The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:51 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Very Fire has a USS Montana coming out in 1/350. Being in plastic as opposed to resin cast in rubber, this is one of the mass produced best WIF models ever! I am going to build one of these kits as a late 1990s reactivated version.
The idea is that the ship was commissioned in the early 1950s but was decommissioned after Korea and then reactivated again during the later years of Vietnam and modernized in the 1990s.

As built, the twin manual 5"/54 caliber guns were replaced with Mk42 5"/54caliber mounts.
Attachment:
Mk-42-gun-005.jpg
Mk-42-gun-005.jpg [ 336.91 KiB | Viewed 2629 times ]

Attachment:
WNUS_5-54_mk42_sketch.jpg
WNUS_5-54_mk42_sketch.jpg [ 89.8 KiB | Viewed 2629 times ]

or an armored version with the same splinter shield as the Mk16.
Attachment:
WNUS_5-54_mk16_White_Sands_pic.jpg
WNUS_5-54_mk16_White_Sands_pic.jpg [ 20.69 KiB | Viewed 2629 times ]

With a standard projectile stack 30-40 RPM.
Attachment:
WNUS_5-54_mk16_side_pic.jpg
WNUS_5-54_mk16_side_pic.jpg [ 96.13 KiB | Viewed 2629 times ]

With standard projectile stack.
Here is the same gun configuration firing the DeadEye Semi-Active Laser Guided Projectile (SALGP).
Attachment:
39104709_10216397648070589_8465267986503041024_n.jpg
39104709_10216397648070589_8465267986503041024_n.jpg [ 50.38 KiB | Viewed 2629 times ]

A DeadEye being test fired at Dahlgren naval test range.
Attachment:
WNUS_5-54_mk16_missile_pic.jpg
WNUS_5-54_mk16_missile_pic.jpg [ 11.41 KiB | Viewed 2629 times ]

To accommodate a more situationally aware bridge and flag bridge, I am considering scratch building a bridge similar to that of Little Rock.
Attachment:
LR Bridge TOP1.jpg
LR Bridge TOP1.jpg [ 139.64 KiB | Viewed 2629 times ]

Attachment:
LR Bridge 3.jpg
LR Bridge 3.jpg [ 101.05 KiB | Viewed 2629 times ]

In the early 1960s, Mts 53 and 54 would have been removed and replaced with Flag Facilities similar to those aboard Albany /Columbus and Newport News.
For perspective, this structure would only be 60' wide while the beam of Montana is 121'.
Attachment:
Chi10GC.jpg
Chi10GC.jpg [ 121.84 KiB | Viewed 2629 times ]

Attachment:
Chi11GC.jpg
Chi11GC.jpg [ 113.99 KiB | Viewed 2629 times ]


The stern will be arranged in one of two ways, either a hangar dug down into the stern from Turret 4's barbette 90' back and 50 feet wide (this would be the equivalent of a Cleveland-class below-deck hangar with an armored sliding hatch. The landing pad would be level with the top of the hatch) or it would be smooth from Turret 4 back with markings for 3 helicopter landing spots, 1 general and 2 SH-46/53s. A UAV shack would be positioned under the guns of Turret 4.

I'll have to build the NIXIE windows and the Outboard EW arrays along the hull and super structure.

As always, comments and ideas are welcome! :big_grin:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2018 6:45 am 
Offline
Model Monkey
Model Monkey

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:27 pm
Posts: 3952
Location: USA
:big_grin: :big_grin: :big_grin:

_________________
Have fun, Monkey around.™

-Steve L.

Complete catalog: - https://www.model-monkey.com/
Follow Model Monkey® on Facebook: - https://www.facebook.com/modelmonkeybookandhobby


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
I got my ModelMonkey Mk42s and Mk16s in grey resin today. They are remarkable!!!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 5003
When the Montana's, the rest of the Iowa's and Alaska's were canceled due to the steel shortage, only the Hawaii and Illinois and Kentucky were eventually continued. The reason, the same reason all of the earlier classes bit the dust, speed. Twelve 16" were not for the purposes of anything but fleet to fleet action much better than nine. All sorts of potentially cool projects were never pursued very far due to budget considerations. Of course some interesting proposals were investigated to increase the speed of N-Carolina, Indiana etc using gas turbines. I believe the major obstacle was finding room for big enough props to handle the power required for plus thirty knots.

