What-If modernised USS Montana BB-67

[GTDEATH13]

What crosses your mind when you look at this picture?

Well if you give the kits the right company of tools...

[GTDEATH13]

Kitbashing begun yesterday and today it is progress time...

Modernised USS Montana BB-67... 1/700 Trumpeter kitbash using USS Winsconsin and USS Missouri...

With two GMM deatail sets..

And perhaps some extras like replacing the 5"/38 cal. with modern 5"/54 single mounts... With VLS and perhaps a Hangar deck...

These are the first pics...

Comments and thoughts are always welcome...

[Marco_Trigo]

That's great progress, I'm curious as to where this one will go, but is it an optical illusion or does the deck aft of X turret bulges a bit outward?

Marco

[GTDEATH13]

That's great progress, I'm curious as to where this one will go, but is it an optical illusion or does the deck aft of X turret bulges a bit outward?

Marco

The deck in this pic is not yet glued to place... It was a dryfit just for inspirational reasons...

Now, last night I decided to give my Montana a helicopter deck with a hangar for two helicopters. As you can see in the following pics I cut of the stern of the ship and lowered the deck of the stern.

[GTDEATH13]

The heli deck will be the same as that of the Iowas and a hangar will be built at the fore end of this last piece of deck. I also retained the two old 40mm gun enplacements right aft. The whole proicess took me about 3 hours to figure out and "complete". This is a siede view of the stern...

Now for the hangar I am examining two options. A single block contruction that will go from starboard to port and a twin hangar construction for one helicopter each, one starbord and one port... Here are some rough pic-sketches of the hangar....

Opinions about the hangars are welcome... Notice that the hangar(s) will be a little taller than the deck forward of them. According to my estimations a suitable hangar hight for a sea hawk (SH-60) helicopter would be around 6.5 meters. Scaling it down to 1/700 this is roughly 9mm... The height between the two decks is about 5mm...

[GTDEATH13]

Since I always build full hull models (credit to the naval engineer for the wonderful hull lines ) the next step was to attach the hull. The two hull parts are the for and aft part of he two Iowa hulls provided with the kit, each cut at a specific length. This was a quite easy task but lots of filling and sanding and corrections are required. I think the followind photos explain much better the ammount of work that needs to be done. But at least I am satisfied with the fit of the hull parts... Credit to Trumpy for that...

First of all a general view

Some close ups...

[GTDEATH13]

The next part will be corrections on the hull shape and filling.

I also am thinking of adding an armour belt at the hull sides for two reasons. The first one is that Mr Friedman in his book on US battleships mentions that some Montana designs considered an external armour belt than the internal one. The second reason is that I want to alter the existing Iowa hulls so as to make the Montana hull vary from just two parts of Iowa glued together and filled.

Here is a pic of the proposed belt...

[Marco_Trigo]

I would go with the single block hangar, as I'm unsure if the gap between two hangars wouldn't cause turbulence. You can use any modern hangar for a guide I suppose.

As for the armour belt, I would do it, mostly out of artistic license to make it stand out from an Iowa, but is ny information given as to how the belt might look? I was thinking of something like the South Dakotas?

Marco

[EJM]

Some good looking work there. The only thing that would concern me is the hangars too close to the 4th turret. Once that 4th 16" turret fires, then I'm willing to bet the hangars would suffer some serious damage from the blast and concussion, etc.
When I built my MLRS New Jersey BB long ago, I toyed with the idea of having some sort of aircraft elevator and under deck hangar cause I didn't want the helicopters to sit on the deck. You might be able to see what I did here:
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

[chuck]

A few minor quibbles:

1. Montana was not designed to fit through the locks of Panama canal and was therefore made much wider than Iowa to accommodate deeper torpedo defense system and give better damage stability.

2. Iowa's long fine bow entrance was necessitated by her high speed, and was considered to be both structurally weak and a major point of trim vulnerability in case of underwater damage. Montana, being much slower and emphasizing staying power to a far higher degree than the Iowa, would have had a more robust and shorter bow design.

3. I doubt one would cut down Montana's rear hull just to accommodate helicopter hangers. Modern US battleships all suffer various degrees of propeller vibration problems caused by waterflow behind their skegs. Cutting down the rear hull could have major stiffness implications, and reduced stiffness probably would have significant impact on the ship's vibration response at speed.

[GTDEATH13]

A few minor quibbles:

1. Montana was not designed to fit through the locks of Panama canal and was therefore made much wider than Iowa to accommodate deeper torpedo defense system and give better damage stability.

