The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:59 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
TWS/CAT: http://www.naval-technology.com/news/ne ... ing-system

Edit to eliminate pic link

I first saw SVTT on CVNs a while back, the RUMINT was that they were initially placed there as a countermeasure for Russian wake homing torpedoes. The newer TWS/CAT is beyond that in scope, but really is just a continuation of the concept.


Last edited by SumGui on Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
Nice to see their revisiting the concept and didn't just let it die like so many other programs. That second shot may be tagged as CVN-74 but the caption states those tubes belong to DDG-109 :big_grin:

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Agree that label is bogus - I shouldn't have posted that pic.

I've been looking for a shot which shows the mk32 SVTT above the 'transom rack' where I saw them in the past.

I imagine that was a test/desperation fit - I wouldn't want torpedoes near where I am test running jet engines...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:38 am
Posts: 14
This is the updated version of the Montana drawing I've been working on. I believe this would make a good guide to creating a model.
This is based on the USS Montana as would have been completed in WWII, then.... with 50's Korean War era modification and upgrade, and now.... with a 2013 overhaul and modernization.

The upgrades and modifications that are visible:
6 – Mk41 30mm Bushmasters (2 in old 40mm quad positions before 16” Turret 1, and on main deck, either side of Turrets 2 and 3)
10 – 155mm/62 AGS-L (in former 5” twin positions).
4 – 57mm/70 (2 on each side on inside 2nd level. just aft of bridge at former 40mm quad mount, and below aft gun director).
4 – Mk49 21-cell Ram (1 each side in tubs behind and below bridge, 1 each side just behind stack, 1 each side in tubs beside tower behind stack 2).
4 - Phalanx Block 1B (1 each side behind bridge, 1 each side beside stack 2).
8 – Harpoon quad canisters (4 each side of stack 2).
256 – Mk41 VLS between the stacks on new built up platform (bottom of VLS cells on main deck).
New platform between the stacks for VLS.
Elevator to below deck hanger facilities for 4 SH-60 SeaHawks aft of turret 4. (not visible in this view)
Several mack/mast changes.
Updated Radars and Gun Directors
Image

_________________
"They don't call me good for nothin'."


Last edited by DJBattlestations on Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:56 am, edited 5 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Hey, DJ! I have been following your ideas for a little while, and I have some things for you to consider. The biggest thing you would need to consider is blast damage the main battery would cause to many of the weapons you have placed around and how the sea water would destroy your bow mounted guns. Unfortunately for your arrangement, you have to lose your 4 Mk110 57mm guns. Turrets 2 and 3 would blow them apart.

Your 30mm Bushmasters on the main deck would be ruined by water washing over them. If you want them at all, you should consider putting them up a deck behind the 16" guns or in the super structure.

AGS: Why have so many? The volume of fire you need to have destructive fires does not require 5 mounts per side. As you see, you have so many guns that you don't have room for a boat davit and boat. I would suggest you delete the amidships mount and replace it with a two level boat davit like the Iowas have. Even 4 AGS(L) guns are a bit much.

RAM: Be careful where you put them and how you build the structure, because don't forget: you have to be able to load and unload the launchers. Those little tubs don't have the room to do it.

Phalanx CIWS: They look good to me :thumbs_up_1:

Harpoons: Having 4 sets per side is nice, and can be accommodated, but you may want to consider having them fire perpendicularly off the ship instead of pointing in different directions like you have. That way you would save a lot of space.

VLS: When you originally proposed this idea I remember you saying you somehow thought you could put 256 or more Mk41 VLS between the stacks. I don't know how you're thinking this is possible. With the foot print VLS needs, you could put 2 64-cell arrangements between the stacks in length with the hull (one on each side of the center-line with at least a passageway between them), but with the plumbing and workspaces you need, that's as many tubes as you could have between the stacks. Also, do you have a reason to have more? If you do, there are other places on the ship to put more.

Helo facilities: I am a huge fan of the below-deck hangars. They worked great on the cruisers, and I believe they would work great on the battleships.

NTDS Mast: There is no need for it. Those capabilities are taken care of by other antenas now.

What scale would you think about doing this in?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
navydavesof wrote:
I have been following your ideas for a little while, and I have some things for you to consider. The biggest thing you would need to consider is blast damage the main battery would cause to many of the weapons you have placed around and how the sea water would destroy your bow mounted guns. Unfortunately for your arrangement, you have to lose your 4 Mk110 57mm guns. Turrets 2 and 3 would blow them apart.

