What does /k/ think of modernizing old hulls with new systems?

>>32392042
i like guns and explosions

Sounds expensive.

If I were any other nationality I'd hesitate and want to see the projected cost.

But I'm American so fuck it! Let's go!
While we're at it let's just replace that old hull for twice the price!

File: 1391512387933.jpg (41KB, 800x453px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 800x453px

>>32392042
I'm all for pic related

File: pingg.jpg (331KB, 1431x775px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1431x775px

>>32392042
Current Google Maps photo.

>Granit silos removed
>Bow Osa-M removed
>Stern A-218 gun removed
>Front Kashtan removed
>S-300 radar systems removed (probably put back after refit since 40N6 and 9M96 can also use S-300 radar? I forgot the live journal source where they listed all the expenses for the refit)

>>32392066
Would you rather build more Zumwalts or refit Ticonderogas?

U.S.S. Missouri II with rail cannons and anti-ship missiles WHEN?

(I know she was decommissioned and scrapped - or was she???)

>>32392116
We'll find a way to make the Ties' more expensive. Just watch!

>>32392042
Just retrofit rafts, canoe's, kayaks and sailboats to hold/fire silkworm missiles. No Navy is the world would stand a chance.

>>32392042
I think that beyond a certain point, it is inefficient and uneconomical. There comes a point in time where the hull design and the equipment designed for/compatible with it, becomes so obsolete and different from contemporary weapon systems and threats that it becomes impractical if not impossible to modernize.

>>32392169
Missouri is a museum ship in Hawaii next to the Arizona

Is it the same guy who makes this thread every day?

>>32392595

You could fit an ASM launcher on an ancient 20s era cruiser if you had enough money to throw away; the systems are all self-contained in modular cells in order to allow variance in capacity for the many variations of Burke currently afloat. The issue is usually ergonomics. Older ships have higher crew costs, which makes them harder to manage even if you do retrofit them with modern weapons and electronics. What really makes the old ships obsolete is its 40s era interior more than anything else, and that is what killed the Alaska from being modernized into a missile cruiser even though it had plenty of volume on paper. Old ships are unpleasant to serve on, and for how much /k/ shits on the LCS they're far more livable than the theoretically equivalent Bronstein-class frigates that were given to the Mexicans, and arguably the Burkes themselves who are starting to show their age and should have been replaced with the Zumwalts ASAP.

>>32392042
Useful for a while, but eventually becomes uneconomical and not worth it. Somethign worth noting but often forgotten is power generation. Fancy new implements take a lot more power to run than older stuff, generally. Thus, ships might find themselves not having enough power for all the newest stuff. This was especially a problem for modernizing WW2 and immediately postwar designs, but also applies today.

How useful would an Iowa with guns removed and replaced with missiles and all systems replaced with modern ones (nuclear powered?) be?

This is assuming it wouldn't cost more than just building a new ship

>>32393333
They looked at the costs for something very similar to this, actually. It was way too expensive.

Now, a vessel similar to this could probably take one hell of a beating and still remain floating, but it'd be incredibly expensive for the capability you would get. I wouldn't do it.

>>32393422
Thanks, this perfectly answers my question.

I was honestly expecting to get insults for even mentioning modernized Iowas.

Sounds expensive and pointless.

>>32392777

Would you be able to support the power requires for them though?

>>32392042
To a certain extent that's what we already do. Replace some computers, upgrade the radar, and put newer missiles in the VLS cells and you just modernized a DDG. I hope Trump restores the original order of 32 Zumwalts and gets the railguns finished, since they're more modern hulls to begin with.

>>32392042
Always a good idea if it works. However, many old hulls are based on outdated assumptions and are expensive to modify. At a certain point the old hull just isn't worth fixing.

File: newjerseytomahawk.jpg (230KB, 776x582px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 776x582px

The USS New Jersey (Iowa) was fairly modernized with phalanx, harpoons and tomahawks.

Shit's dank as fuck.

>>32392042
The idea in theory is a good one as ship hulls, if properly maintained, can last decades passed their initial due date.


In practice, it generally doesn't work out to well.

Case in point, BB fag and his constant "refurbished Iowas" rants, the hull when put beside a Nimitz (which isn't even new) shows its dated design by the ridiculous wake it creates when at speed.

Old hulls are inefficient drag makers, and lack the ability to mount modern sonars and thrusters.

The costs of remodeling the interior of the hull to fit modern systems is also high.

