Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 4  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 »
Author Message
Ming777
Post subject: Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major PowerPosted: January 26th, 2011, 1:52 am
Offline
Posts: 6
Joined: August 27th, 2010, 3:09 am
Oh did I forget to mention that the navalized F-16 is based on the F-16XL with the landing gears from the F-14 Tomcat :twisted: ?

And remember the POD is 1970; there are billions of butterflies at this point. In the TL, the Brits have already made the Queen Elizabeth class in the early 2000s. They previously had the HMS Ark Royal returned to service and already designed the Typhoon to fly off carriers. Remember, the Typhoon was developed far later than the Point of Divergence.

The CF-16Ks were built in the 2010s, using an engine developed by a resurrected Orenda Engineering. This engine also propels the CF-184C Supercat (descended from the CF-184 Tomcats which were bought from Iran in this timeline), CB-1R Lancers (which use Canadian Designed Avionics and Taurus Stand-off Cruise Missiles), and the CF-190 Crossbow, which looks similar to this plane:

[ img ]

Bwahaha!!!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Ming777
Post subject: Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major PowerPosted: January 26th, 2011, 1:55 am
Offline
Posts: 6
Joined: August 27th, 2010, 3:09 am
The another ship of this TL:

Following the end of the Cold War, the United States Navy decommissioned its four Iowa-class battleships, noting that the Marines didn't often have to make amphibious landings. But Missouri's decisive shutdown of Afrikaner gun positions on Table Mountain in Cape Town in December 1991, when combined with the pain brought on the Iraqis by the guns of Wisconsin and Missouri during the Gulf War, meant that the Marine Corps only allowed the Iowas to be decommissioned if there was something to replace them in the pipeline. This led the Navy to begin the SC-21 program in 1994, even before Missouri was decommissioned in June 1995.

But the ambitious SC-21 program evolved into the DD-21 and then DD(X) programs. These designs proved to be ahead of their times, but the massive costs of the project meant that progress was slow. Following the failure of the DD(X) program in April 2006, President Gore ordered the Navy to begin the task of drawing up a modernization of the Iowa class battleships, with the aim of returning them to service if they were needed for the fire support mission.

The June 2008 war between India and several of the Commonwealth nations, which the US had some involvement in, forced the issue. Loud objections were raised to the United States Navy's supposed "impotency" in the conflict, which ultimately devolved into a massive air campaign between the Indian Navy and Air Force and the carrier battle groups of HMS Queen Elizabeth II and HMCS Warrior. The issue became a minor election issue, with Republican candidate Jon Huntsman Jr blasting Democratic candidate Howard Dean for not paying enough attention to the needs of the American armed forces. Huntsman's narrow victory in the election saw him make good on that promise, and on January 27, 2009, Huntsman ordered Wisconsin reactivated, and started the proceedings to bring her four sister ships back into the Navy. Wisconsin was formally recommissioned on July 18, 2010, in Norfolk, Virginia. The Wisconsin got just a stop-gap refit, fixing many of the ship's problems, and the ship struggled for several months to get back to full status.

Her sister ship, Iowa, was a considerably bigger problem, which became obvious when Iowa was docked at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard for reactivation in May 2009. With worn machinery (a problem also for New Jersey), a severely damaged #2 turret and out of date electronics, Iowa would need considerably more work than Wisconsin. The Navy, after a massive debate and a plea from the Marine Corps, finally gave the go-ahead to refit Iowa on July 27, 2010.

Refit pretty much became the code word for rebuild. The plan drawn up by naval engineers was built fully, with several Congressmen and Senators pushing hard for the idea. Iowa had her worn out machinery cut apart and replaced, a massive job which also meant replacing a fair chunk of the deck, and the ship was fitted with new Bechtel boilers and General Electric steam turbines, with computerized engine controls made by Research in Motion in Canada. (That decision was done to expedite her rebuild, but it proved highly satisfactory in service.) Much of the section behind the rear funnel was gutted to make way for a specially-designed variant of the Mk 41 vertical launch system, with a 64-cell and two 16-cell launchers fitted. But by far the biggest addition was the fitting of the AEGIS Combat system, using the SPY-1F radar and custom-designed computers, allowing the ship to carry the system without a complete rebuild. These were hooked into the Mk 41 launchers, allowing Iowa to be a full AEGIS air defense vessel in addition to a big-gun sledgehammer.