I don't know where your getting this Idea that every time one of those guns goes off everything in a 5 mile radius ceases to exist, the Iowas never had a single Mk38 turret destroyed when they fired their guns. & they had 40mm & 20mm guns mounted even closer (even directly under them). Those positions are fine.

navydavesof wrote:
Hey, DJYour 30mm Bushmasters on the main deck would be ruined by water washing over them. If you want them at all, you should consider putting them up a deck behind the 16" guns or in the super structure.

Once again, when did the bow 20mm or 40mm of any U.S. BB (or CV) ever get destroyed by water spray? if those gun mounts can't take a little water then they don't belong on a ship.

navydavesof wrote:
AGS: Why have so many? The volume of fire you need to have destructive fires does not require 5 mounts per side. As you see, you have so many guns that you don't have room for a boat davit and boat. I would suggest you delete the amidships mount and replace it with a two level boat davit like the Iowas have. Even 4 AGS(L) guns are a bit much.

He has the same # the Iowas had in Mk38s & they had plenty of boats. How do you know how much volume of fire the ship will require on a given mission, she could find herself in a modern Peleliu situation, where multiple Marine units are pined down and calling for fire support, or laying multiple layers over a few, 5 mounts are more than reasonable. doesn't need the AGS-L version though, she would have plenty of room for the full AGS mount! Though I would think the 57mm's are redundant, I'd replace them & the 30mm's with 40mm twin Breda's for primary AMS (with the Mk15s as autonomous backup) this gives you a layered defence & if the Mk15's run out of ammo you still have something.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
The quote function double quoted half way down.

GMG4RWF wrote:
I don't know where your getting this Idea that every time one of those guns goes off everything in a 5 mile radius ceases to exist, the Iowas never had a single Mk38 turret destroyed when they fired their guns. & they had 40mm & 20mm guns mounted even closer (even directly under them). Those positions are fine.
It's not within 5 miles, you just have to be aware of the damage the overpressure, especially repeated discharges, causes on modern electronics. Right around the barrels, the pressure winds up being between 10-20 PSI, and that is right where the 57mm guns are placed. If Turret 2 were to fire over the shoulder, the muzzles would be close to the 57mm guns. The 57mm guns have a Kevlar strengthened fiberglass weather shield, not the STS armor protection of the 5"/38caliber mounts. So, unless you want to greatly reduce the arc of Turret 2's fire, then yes, it is a bad position, a very bad position.

GMG4RWF wrote:
Once again, when did the bow 20mm or 40mm of any U.S. BB (or CV) ever get destroyed by water spray? if those gun mounts can't take a little water then they don't belong on a ship.
Yes, the bow 40mm on the Newport News was destroyed in a storm and was never replaced. But that's not the issue. The 30mm Bushmasters are heavily electronically controlled, not manually like the WWII tech. The Bushmasters have electro optical guidance and electric drive that cannot withstand the wash the 20mm and 40mm guns could.

GMG4RWF wrote:
He has the same # the Iowas had in Mk38s & they had plenty of boats.
You have to take into account that the USN does not employ boats the same way the did in WWII. Also with his configuration the space where the Iowas originally had boats is now taken up By Harpoons and VLS tubes.

GMG4RWF wrote:
How do you know how much volume of fire the ship will require on a given mission,
I am in the expeditionary side of the Navy, and I am reasonably well versed in NSFS, NGFS, CAS, and theater operations. A single ship should not be tasked with fighting the whole war, nor would she.

GMG4RWF wrote:
...she could find herself in a modern Peleliu situation, where multiple Marine units are pined down and calling for fire support, or laying multiple layers over a few, 5 mounts are more than reasonable.
If so, would she be there by her self or would she be accompanied by other fire support ships, carriers, USAF, etc? She does not need to fight the whole war by herself, and you really could not afford to arm her to do it, either.

GMG4RWF wrote:
...doesn't need the AGS-L version though, she would have plenty of room for the full AGS mount![/qoute]I don't think you understand how much internal space the AGS requires. The single full AGS would consume the entire bow of a DDG-51. Similar on a BB, the entire space from Mount 51 to 52 would be consumed by a single mount. So, no, there is not plent of room for the full AGS mount in the mounts in question.

GMG4RWF wrote:
Though I would think the 57mm's are redundant,
Another thing you must keep in mind, is that the 57mm gun is almost as large as a Mk45 5" gun. That takes up a lot of deck space anywhere you put it.

GMG4RWF wrote:
I'd replace them & the 30mm's with 40mm twin Breda's for primary AMS
Why mix so many calibers to do the same job? Why not chose one over the other?