In the end, it's cheaper just to build a modern ship from keel up.
Now if all you're doing is slapping new weapons / sensors into old housings, then the idea works a lot better.

File: uss-constitution-tomahawk-test.jpg (733KB, 1500x1072px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 1500x1072px

>>32395074
DAMN STRAIGHT

>>32395149
Kek

I believe this works for subs to some extent.

File: Muh_dick.jpg (443KB, 1920x1300px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1920x1300px

>>32392042
The last chance that the US really had to do this (with hulls it actually made sense to upgrade) were when they were planning on AEGIS updates to some of the CGN's in the 80's.

>tfw there's a parallel universe out there where the USS Long Beach along with the Albany and the Chicago received upgrades to a new nuclear-powered AEGIS standard and are now 200 VLS cell monsters serving as flagships for all major surface engagements, rivaling the Kirov's in terms of size/armament.

File: DDG47withCGN42-1.jpg (67KB, 896x403px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 896x403px

>>32397206
heck, even the plans for the new-build AEGIS CGN's (back when the Ticonderoga's were planned to be the AEGIS destroyers) were erection-inducing.

Too bad all we got was that systems integration test superstructure in southern New Jersey.

File: 2-16.jpg (94KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1024x680px

>>32397236
Pic very related

File: tmp_images (37)599043048.jpg (18KB, 322x457px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 322x457px

>>32392042
Australia loves doing it and it always ends up an expensive disaster >Kanimbla Class: Lets buy some rusty old LSTs spend years fixing them up instead of buying new amphibs >FFG Upgrade: Oh no our DDGs are being decomissioned instead of buying the Kidd Class or Arleigh Burke lets spend billions upgrading the Oliver Hazard Perry. Whoops just broke her back as the VLS is too heavy. >ANZAC class upgrade: Hey you know our Frigates which are glorified patrol boats lets try and turn them into warships. Whoops now she is a few knots slower. Hey why does nobody want to be posted on a ship with a small crew but huge workload and do 9 month deployments?

Depends on the ship and exactly which "new systems" we're talking about. Modernizing the bridge with better IT and upgrading the missile launchers? Sure. Gutting the engine room? Perhaps not.

>>32393439
The insults are reserved for the reactivation fags who think the 1940s were the peak of warship design and that 16" is irreplacable and required on the modern battlefield.
I'd rather have a modernised Des Moines class design, with the intermediates replaced with VLS for SM and ESSM, the light AA replaced with CIWS and RAM, steam propulsion relaced with CODAG plus plenty of power for systems, modern electronics, and the rear rurret removed for a larger flight deck and hangar capable of operating a large number of UAVs- preferably MALE, but I'd settle for a bunch of Fire Scouts. Add in the new anti-torpedo torpedo and you get a ship which can do all the classic cruiser jobs- scout for the fleet, provide fire support (8"automatics>16"/50), provide air defence equivalent to a Burke, be capable of taking quite a few hits thanks to the armor and compatmentilization (once any get through the defences), and have enough room on board for a command staff.
All this on a hull roughly twice the displacement of the Burke, and as much of that weight is low tech, presumably quite a bit less than twice the cost.

>>32397236
>that 2-arm launcher aesthetic
Muh dik

>>32397818
>All this on a hull roughly twice the displacement of the Burke, and as much of that weight is low tech, presumably quite a bit less than twice the cost.
You vastly underestimate how much the upgrades would cost.

>>32397901
I didn't mean an upgrade
I meant that I'd rather have a new build CA than BB
It's a bit off topic but it's some thought I've been developing from the overload of BBtard threads.
The Des Moines class are just as obsolete as the Iowas, and the ship I suggested couldn't be built on that hull without MAJOR structural change.
I just had to unleash my autism for a bit.

>>32397818
Mexico's navy around the 80s bought a Gearing Class destroyer that they kept in service with "modern" systems ( torpedoes removed and replaced with ASROC to be specific)

>>32398262
Sounds like an el cheapo FRAM can.

>>32398087
A new build ship would be even more expensive. Face it, you vastly underestimate the costs from going low tech to high tech.