155mm guns replaced the aged 5"/38-caliber naval guns, which gave them much-improved range and a fire rate of ten rounds a minute per gun, using a water-cooled barrel and automated loaders. New powder bags, shell designs (with base bleed) and hoists improved the fire rate of the 16" guns to 2.5/rounds a minute, reduced the number of crewmen needed in the guns and stretched the ship's effective gun range to as much as 40 miles. The Phalanx and Harpoon systems were upgraded, and the ship's electronic capabilities were massively improved all around. The ship became the first USN vessel to use the RQ-20 Eagle Eye UAV, which could feed real-time target data to the ship, which resulted in much improved gun accuracy. In addition to the firepower upgrades, the ship was equipped with all the latest creature comforts, and made fully NBC capable.

Fully re-equipped, Iowa recommissioned on July 4, 2012, at the Port of Los Angeles, in a memorable ceremony where President Huntsman and Democratic Challenger Senator Barack Obama both managed to show up without causing a three-ring circus. The vessel fired her first 16" shots in more than 20 years heading out of the harbor that evening, far enough away to not do any damage, but sure loud enough to wake everyone for miles.

Through 2012 and 2013, extensive testing revealed just how much of an impact the changes had made. Worries about severe top-heaviness proved to be unfounded, and the new engines gave Iowa an astounding 280,000 horsepower, enough to power the big ship to 36 knots at full blast, though fuel consumption at that speed was astoundingly high. The ship's AEGIS system gave it phenomenal abilities, and the long range and rapid fire rate of the ship's guns allowed Iowa to utterly destroy targets, with one study pointing out that Iowa could now put more ordinance on a target than a B-52 strike. The Marines loved the new design, and with the new gear and reduced crew (1,082 officers and men in 2012 service), even the Navy had soon stopped particularly grumbling. Huntsman lost the 2012 election, but President Obama had few problems ordering the other three Iowas refitted as such.

By 2016, three of the four vessels had been rebuilt and recommissioned, and Wisconsin was finishing up the upgrades. They had again become symbols of the United States Navy, and their huge abilities, proven against Indonesia in the brief 2015 war over East Timor, were something to be amazed at.



[ img ]


USS Iowa

Vessel Type: Iowa-class Battleship
Builder: New York Navy Yard
Rebuilder: Long Beach Naval Shipyards

Laid Down: June 27, 1940
Launched: August 27, 1942
Commissioned: February 22, 1943
Decommissioned: March 24, 1949
Recommissioned (2nd time): August 25, 1951
Decommissioned (2nd time): February 24, 1958
Recommissioned (3rd time): April 24, 1984
Decommissioned (3rd time): October 26, 1990
Recommissioned (4th time): July 4, 2012

Displacement: 45,470 tons (standard), 58,825 tons (full load)
Length (overall): 887 ft 3 in
Beam: 108 ft 2 in
Draught: 37 ft 2 in

Engines: 8 Bechtel 1200psi oil-fired boilers, 8 General Electric geared steam turbines, Research in Motion electronic machinery control, 4 shafts
Power: 280,000 shp (210 MW)
Maximum Speed: 36.2 knots (67.2 km/h) light load
Cruise Speed: 15 knots (27.8 km/h)
Range: 15,750 miles at 15 knots, 12,420 miles at 20 knots

Complement: 205 officers, 877 enlisted

Electronics and Directors:
- AN/SPY-1F phased electronically scanned radar
- AN/SPS-49(V)8 air search radar
- AN/SPS-67(V)3 surface search radar
- AN/SPS-73(V)12 surface search radar
- AN/SPQ-9B fire control radar (2)
- AN/SPG-62 missile fire control radar (4)
- GCFS 37/25 manual fire control directors (4)
- AN/SLQ-32(V)4 electronic warfare system
- AN/SLQ-25B Nixie torpedo decoy system