The fun thing about what if ship projects is we can ignore the real considerations top brass and planners had to struggle with and get to the cool stuff, the ships. The need for a robust secondary battery and upgrades would increasingly decrease with time.

Being an amateur warship designer certainly is interesting, wonderful mental workout and good for keeping you off the streets at night.

Have fun!


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2018 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Fliger747 wrote:
Twelve 16" were not for the purposes of anything but fleet to fleet action much better than nine.
I have to disagree. In the case of NGFS or Naval Gunfire Strikes, the more guns the better. The faster you can deliver the ordnance onto the target the better. If equipped with the old GFC, a rapid salvo would scatter the rounds across the target area as if it was engaging a maneuvering surface combatant, not the best effect. A newer GFC such as the Mk160 paired with the TAS-23 and/or the SPQ-9A/B would enable the ship to salvo the guns at the exact same coordinate landing all 12 rounds within the dispersion and deflection beaten zone (each round landing within 40 rounds of each other). A 9 gun salvo in such an instance is devastating, but a 12 round impact would be absolutely catastrophic. The faster you can destroy a target, the faster you can shift fire to the next. OR you can split your battery amongst two target, engaging them both simultaneously with six guns a piece. Then again, you could also task the secondary battery with a third target of its own. In this case, keep all twelve 16" guns and as many 5" guns as possible. While balancing the addition of modern weaponry in the above deck real estate, such as a battery of Mk41 VLS, the more guns the better.

Fliger747 wrote:
The fun thing about what if ship projects is we can ignore the real considerations top brass and planners had to struggle with and get to the cool stuff, the ships.
There are more fun things about it to me for sure. My most fun was modernizing the Spruance-class DDs when we still had 9 or so left in the mothball fleet and a modernization of the 4 Iowa-class battleships. It was a technical exercise that led to white paper proposals that went up to NAVSEA.

Fliger747 wrote:
The need for a robust secondary battery and upgrades would increasingly decrease with time.
I agree that instead of ten 5" mounts, there would be only 6, but still a secondary battery is needed if you're working NGFS or Naval Gunfire Strikes. Not everything needs a 16" round, and when massing 5" fire, the personnel calling for the fire need 20+ rounds impacting the target area in a 5 second period or a sustained bombardment over a sixty second period; ie why one needs multiple guns with a considerable rate of fire. Answering that demand is why I kept three-thirty round per minute 5" mounts per side.

Fliger747 wrote:
Being an amateur warship designer certainly is interesting, wonderful mental workout and good for keeping you off the streets at night.
I agree! I don't have to get stitches or get my ears drained nearly as often when designing warships.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
DavidP wrote:
Fliger747, what makes you think those ships were cancelled due to the lack of steel as it does not appear to be that reason?
Pssst, Fliger747, site Malcolm Muir's Iowa-class Battleships Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, Wisconsin. I believe it was sited in there that due to the amount of steel available for the next 12 months, the US Navy was given the choice by the US Congress if they wanted "Two super battleships or three large carriers", referring to the then un-nammed Montana-class BBs or the Midway-class CVs.
Attachment:
A1+hu5IXYBL.jpg
A1+hu5IXYBL.jpg [ 85.79 KiB | Viewed 2166 times ]
The Navy chose the 3 Midways.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
DavidP wrote:
...wouldn't say these 3 ships were cancelled due to lack of steel but because of end of war so not needed anymore just like IWO JIMA (CV-46) was laid down in Jan. 1945 & cancelled in Aug. 1945.
Good distinction. As far as the Montanas and Midways went, the choice between those two was one confronted between 1943 and 1944 before Congress based upon the steel supply. Like you listed above, I have not heard of existing builds being suspended due to steels supply either, but instead for building ways space and shifting priorities at the end of the war.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
I plan on having the SSDS (Ship Self Defense Suite) a derivative of the NTU Mk74 Tartar-D AAW system that drove Sea Sparrow Missiles (SSM/ESSM), Rolling Air Frame Missiles (RAM), and Phalanx Block 1 CIWS. I am weighing the possibility of removing the Mk29 NATO Sea Sparrow launchers and just putting the missiles in the Mk41 VLS. In this case, the Mk29s (mounted atop the Tartar/Flag structures built around Mts 52 and 53) would be removed and perhaps replaced by Mk38 Mod2 25mm guns or another set of 21-cell RAM launchers.