GMG4RWF wrote:
with the Mk15s as autonomous backup this gives you a layered defence & if the Mk15's run out of ammo you still have something.
There are lots of Mk15s out there. Are you referring to the Phalanx CIWS? Why have it be autonomous instead of coordinating its fire with the rest of the self defense suite?

But yes, the 16" gun blast is a very big deal. If you read the South Dakota's battle damage report, you will see that as she fired over her shoulder, the overpressure from Turret 2 damaged her super structure and 5" guns.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
navydavesof wrote:
The quote function double quoted half way down.It's not within 5 miles.

I was being Ironic.
navydavesof wrote:
It's not within 5 miles, you just have to be aware of the damage the overpressure, especially repeated discharges, causes on modern electronics. Right around the barrels, the pressure winds up being between 10-20 PSI, and that is right where the 57mm guns are placed. If Turret 2 were to fire over the shoulder, the muzzles would be close to the 57mm guns. The 57mm guns have a Kevlar strengthened fiberglass weather shield, not the STS armor protection of the 5"/38caliber mounts. So, unless you want to greatly reduce the arc of Turret 2's fire, then yes, it is a bad position, a very bad position.

I'm aware of overpressure & electronics, you harden the mounts, according to you I could win a battle without needing AP ammo at all, just fire HE with prox fuses & blow all your systems away without ever actually hitting your ship, just get near. if a system can't be protected from near misses then it's not "Military grade". all gun housings on a BB should have some armor protection. (even if you have to redesign an off-the-shelf system
navydavesof wrote:
Yes, the bow 40mm on the Newport News was destroyed in a storm and was never replaced. But that's not the issue. The 30mm Bushmasters are heavily electronically controlled, not manually like the WWII tech. The Bushmasters have electro optical guidance and electric drive that cannot withstand the wash the 20mm and 40mm guns could.

Thats what "weather" shields are for.
navydavesof wrote:
You have to take into account that the USN does not employ boats the same way the did in WWII. Also with his configuration the space where the Iowas originally had boats is now taken up By Harpoons and VLS tubes.

you design the ships as needed then operate around that.
navydavesof wrote:
A single ship should not be tasked with fighting the whole war, nor would she.
If so, would she be there by her self or would she be accompanied by other fire support ships, carriers, USAF, etc? She does not need to fight the whole war by herself, and you really could not afford to arm her to do it, either.

I didn't say she would, but she might find herself the only available support in a given situation (happened a number of times is Vietnam where fire support was needed but unavailable), if she can carry it then she needs it.
navydavesof wrote:
I don't think you understand how much internal space the AGS requires. The single full AGS would consume the entire bow of a DDG-51. Similar on a BB, the entire space from Mount 51 to 52 would be consumed by a single mount. So, no, there is not plenty of room for the full AGS mount in the mounts in question.

I'm fully aware, you seem unaware of how much volume is available in a BB. they would fit.
navydavesof wrote:
Another thing you must keep in mind, is that the 57mm gun is almost as large as a Mk45 5" gun. That takes up a lot of deck space anywhere you put it.
do you mean the pysical size or the firepower???
either way it's smaller, the tiny shells are near useless in NGSF & the range is not much more than the beach, why the Navy downgraded to a much smaller gun IDK.
navydavesof wrote:
Why mix so many calibers to do the same job? Why not chose one over the other?
There are lots of Mk15s out there. Are you referring to the Phalanx CIWS? Why have it be autonomous instead of coordinating its fire with the rest of the self defense suite?
the only advantage the Mk15 (yes Phalanx duh) has over the Breda is it's autonomous ability to defend against a sudden threat (like a sub launched missile) the 40mm has longer range, can be fed from below to have effectively unlimited ammo & has a wider spread. so I design mine to use these as the primary AMS & Mk15s of GAU-8s as autonomous backups.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:38 am
Posts: 14
Most of these "what if" models are a stretch of the truth and practicality anyways. In this case, It would be more realistic to replace the 16" guns with other weapon systems but then it just wouldn't seem like a battleship anymore, at least not in the sense of what we love about them.

The AGS will not fit, but the AGS-L will fit in place of the twin 5"s. I'm not worried about the overpressures. The 16" guns would probably rarely be fired, since the 155mm's outrange them anyways. All the lesser guns are for varying degrees of close-in protection. The 57mm's are considerably smaller and lighter than a 5" gun with a higher rate of fire. This and the 40mm's, makes the ship is well protected from any small boat swarm attack. Not enough boats? Geez, There are 4 visible, assuming there are 7 total. i originally did leave off AGL-S turret #4, but put it in anyways. This ship is about as automated as you can make it, cutting out a lot of the manning requirements. Your probably correct on the Harpoon quads, but I was trying to utilise as much open space as possible, therefore the deck wrap around and the different angles. Besides, it looked better. This ship would not operate alone but would be part of a battle group, serving as additional protection for the fleet or as a gun-fire and missle-fire support ship as one would expect. 256 VLS cells would fit, The plumbing fits and the missle loadout, would be configured on a mission by mission basis. Let me remind you, this is a much wider ship than the Iowas. I don't know what would be a practical scale to model this in.

