've got an extra 1/350 scale TAMIYA USS New Jersey battleship at home that I could modify. But I don't think there are any 1/350 scale MLRS vehicles that I could use and modify. The closest scale is 1/285.

for sensors i dont think youd need to add much, the MLRS were ( if i remember) artillery rockets  turn to face, elevate to roughly the right angle  add some  where to drop via a PC like interface , light the proverbial blue touch paper, and stand back..  the radar and other sensors already aboard would give a lot of the needed data, and the ( were they sea sprites at the time?) on board helos could give range data that could be entered the same way.
Reloading you could use any of the standard naval systems,  and with the depth of the hull and already in place magazines and storage roooms, probably assemble the sections if needed ( engine .. payload, nose)  in those, then lift.  at a guess they would look fairly anaemic in the place of one of the 16" Turrets  the missile at 227mm is less the 9"  so more secondary gun on a battleship.    but the idea of possibly the rear main or a couple of the secondarys round the citadel changing out would give an interesting look. 

I don't think it would look very pleasing to eye with a bunch of boxes replacing the guns that really make the battleship a battleship.  Every proposal to remove the guns made the Iowa's look worse, but the Talos has an intrigue of its own.

I believe early MLRS rockets, the M26, were unguided (happy to be corrected) and range limited to round 20 miles.  Later versions after around 2005 got guidance and extended range.  Firing an unguided guided rocket from a heaving, moving, ship would greatly diminish accuracy.   

I think the box structures could be fabricated from evergreen sheet in 1/350 scale rather easily.   

I do not think the superstructure would need to change at all.  Removing the turret would leave a massive hold belowdecks where you could have elevators and new box magazines could be brought to the deck.  A sliding door similar to the Nike Hercules type set up would work well for covering the elevator.  The Iowa turrets extend multiple decks below the main deck.         

Considering the size of those gun turrets and the depth of the hull you could mount 2 or 3 entire MLRS systems side by side .
If you built a new custom base which enabled the MLRS turrets to elevate to 90% you could have the 6 pack of rockets unloaded vertically straight down into the hull and a rotating magazine underneath the turret would unload one pack..move and then reload straight up into the launcher .
You'd have a huge amount of space to play with under the turrets....now to get real techy ...a system would take the empty packs and send them backwards deeper into the hull so they could be reloaded and then returned to be remounted into the magazine 😉 😀
Simples 😆😆

You'd have lots of room to work with in the barbette once the turret was removed.

The M270 and HIMARS series vehicles can also fire the MGM 140 ATACMS, its
container mounts in place of the MLRS
box. Range is 300km and speed is in
excess of Mach 3.

In 2017 the USMC fired a HIMARS that was sitting on the deck of the USS Essex and hit their target.
HIMARS USS Essex

Put the MLRS atop the turret. Keep a couple guns for range finding and general coolness of the bang !

I would consider scale o rama the 1/285th scale MLRS and call it the same basic system but with larger missiles. I'll bet more than one launcher would fit in place of a 16" gun turret. The magazine below the turret seems like it could hold quite a few reloads.
In place of a battleship what about a converted commercial ship like a container ship? There are some articles concerning this. All kinds of possible deck space and tons of space for ammunition. Interesting possibilities.

A bunch of Polaris missile tubes would be more bang for the buck.

A big bunch of VLS systems, using a vertical reload system via the old shell lift & magazine spaces, would give more bang for your buck.

I was just reading an article about how the US Navy is not well set up for shore bombardment in support of the Marines. Mainly a shortage of shells stored on the cruisers and destroyers. This means each ship would have to break off and get reloaded from a ship or a port.  The USMC would be very happy with ships with several guns or missile launchers and copious ammo storage to pound the landing site for them.

Quote from: kerick on February 25, 2025, 11:26:55 AMI was just reading an article about how the US Navy is not well set up for shore bombardment in support of the Marines. Mainly a shortage of shells stored on the cruisers and destroyers. This means each ship would have to break off and get reloaded from a ship or a port.  The USMC would be very happy with ships with several guns or missile launchers and copious ammo storage to pound the landing site for them.

That'd be great if you were still fighting WWII.

When was the last time that ships sat off shore and "pounded the landing site" for days before an assault?
It was September 1950 and the Inchon landings. Which is the last full-blown WWII type amphibious operation in history It only works if the target has no way of countering the invasion force. There's no way in hell that the Marines will ever be able to relive the past glory of amphibious operations.
It's a fantasy.

Quote from: jcf on February 26, 2025, 10:43:00 AM

Quote from: kerick on February 25, 2025, 11:26:55 AMI was just reading an article about how the US Navy is not well set up for shore bombardment in support of the Marines. Mainly a shortage of shells stored on the cruisers and destroyers. This means each ship would have to break off and get reloaded from a ship or a port.  The USMC would be very happy with ships with several guns or missile launchers and copious ammo storage to pound the landing site for them.

That'd be great if you were still fighting WWII.

When was the last time that ships sat off shore and "pounded the landing site" for days before an assault?
It was September 1950 and the Inchon landings. Which is the last full-blown WWII type amphibious operation in history It only works if the target has no way of countering the invasion force. There's no way in hell that the Marines will ever be able to relive the past glory of amphibious operations.
It's a fantasy.

If you're the guy stepping off the MV-22 or an LCAC you would want somebody pounding that LZ or beach. I know I would.

Quote from: kerick on February 26, 2025, 11:06:21 AM

Quote from: jcf on February 26, 2025, 10:43:00 AM

Quote from: kerick on February 25, 2025, 11:26:55 AMI was just reading an article about how the US Navy is not well set up for shore bombardment in support of the Marines. Mainly a shortage of shells stored on the cruisers and destroyers. This means each ship would have to break off and get reloaded from a ship or a port.  The USMC would be very happy with ships with several guns or missile launchers and copious ammo storage to pound the landing site for them.

That'd be great if you were still fighting WWII.

When was the last time that ships sat off shore and "pounded the landing site" for days before an assault?
It was September 1950 and the Inchon landings. Which is the last full-blown WWII type amphibious operation in history It only works if the target has no way of countering the invasion force. There's no way in hell that the Marines will ever be able to relive the past glory of amphibious operations.
It's a fantasy.

If you're the guy stepping off the MV-22 or an LCAC you would want somebody pounding that LZ or beach. I know I would.

Ain't going to happen, the last time the USMC made an actual assault landing was Inchon and the
opposition was negligible. It's a fantasy of ages past that the USMC uses to justify all of its current
toys and supposed role.