What if an IOWA class battleship had no 16" gun turrets?

[Weaver]

I concur on the aft VLS & hangars ideas.

When you say Sea Sparrow launchers, do you mean VLS arrays for ESSMs or 8-round swivelling IPDMS box launchers? If the latter, then they might be a bit anachronistic, depending on when you see this conversion taking place. You might also have to think about where the reloads are coming from, and how well the forward launchers are going to stand up to heavy seas, being located forwards n the edge of the main deck.

[seadude]

I concur on the aft VLS & hangars ideas.

When you say Sea Sparrow launchers, do you mean VLS arrays for ESSMs or 8-round swivelling IPDMS box launchers? If the latter, then they might be a bit anachronistic, depending on when you see this conversion taking place. You might also have to think about where the reloads are coming from, and how well the forward launchers are going to stand up to heavy seas, being located forwards n the edge of the main deck.

The Iowa upgrade I was thinking of would probably be in the 1990's. I think during that time, VLS ESSM wasn't available yet. So my Iowa concept would still have the 8-round swiveling launchers that you currently see on the weapon sponsons of modern US carriers. As for reloading, it's still being done by hand. Even in today's current timeframe. Picture below.

[kerick]

That could become difficult in bad weather.

[Weaver]

The Iowa upgrade I was thinking of would probably be in the 1990's. I think during that time, VLS ESSM wasn't available yet. So my Iowa concept would still have the 8-round swiveling launchers that you currently see on the weapon sponsons of modern US carriers. As for reloading, it's still being done by hand. Even in today's current timeframe. Picture below.

The Canadian Halifax class frigates had Mk.48 VLS for Sea Sparrow from 1992.

If you're going with IPDMS launchers, then each launcher needs two things:

1. Enough "elbow room" around it for the reloading crew to work.

2. A pathway to get the reload missiles from wherever they're stored to the reloading area.

No.1 looks doable for your aft launchers on the Iowa, since they have flat platforms around them. You might achieve no.2 by moving the Harpoons into the yellow box area vacated by the midships Tomahawk launchers and replacing them with armoured boxes full of reload Sea Sparrows.

For the forward launchers, there's reloading space, but I don't see where the reloads are coming from. You'd probably have to remove the forward 5" gun on each side to make space for an armoured box magazine, and relocate the adjacent 25mm gun. Also, I still think they'd be too exposed to heavy seas in this position.

[seadude]

The Iowa upgrade I was thinking of would probably be in the 1990's. I think during that time, VLS ESSM wasn't available yet. So my Iowa concept would still have the 8-round swiveling launchers that you currently see on the weapon sponsons of modern US carriers. As for reloading, it's still being done by hand. Even in today's current timeframe. Picture below.

The Canadian Halifax class frigates had Mk.48 VLS for Sea Sparrow from 1992.

If you're going with IPDMS launchers, then each launcher needs two things:

1. Enough "elbow room" around it for the reloading crew to work.

2. A pathway to get the reload missiles from wherever they're stored to the reloading area.

No.1 looks doable for your aft launchers on the Iowa, since they have flat platforms around them. You might achieve no.2 by moving the Harpoons into the yellow box area vacated by the midships Tomahawk launchers and replacing them with armoured boxes full of reload Sea Sparrows.

For the forward launchers, there's reloading space, but I don't see where the reloads are coming from. You'd probably have to remove the forward 5" gun on each side to make space for an armoured box magazine, and relocate the adjacent 25mm gun. Also, I still think they'd be too exposed to heavy seas in this position.

As far as the forward Sea Sparrow launchers being exposed to heavy seas, I'm not worried about it and I doubt they'd suffer much.
Look at the below picture of a past modernized Iowa class battleship I built. Look at the right side where a Sea Sparrow missile launcher is. This is where I was thinking of having Sea Sparrow launchers again for my next Iowa battleship modernization. Plenty of room around them for the crew to reload them and I doubt they'd suffer much in that area from heavy seas. Now will I add some sort of structure near or behind the launchers on my next Iowa build to facilitate storage and reloading of missiles? I don't know yet.