Armament
- 9 16"/50-caliber naval guns (3x3 turrets)
- 12 155mm/62-caliber naval guns (2x6 turrets)
- 3 Mark 41 VLS missile launchers (1 64-cell, 2 16-cell), 96 missiles
- 4 Mark 143 Harpoon launchers, 16 missiles
- 4 Phalanx Block 1B 20mm close-in weapons system

Aircraft Carried: 8 RQ-20 Eagle Eye tiltrotor UAV, landing pad for up to four helicopters

Credits: Colosseum, modifications by TheMann


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Rainmaker
Post subject: Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major PowerPosted: January 26th, 2011, 1:59 am
Offline
Posts: 247
Joined: August 2nd, 2010, 6:12 pm
Location: Montreal, QC
Ming777 wrote:
Oh did I forget to mention that the navalized F-16 is based on the F-16XL with the landing gears from the F-14 Tomcat :twisted: ?
Aircraft design doesn't work like that, but I see that arguing the point will be a waste of both of our time.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major PowerPosted: January 26th, 2011, 2:15 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
That Iowa refit is implausible to the point of actually being stupid.

The Era of battleships died with the advent of carrier aviation. The main reason that the Iowas were reactivated were because they could carry a large number of Tomahawks, and we had the hulls in storage.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Wikipedia & Universe
Post subject: Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major PowerPosted: January 26th, 2011, 2:59 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 309
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:19 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact: Website
TimothyC wrote:
That Iowa refit is implausible to the point of actually being stupid.

The Era of battleships died with the advent of carrier aviation. The main reason that the Iowas were reactivated were because they could carry a large number of Tomahawks, and we had the hulls in storage.
Also keep in mind this was before the mass production of strike-length VLS-equipped surface combatants (read: Burke swarm) in the USN.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major PowerPosted: January 26th, 2011, 3:00 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
It's not implausible from a technical standpoint...but no, it is not considered worthwhile. Aside from its large guns it's got marginal capability compared to a DDG-51 Arleigh Burke.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major PowerPosted: January 26th, 2011, 3:30 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
klagldsf wrote:
It's not implausible from a technical standpoint...but no, it is not considered worthwhile. Aside from its large guns it's got marginal capability compared to a DDG-51 Arleigh Burke.

He states that they replace the engines and power systems. That means gutting the entire hull from just aft of the B turret to just fore of the aft turret.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Wikipedia & Universe
Post subject: Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major PowerPosted: January 26th, 2011, 5:29 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 309
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:19 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact: Website
On the Warrior:

DUDE. LOOK. AT. YOUR. STERN. Something really went FUBAR there. PLEASE check it out.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major PowerPosted: January 26th, 2011, 6:17 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
TimothyC wrote:
klagldsf wrote:
It's not implausible from a technical standpoint...but no, it is not considered worthwhile. Aside from its large guns it's got marginal capability compared to a DDG-51 Arleigh Burke.

He states that they replace the engines and power systems. That means gutting the entire hull from just aft of the B turret to just fore of the aft turret.
Oh, yeah, I didn't read the text because it's tl;dr

Oh, and protip: if you're going to write backstory, don't make it too long or people will go tl;dr


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
paul_541
Post subject: Re: Canadian Power: The Canadian Forces as a Major PowerPosted: January 29th, 2011, 4:39 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 395
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 2:58 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada
TimothyC wrote:
That Iowa refit is implausible to the point of actually being stupid.

The Era of battleships died with the advent of carrier aviation. The main reason that the Iowas were reactivated were because they could carry a large number of Tomahawks, and we had the hulls in storage.
Not very because it had 5 principal reasons for why the US Navy take this for reactive they 3 times: their speed, their medium/heavy armor, their large hull, their powerfull main guns(useful during naval landings) and because they was well maintained by the USN.

So, another reactivation, whatever unlikely, can be possible...

Thanks for your comprehension and greetings. ;)

_________________
My motto:Per ardua ad astra (RCAF)
Current Drawings:
USS Midway CVB-41 and later alterations
HMCS Bonaventure CVL-22 and later alterations
Paul 2024


Last edited by paul_541 on January 29th, 2011, 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 4  [ 39 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]