1/350 scale USS Wisconsin BBG-64 Missile & Railgun Battleship

[NARSES2]

Definitely railgun and a twin turret if only for the aesthetics

[scooter]

Twinned railguns.

[seadude]

Yeah, I agree. Railgun, at least the tech is out there &, as you're using current tech for the secondary & light weapons, I'd stick with something less sci-fi than plasma cannons.

Number of guns is more difficult but, if I recall correctly, railguns can only be mounted singly, as the EM effects interfere with each other if there are two or more.

However, you may advance a theory wherein EM interference has been negated & two can be mounted in a single turret, but I wouldn't go further than that ... Lots of electricity needed to fire a railgun!

Yeah, I get what you're saying about power consumption and all, though I was still kinda hoping to use 3-gun turrets. I wanted to keep that lineage going so to speak from the Iowa's original 16"/50 3-gun turrets to a more modern futuristic 3-gun turret. But I suppose I could work with something lower and go down to using 2-gun turrets. But using a single gun turret is out of the question as I really don't like the look of them and I don't think they'd look good on the model. On a Zumwalt destroyer ship, they might look ok. But for a future battleship.......Not.

[Old Wombat]

Well, when you're firing a 25" railgun shell at hypersonic velocities you don't need more than two guns!

As a South Australian, I have a (very small) dog in this fight.

During 1950, Sir Mark Oliphant, an Australian physicist and first director of the Research School of Physical Sciences at the new Australian National University, initiated the design and construction of the world's largest (500 megajoule) homopolar generator.[17] This machine was operational from 1962 and was later used to power a large-scale railgun that was used as a scientific experiment.[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun


Sir Marcus Laurence Elwin "Mark" Oliphant




Now, more to the point, it's your model &, if you think "If they can negate the interference from one railgun, they can negate the interference from two!", then go for the triple turret!

I won't be complaining, that's for sure!

[PR19_Kit]

One of the places I worked at in the 90s had a socking great ground based railgun mounted right down the centre of their test lab.

I never saw or heard it 'fire', if that's what they do, but after they'd tested it I always had to go there and replace a whole of boards in their fatigue systems controllers! It cost them a fortune in spares, but I wasn't complaining too much. 

[seadude]

If my local hobby store can't get the Kotobukiya cannons that I asked for that I had mentioned back in Post # 27 on Page 2 of this thread, then I'll be deciding on the following Shapeways options. If I do use any of the Shapeways options, some of them will need modifying such as new barrels, cutting and sanding, etc. to make them look in whatever way I want them.

Single gun turret
https://www.shapeways.com/product/9MUCRX7XH/artillery-turrets-3?optionId=69979892&li=shops


Light railguns set (Barrels)
https://www.shapeways.com/product/ZF39DX696/light-railguns-set?optionId=64374108&li=marketplace


Remote particle gun
https://www.shapeways.com/product/RGJW9J3JA/15mm-remote-particle-gun?optionId=62230400&li=marketplace


Mk.IV destroyer turrets
https://www.shapeways.com/product/GETEC5NSA/285-mk-iv-destroyer-turrets?optionId=56351575&li=marketplace


Large turrets
https://www.shapeways.com/product/58WLLG3SM/1-270-large-turrets-4?optionId=63636639&li=marketplace


Dropship turrets
https://www.shapeways.com/product/44AEE2NS8/angular-dropship-turrets-3?optionId=69979895&li=marketplace

[seadude]

Another alternative to using railguns might be the following projectiles which were rarely developed and tested, but were "planned" to be used by Iowa class battleships.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

HE-ER Mark 148 (Planned)
13.65 in (34.7 cm) diameter, extended-range (ER), sub-caliber projectile with sabot. Length was approximately 72 in (183 cm). Projectile was to be ET-fuzed with a payload of about 300 M48 grenade submunitions. Experiments with this projectile were conducted during the 1980s, but development was cancelled in FY91 when the battleships were decommissioned. Projectile weight without the sabot was about 1,300 lbs. (590 kg) and range was to be in excess of 70,000 yards (64,000 meters or 40 miles or 34 ½ nautical miles) at a muzzle velocity of 3,600 fps (1,097 mps).
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_EX-148_sketch_pic.jpg


HE-ER Mark ? (Planned)
Advanced Gun Weapon Systems Technology Program 16/11-Inch Long Range GPS Concept with Sabot. Another sub-caliber projectile with sabot, this one 11 inches (28 cm) in diameter. This project was also cancelled about FY91.
A sketch of this projectile may be seen below.
Data below courtesy of United States Naval Fire Support Association (USNFSA):
    Range: 100 nautical miles (202,537 yards or 185,200 meters or 115 miles)
    Launch Weight: 650 lbs. (295 kg)
    Fly Away Weight: 525 lbs. (238 kg)
    Launch Length: 69 in (175 cm)
    Payload: 248 M46 Submunitions, total weight of 175.2 lbs. (79.5 kg)
    Guidance Modes: GPS and INS
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_Sabot_pic.jpg

[Pellson]

Having followed this thread for a while, I feel I can as we'll throw in my two cents worth, even if I'm boring.