_________________
"They don't call me good for nothin'."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
GMG4RWF wrote:
Thats what "weather" shields are for...
...I'm fully aware, you seem unaware of how much volume is available in a BB. they would fit....do you mean the pysical size or the firepower???
either way it's smaller, the tiny shells are near useless in NGSF & the range is not much more than the beach, why the Navy downgraded to a much smaller gun IDK...the only advantage the Mk15 (yes Phalanx duh) has over the Breda is it's autonomous ability to defend against a sudden threat (like a sub launched missile) the 40mm has longer range, can be fed from below to have effectively unlimited ammo & has a wider spread. so I design mine to use these as the primary AMS & Mk15s of GAU-8s as autonomous backups.
oh, come on, man, don't get so butthurt :heh: Just think about it, that's all.

I am just sharing what the Mk46 30mm techs have told me in person. They have a hard time being way up there on top of LCS and the San Antonio-class as they are.

The overpressure issues even kept the Mk29 NATO Sea Sparrow launchers from being installed on the Iowas in the mid '80s. While they were able to do it, it took Dahlgren until 1989 to harden the launchers against the overpressure.

Please don't forget, we're having a conversation, not an argument. :thumbs_up_1:

Anyway,

DJBattlestations wrote:
The AGS will not fit


DJBattlestations wrote:
Let me remind you, this is a much wider ship than the Iowas. I don't know what would be a practical scale to model this in.
Do you have a kit in mind to use yet? I would love to hear what you plan to use! :woo_hoo:

I hope you would consider building this up in 1/350, that would be a pretty slick @$$ model!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Great picture, by the way :big_grin:
[quote="DJBattlestations"]Image

How much wood deck are you thinking about keeping and how much non-skid?

Will you rebuild any of the rest of the super structure, or will you be keeping it the way it is in the shipbucket drawing?

Do you plan on scratch building all of your AGS(L)s or will you make one and then cast more in resin?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:38 am
Posts: 14
navydavesof wrote:

How much wood deck are you thinking about keeping and how much non-skid?

Will you rebuild any of the rest of the super structure, or will you be keeping it the way it is in the shipbucket drawing?

Do you plan on scratch building all of your AGS(L)s or will you make one and then cast more in resin?


This is simply the R&D phase of this project. I could be several years before I am where I would be able to tackle a project of this magnitude. I don't see rebuilding the superstructure. I will have to see what kits and parts are available when the time comes. AGS(L)s would have to be scratch built and copies cast if done now, but will probably be available by the time I get to it, assuming they do start showing up on ships (ie future Burkes) as planned. I would probably do a waterline version myself.

I will more than likely, do some more editing to the drawing and slide those 57mm's back away a few feet from the 16"s.

_________________
"They don't call me good for nothin'."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
That's really cool, DJ. I have wanted to do a modernized Montana (probably the New Hampshire) for a long time. I have even cut the hatch out of the aft deck of a New Jersey for my below-deck hangar. Widening the ship would not be all that difficult, because it was only 12' wider than the Iowas. The only difficult thing I think will be making an angled armor belt as opposed to just gluing it to the side of the hull, but I think I might have that figured out already.

In a couple months I will be bringing up my Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin thread again and laying out a lot of the information I have learned about their planned VLS installation and what the max VLS load out is for their super structure arrangements. The deluge plumbing, super structure width, and berthing are the biggest limiting factors.

Shipbucket on! Please keep us posted with your mods and add-ons! :big_grin:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 1021
DJBattlestations wrote:
This is the updated version of the Montana drawing I've been working on. I believe this would make a good guide to creating a model.
This is based on the USS Montana as would have been completed in WWII, then.... with 50's Korean War era modification and upgrade, and now.... with a 2013 overhaul and modernization.

