Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!bingvaxu!sunybcs!rutgers!att!cbnews!rti.uucp!duncan@rti.rti.org From: rti.uucp!duncan@rti.rti.org (Stephen Duncan) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: USS Iowa explosion Summary: Data link with Aegis for control Keywords: Iowa Message-ID: <6322@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 6 May 89 03:37:17 GMT References: <6272@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC Lines: 48 Approved: military@att.att.com From: rti.uucp!duncan@rti.rti.org (Stephen Duncan) In article <6272@cbnews.ATT.COM> maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) writes: [ reply to someone else deleted] > Feasible, yes. How much do you want to modify? If we pull the barbette > down to the old powder magazine, we have space for a pair of 61-cell > VLS (Mk-41, see Janes wpn systems.) The resulting combo would weigh > less, and be more or less compatable structurally with the rest of the > ship. The result would be space for ~100 SM-2's assumin some other > missiles in use. Plus guideance gear, will be lighter than existing > turret. But might run about $100m for guideance and electronics. > (maybe that's too high. $50m?) Vertical Launch Asroc could be fitted, > providing lots'o ASW. Would it be worth it? mmm. Why not spend the > money on a DDG-51? well, refit might be cheaper. I dunnow. Comments? An alternative to electronic refit would be data links with the rest of the battlegroup. I think that this has been considered with the VLS that has been installed on Spruance class destroyers. The 31-cell VLS would have Asrocs and Tomahawks under its direct control. Any Standards, though, would be controlled by an accompanying Aegis ship. In the case of the Iowa, this could be extended further, to have both Asroc and Standard missiles be controlled remotely. The former by an accompanying Spruance, and the latter by an Arleigh Burke (mini-Aegis). To replace the bombardment capabilities, the 203mm upgrade to the 127/54s could be resurrected, replacing the twin 127/35s currently left. At 20 rounds per minute, 3 of these could approximate the 3 406mm lost. With the Army's 203mm rocket assisted projectile, its range would also approximate the bigger guns. A second alternative is to use the 225mm MRL of the Army. These fire cluster munitions out to about 30,000 yards. About 10,000 yards less than the 406s. [mod.note: Beat me to it ! The MRL is my pet suggestion for a potential refit; seems to me it would have excellent magazine capacity belowdecks (#2 turret, being a deck higher, should have the largest magazines on the ship), and this adds extra capability for the support of a landing, the battleships' primary mission. - Bill ] On a different note, why have the 40mm guns been removed from the BBs? I would think that replacing them with newer guns, such as the twin 40/70s in the DARDO ciws, would be in line, but wouldn't any extra firepower help against incoming missiles? Steve Duncan mcnc!rti!duncan