What do you guys think?

The build will reflect a lot of lessons learned from Koppalakki's USS Missouri ( viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167436&start=60 ). I am looking forward to getting a hold of the actual model so I can begin structural modifications to meet a current modernization. :big_grin:

:woo_hoo:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 240
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
The Sea Sparrow launchers were not installed on the modernized Iowas because it was determined that they would not survive the overpressure from the firing of the 16" guns.

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
InchHigh wrote:
The Sea Sparrow launchers were not installed on the modernized Iowas because it was determined that they would not survive the overpressure from the firing of the 16" guns.
Whoa, good eye, InchHigh! That is good reseach. Fuc* yes.
As New Jersey was reactivated, the modern systems were sent to Dahlgren to be tested. They were all tested and then hardened against the over pressure from the guns. The Mk29 launchers and illuminators were hardened against the guns.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 240
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
Sorry you don't like it Dave, but that was the reason.

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
InchHigh wrote:
Sorry you don't like it Dave, but that was the reason.
Eh, no problem. It's not an issue of liking an explanation or not. I have spoken to the man involved in the testing. He said if the launcher had been moved up and away from the "over the shoulder" firing, or if Turret 2's firing arc could have been restricted, installation of the launcher would have been feasible. The only issue was if Turret 2 fired next to the launcher. :big_grin: I can't wait for the kit! :woo_hoo:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 9:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 240
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
I honestly don't know what Dahlgen was trying with the Sea Sparrow launchers or when. We were told they couldn't make it work. Other factors might well have been in play but the stated reason was main battery overpressure. The pressure was +5 psi when the guns fired and -5 psi when the fireball collapsed. We always rolled all the bridge windows down to prevent them from shattering and you quickly learned to duck behind the radar repeaters if you were standing a bridge watch and the guns were trained around.

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 9:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Attachment:
0414876.jpg
0414876.jpg [ 59.15 KiB | Viewed 1988 times ]
InchHigh wrote:
The Sea Sparrow launchers were not installed on the modernized Iowas because it was determined that they would not survive the overpressure from the firing of the 16" guns.
That is another reason why I have moved them up 4 decks atop the Tartar D/Flag structure. :big_grin:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
As I keep getting ModelMonkey fittings ready I really look forward to the kit!

As of now, I have the following pieces:

ModelMonkey:
16"/50caliber main turrets
Mk42 5"/54 caliber guns (with the possibility of going 62 caliber)
Mk16 5"/54 gun shields
lifeboats

Veteran Models:
SPS-48/49
TAS-23
Harpoon
RAM
Mk29 NATO Sea Sparrow launchers
SH60 Sea Hawks
SRBOC/NULKA

From a fellow modeler:
VLS
11m RHIB
CB90 boats
RADOMES
Mk95 Sea Sparrow illuminators
SPQ-9B

This is going to be a fascinating build! She will be fitted in a 2015 arrangement reflecting an SSDS Mod3 (specifically for battleship surface combatants).

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
True believers, what kinds of modernizations would you like to see on a modernized Montana? BBH? BBG? Tartar-D, Aegis, etc?

What kinds of modernizations would you want to see?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
I really wondering if the Mk86 WDS would be good for the few VLS stores SM-2s. It would certainly provided the CIC/CEC with a wonderful radar picture. This implicates if I should use SPF-55Bs on the ship...

That makes one wonder; where would those radars be situated?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group