The upgrades and modifications that are visible:
6 – Mk41 30mm Bushmasters (2 in old 40mm quad positions before 16” Turret 1, and on main deck, either side of Turrets 2 and 3)
10 – 155mm/62 AGS-L (in former 5” twin positions).
4 – 57mm/70 (2 on each side on inside 2nd level. just aft of bridge at former 40mm quad mount, and below aft gun director).
4 – Mk49 21-cell Ram (1 each side in tubs behind and below bridge, 1 each side just behind stack, 1 each side in tubs beside tower behind stack 2).
4 - Phalanx Block 1B (1 each side behind bridge, 1 each side beside stack 2).
8 – Harpoon quad canisters (4 each side of stack 2).
256 – Mk41 VLS between the stacks on new built up platform (bottom of VLS cells on main deck). Still believe there is space (unconfirmed) for up to 384 tubes.
New platform between the stacks for VLS.
Elevator to below deck hanger facilities for 4 SH-60 SeaHawks aft of turret 4. (not visible in this view)
Several mack/mast changes.
Updated Radars and Gun Directors
[/img]Image



Is there any possibility of having a drawing of what the ship looks like from above? Like you were looking down on top of it? This would give me a better understanding of where you are placing weapons, equipment, firing arcs, etc.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 2:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:38 am
Posts: 14
Updated pic. I have moved the 57mm's back away from the 16" Turrets #2 & #3. This still may not alleviate the blast pressure problem, but should be a little better. I've added Chaff launchers and adjusted the Harpoon layout. I altered the VLS deck so it better reflects that it is wider. A few more radar and antenna upgrades. Misc details added. There are 4 new .50 cal MGs if you can find them. I will attempt to post this again with labeling and arrows to point out some of the equipment details. I don't suppose I need to label the 16" guns, I would guess everyone knows what they are. :big_grin:

As far as modeling, I would prefer to start with a Montana kit (if available), when the time comes.

Image

Note: This is the orginal pic (next to last version) that I accidently deleted which cause it to disappear from everyones quoted comments. Sorry.

_________________
"They don't call me good for nothin'."


Last edited by DJBattlestations on Mon Jun 24, 2013 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Pretty good looking, man. Can't wait for you to start it! The Montana models are pretty expensive. It would require some scratch building and some correction, but it could save you a LOT of money if you were to modify a Tamiya New Jersey or Missouri into a Montana if you wanted.

Do you have any after market parts in mind yet? I am a huge fan of Veteran Models pieces. Their Harpoons and CIWS are essential to me! :big_grin:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 8:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:05 pm
Posts: 538
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Not sure what scale you're looking to build. Imperial Hobby Productions produces a 1/700 resin Montana kit.

Review here: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... eview.html

Build here: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

IHP item page: http://ihphobby.tripod.com/index02.html

Available on eBay direct from manufacturer for $110 here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-700-USS-Monta ... 0886638726

The kit is a craftsman kit, it will probably require a Missouri class kit for some of the finer details. Gives you the basic skin and bones to start with. It is a pretty clean and crisp casting for the hull and various parts. I've personally got three of these bad boys, if you want a Montana and don't mind 1/700 this is probably the best way to do it.

_________________
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 12:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:38 am
Posts: 14
JasonW wrote:
Not sure what scale you're looking to build. Imperial Hobby Productions produces a 1/700 resin Montana kit.

Review here: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... eview.html

Build here: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

IHP item page: http://ihphobby.tripod.com/index02.html

Available on eBay direct from manufacturer for $110 here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-700-USS-Monta ... 0886638726

The kit is a craftsman kit, it will probably require a Missouri class kit for some of the finer details. Gives you the basic skin and bones to start with. It is a pretty clean and crisp casting for the hull and various parts. I've personally got three of these bad boys, if you want a Montana and don't mind 1/700 this is probably the best way to do it.


Thanks very much for the info and the encouragement! It is looking like the likelyhood of me ever being where I can build this is diminishing greatly. It definately, is far off into the future, but probably would be 1/700 scale.

This is the latest version after further modifications and corrections, and unless any of you see something that must be fixed or corrected, this is probably the final version. I want to thank each and every one of you who have commented, and made suggestions. I know this pushes against the boundries of realism of what a conversion like this could be done. Maybe the overpressure issue would make it impractical. Otherwise, I am convinced the the most major issue would be the weight of the VLS and it's Kevlar platform that would be added. Everything else is a tradeoff of 1945 planned equipment.

I will probably show the waterline version on next post. I accidently deleted the pic from the earlier post that many of you quoted, so it left a blank on your comments. There is one version of the last update, still in my last post. Sorry.
Image

_________________
"They don't call me good for nothin'."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:38 am
Posts: 14
As promised, this is the waterline version. (see last post)
Image

_________________
"They don't call me good for nothin'."


Last edited by DJBattlestations on Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group