>>32398591
More expensive than 2 Burkes?
I think you missed my point again- I wasn't clear enough.
The idea isn't to upgrade the Des Moines, but using its specs as a starting off point for a different ship of roughly similar size, to fill the classic "Cruiser" niche.
So I took the basic specs, replaced the obsolete ones, and said that such a ship would be worth more for the Navy at lower cost than reactvating the Iowas, while at the same time more than filling the role the Iowas could possibly fill.
Also it's an attempt to dodge the absurd development budgets of things like the Zum by mix-and-matching exusting tech- autoloading turrets don't need to be redeveloped, all the high tech is copied directly from the Burkes, similar if larger plant, the while armor and consequently displacement allowins significantly larger air facilities and more accomodation for command staff.
At twice the dispacement of a Burke, with much of that being armor/gun steel and not high tech, more than TWICE the cost of a Burke (for production, development cost not included) sounds excessive.

>>32398678

Certainly sounds sane when compared to the "reactivate the Iowas!" BB fags.

>>32395149
THE ONLY ACTIVE VESSEL IN THE US NAVY TO HAVE ENGAGED IN COMBAT

>>32393333
It would be cheaper to build brand new boats than to refit any Iowa with nuclear propulsion

What the US needs are armored coastal & river monitors

Non-armored ships are always stuck hiding well over the horizon from any hostile coast

>>32399500

The issue is, other than the fact that monitors are derived from a design that is literally over a century old now, is that the US has no theaters that would require a heavily-armored riverine vessel at the moment, and any modern vessels would eat into the budget by simply existing for maintenance reasons. Gone is the age where you could just crank out warships with reckless abandon and assign them tasks as they come along.

It would still be an interesting exercise to build a modern armored boat capable of shrugging off modern munitions, maybe using it as a test bed for small scale active defenses alongside traditional plating.

>>32400191
A river monitor is a specific type of craft that remain very useful on, well, rivers. As it turns out, population tends to live on rivers, and rivers remain useful lines of communication. A reasonable case could be made that such capability is useful. Boats were used in a similar manner as to what a river monitor is used for in Iraq this past decade and a half, for example. This is one area where the use is vast, but investment into and awareness of is minimal.

Specifically, A river monitor is a shallow draft armored boat with a single turret in the front carrying a large caliber weapon. They were very useful in Vietnam, for the last example with such ships in American service.

So yes, such boats are indeed useful, especially in COIN, and are actually relatively small investment for the capability they provide. They're not very big boats, after all.

>>32400815

>So yes, such boats are indeed useful, especially in COIN

The US is trying very hard to shift away from COIN right now. No more nation building. Never again and good riddance.

>>32397206
As a Navy nuke, I would have loved that. I heard nothing but good things from the old bucks that served on the cruisers. No airwings, no 5000 other assholes at port calls, no lack of communications b/c you're underwater, etc.

>>32400876
It's going to happen again. We've been doing it for well over a hundred years, and for good reason. As a world power, we try and keep the deck in our favor. That's why you calling it "nation building" is not entirely correct. We're not there necessarily to create an entirely new nation, but rather to keep certain groups out of power because they wouldn't play ball. We're already doing a LOT of shit that you don't know about, not even in the Middle East. Another big COIN conflict is going to happen again. Even if a big one doesn't, there are a dozen smaller ones at any given time.

>>32392595
Its more about money, cost and ship handling.

I have this book about US Aircraft carriers by George Friedman which dedicates a fifth of the book dealing with modernization plans for Essex and Midway carriers. To paraphrase: modernization was a bitch and radically affected the handling of the ship.

That flight deck made from Special treatment steel and wood? Nope gotta cut it all out, reinforce the hangar deck, redistribute equipment, reorganize the hangar bay, rewire all the electrical, add a new flight deck and do it for several dozen of them ships.

Ship sitting too low unloaded? Well shit dude now you gotta build a new hurricane bow for it. Lighten it if you can.

Ship too slow? Re-engine or limit the aircraft that can be used.

Ship rolls too much? Shit son, shove that fucker back into the docks and let add some hull stabilization to that.

>>32392583
A silkworm behind every cattail...

>>32401594
a dead russian with every step.

>>32392042
Probably more expensive and less effective than building new, but if it means I get muh modern Iowa class and so on then it's a great idea.

>>32397846
Aesthetics aside, though I could cum at the idea of a BLS upgrade to basically create a 150 cell AEGIS-equipped California/Bainbridge.

Just think of the radar that nuke plant could power.

>>32400891
It seemed like the best setup possible.

I'm holding out hope that we get a nuclear-powered Zumwalt derivative to replace the Ticons. The IEP with a bigger powerplant would be perfect for railguns and DEWs, and a railgun-launched missile would be a god-tier boost phase BMD weapon.