[Weaver]

As far as the forward Sea Sparrow launchers being exposed to heavy seas, I'm not worried about it and I doubt they'd suffer much.
Look at the below picture of a past modernized Iowa class battleship I built. Look at the right side where a Sea Sparrow missile launcher is. This is where I was thinking of having Sea Sparrow launchers again for my next Iowa battleship modernization. Plenty of room around them for the crew to reload them and I doubt they'd suffer much in that area from heavy seas. Now will I add some sort of structure near or behind the launchers on my next Iowa build to facilitate storage and reloading of missiles? I don't know yet.

Ahhh, I see. Just looking at your plan views, I forgot that one-deck high raised area either side of the bridge. I thought the Sea Sparrow launcher would be at weather deck level. That's definitely better. I might still be inclined to put a 3ft high breakwater in front of it though, just to stop heavy seas from sheering right into the pedestal.

Reloading boxes don't need to be super-big. Off the top of my head, I don't know of any NATO Sea Sparrow installation that had more than 24 rounds: 8 in the launcher + 2 full reloads.

You can have automated and semi-automated systems too.

The Dutch Jacob Van Heemskerck class frigates had two boxes of reloads, with fins detached, scabbed onto the sides of the bridge in such a way that the launcher lined up with them. Ratings still had to go topside to install the loading rail, slide the missile along it, and attach the fins halfway, but at least they didn't have to handball the missile and line it up with the launcher.

The Italians developed a fully automatic reloading system for Aspide, which uses the same airframe as Sea Sparrow and can even fire Sea Sparrows with a quick circuit board swap. The reloader, with 16 rounds, could be fitted in an adjacent deckhouse (example: Argentinian Meko 360 frigates) or pop up though a deck hatch (example: Maestrale class friagtes).

[Rick Lowe]

I think the idea of the launcher swivelling to vertical and the reloads being shoved up from underneath automatically is a better option, but that may not be viable for the time frame.

[Weaver]

I think the idea of the launcher swivelling to vertical and the reloads being shoved up from underneath automatically is a better option, but that may not be viable for the time frame.

As far as I know, there was never a Sea Sparrow launcher setup that reloaded like that. Don't see any reason in principle why such a thing couldn't be designed though.

[Joe CalPo]

I think the idea of the launcher swivelling to vertical and the reloads being shoved up from underneath automatically is a better option, but that may not be viable for the time frame.

As far as I know, there was never a Sea Sparrow launcher setup that reloaded like that. Don't see any reason in principle why such a thing couldn't be designed though.

An adaptation of the ASROC box launcher reload mechanism found on some US frigates could work.

[Weaver]

I think the idea of the launcher swivelling to vertical and the reloads being shoved up from underneath automatically is a better option, but that may not be viable for the time frame.

As far as I know, there was never a Sea Sparrow launcher setup that reloaded like that. Don't see any reason in principle why such a thing couldn't be designed though.

An adaptation of the ASROC box launcher reload mechanism found on some US frigates could work.

All of the ones on frigates used a horizontal magazine under the bridge, giving 16 rounds in total.

The only vertical ASROC reloaders I can recall were on the Spruance class destroyers. They had two vertical arrays of eight reloads either side of the launcher. When an ASROC box launcher was elevated to 90 deg, it's boxes were well behind the body of the launcher. To reload, it rotated 90 deg to either port or starboard and elevated to 90 deg, thus lining up the launcher boxes with one or the other reload pack.

The vertical ASROC system wouldn't work for IPDMS/NATO Sea Sparrow because that launcher's boxes were in two groups of four either side of the pedestal, so when elevated to 90 deg, the sat alongside the launcher instead of behind it. One possibility would be to have four packs of four missiles below decks at 90 deg intervals. The launcher could thus reload the side packs when facing forwards, or the front and rear packs when facing sideways.

[Rick Lowe]

One possibility would be to have four packs of four missiles below decks at 90 deg intervals. The launcher could thus reload the side packs when facing forwards, or the front and rear packs when facing sideways.

Yea, something like that was what I had in mind.