Superstructure:
While it's theoretically possible to dismantle the entire superstructure of a battleship, I can't see why you would. The citadel of an Iowa, or a KGV, or a Bismarck, is pretty much impenetrable, providing very good shelter for combat control and coordination functions. As for radar cross section (RCS) the hill and all it's fitting will give you away whatever you do, so rebuilding, or even sheathing the structure to lessen the RCS will be a bit futile.
You would, however, obviously provide mounting points for new equipment, whether it would be radar, optoelectronic fire control, laser towers or whatever, but you would do it trying to minimise the added weight, as the boat already is a weighty lass.

Main gun armament.
One of the reasons for decommissioning the Iowa's was the wear of the barrels. In the end, there was only one facility in all of the US having the means to refurbish or remanufacture barrels for her main guns. And it became very very expensive. But it wouldn't have been cheaper to replace the guns with something else with the same reach and power of destruction. And the only reason to keep the Iowa's in service in the first place was her main artillery. Her main deficiency, disregarding operating costs, was lack of adequate anti air protection.
So, wanting to keep her in the 2030's, what I would do:

Armament:
Replacing the lighter artillery with modern, medium calibre multipurpose guns, such as the Bofors 57mm or the OTO Melara 76 mm.
Add adequate CIWS, whether guns or missiles. As space would be vacated as a smaller number of multi purpose medium calibre guns would replace the horde of old ones, I would probably try to fit VLS cells tin several positions, to facilitate launch of SAM's, cruise missiles or ASW munitions as required.
Add GCS units for the above, but probably keep the primary main artillery fire control unit, maybe adding radar and/or laser. Metering equipment to it to increase rate of fire and accuracy
Go for base bleed guided munitions for the main artillery. Bofors products one for 155mm land based guns, called "Excalibur". Have a look at that.
As we know, the railgun just doesn't seem likely to work, plus the outrageous electrical power requirement the system will have.

But - it's whifworld, and anything goes. 

Propulsion:
Note that the main citadel includes most engineering spaces making large replacements a bit tricky and worse, the limited uptake channels would preclude more gas intensive propulsion, I. Le gas turbines. However, if we say that we open up the citadel to be able to do something fundamental, I would probably go for nuclear power. After all, the entire drive train and power units already exists and is used on the super carriers. Also, it leaves lots of space topside for GCS and surveillance radars.

The one threat hard to counter is the submarine threat. That would need to be addressed by escorts, i.e smaller, specialised sun hunters, such as frigates. That said, a helo pad, and preferably also hangars for at least two helps would be very useful, and necessitate some redesign topside.

So something like that. 

[seadude]

More progress pics. Comments, questions, and critiques welcome.

[Old Wombat]

Re: the 30mm barrels; do you have brass rod of an appropriate diameter? If so, a bit of liquid styrene at the end can simulate the recoil spring housing (dip the rod in liquid styrene, let it dry, cut & trim to size & shape, cut rod to correct length for barrel).

Probably a complete PITA but can you cut holes in the hull to fit the RHIBs? Or, rather than the angle-top box structure, an angle-sided box structure (the angled side can be hydraulically/electro-mechanically opened & closed easily enough)?

[seadude]

Re: the 30mm barrels; do you have brass rod of an appropriate diameter? If so, a bit of liquid styrene at the end can simulate the recoil spring housing (dip the rod in liquid styrene, let it dry, cut & trim to size & shape, cut rod to correct length for barrel).

I don't have any brass rod. I do have plenty of styrene rod in different sizes.

Probably a complete PITA but can you cut holes in the hull to fit the RHIBs? Or, rather than the angle-top box structure, an angle-sided box structure (the angled side can be hydraulically/electro-mechanically opened & closed easily enough)?

I don't want to cut holes in the hull. As for your angle-sided option, I'm not sure I understand what you mean?

[Old Wombat]

I only suggested brass rod because it's a fair bit stronger, styrene of the right(ish) diameter should work, too.

All your decks are flat, so there's no need for an angled roof to the RHIB box (or only very, very slightly angled), however to minimise radar signature the outer sides should have an angled hatch fitted to reflect radar pulses away from the horizontal, as the new superstructure elements are (slightly).

[seadude]

All your decks are flat, so there's no need for an angled roof to the RHIB box (or only very, very slightly angled), however to minimise radar signature the outer sides should have an angled hatch fitted to reflect radar pulses away from the horizontal, as the new superstructure elements are (slightly).

So, maybe something kinda like this?

[Old Wombat]

More just the outer sides but, yep, that's the general idea.

[seadude]

I'm going to tear apart the enclosure I started to build and remake it. There's a different design I'm thinking of right now. Might not have a new pic till next week if all goes well.