2. Iowa's long fine bow entrance was necessitated by her high speed, and was considered to be both structurally weak and a major point of trim vulnerability in case of underwater damage. Montana, being much slower and emphasizing staying power to a far higher degree than the Iowa, would have had a more robust and shorter bow design.

3. I doubt one would cut down Montana's rear hull just to accommodate helicopter hangers. Modern US battleships all suffer various degrees of propeller vibration problems caused by waterflow behind their skegs. Cutting down the rear hull could have major stiffness implications, and reduced stiffness probably would have significant impact on the ship's vibration response at speed.

Interesting arguments there....

Preliminary Montana designs limited the beam of the ship in order to fit through the Panama canal. The final design as quoted by Mr Friedman's book provides the following characteristics for the Montanas:
Length 890 ft, Beam (WL) 115 and Beam below WL 118 ft, Draft 36 ft. Furthermore, it is mentioned that designers tried to avoid vibration problems by separating the main thrust bearings from the reduction gear casings. ( I do not know if that would have worked, even the C.F. Adams class of ships had the main thrust bearings at the fore part if the main reduction gear casing, so if anyone knows of a class of steam powered ships with the same design as the Montana shafting would provide valuable info).

I think that as a modeler of a never built battleship poetic licence is granted in order to kitbash the Iowa kits and retain the characteristic bow...

As far as the hangers are concerned, I was thinking of a transome stern at first, which would also be a propable solution for reducing the vibration caused by the props... But then I hesitated in altering and scratchbuilding part of the hull to such extent... Anyway comments are welcome and mindpuzzling as well...

[Nektarios]

Welcome back GTDEATH13. Cool what-if idea. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing more of your work.

[chuck]

Preliminary Montana designs limited the beam of the ship in order to fit through the Panama canal. The final design as quoted by Mr Friedman's book provides the following characteristics for the Montanas:
Length 890 ft, Beam (WL) 115 and Beam below WL 118 ft, Draft 36 ft. Furthermore, it is mentioned that designers tried to avoid vibration problems by separating the main thrust bearings from the reduction gear casings. ( I do not know if that would have worked, even the C.F. Adams class of ships had the main thrust bearings at the fore part if the main reduction gear casing, so if anyone knows of a class of steam powered ships with the same design as the Montana shafting would provide valuable info).

Early Montana designs started at 45000 tons. Iowas had 108 ft beam. The vibration response of the ship is a function of the stiffness of the support for the propeller and propeller shaft, which ultimately comes down to the stiffness of the hull. It is not a case of the stiffer the better. A hull either too stiff or too flexible will vibrate. The stiffness has to be just about right. Making major changes to the depth of the aft hull will change the stiffness of the hull.

[Tracy White]

It's a little late now for your build, but I think this is how I'd lay it out:

remove turrets 2 & 3, keep 1 & 4. Put a VLS or two where turret 2 was and a landing pad where #3 was, with the hangar in the super structure, with Harpoons, Tomahawk launchers on top, etc.

That way you have fore and aft fire, balance (as opposed to removing a whole bunch of weight from one end of the ship) , and the aircraft are more protected from main gun blast. You'd have to have some pretty hefty hangar doors though.

[navydavesof]

Armor belt! Yes! The Montanas were going to have a very signature armor belt in comparison to the other fast battleships.

but is ny information given as to how the belt might look? I was thinking of something like the South Dakotas?

No, the South Dakota's was inside the ship. The Montana was to have an exterior armor belt. The extra width to the ship, at the water line, is so minisucle that on even a 1/350 model, the Iowa and Montana would be very nearly the same width. Like, what you might want to do is lay a strip of very thin Evergreen strip plastic along the top of the hull and then take a thicker piece of strip stock and glue it with the upper edge of the platic strip on top of the lower part of the upper strip causing the lower strip to the angled downward. This is what I have planned for if I ever get to do a Montana.

I would go with the single block hangar, as I'm unsure if the gap between two hangars wouldn't cause turbulence. You can use any modern hangar for a guide I suppose.

I agree with Marco here for sure. There are plenty hangers out there. I think for the era, the ones on the Belnaps would work the best. The reason I like it is because it can be center-lined, which is great for compensating for the over-pressure of Turret 3.

[GTDEATH13]

Concerning the shape of the armour belt the two pictures taken from Mr Friedmans book (p. 284 & 285)

I have decided to build the belt in two separate pieces... The first one will be the upper, inclined piece above the water line which will consist of 1.5mm plastic strip. I will sand the strip qradually so that it gets an inclination from top to bottom. The strip will not reach deck level but its upper end will be at around 3 mm from the deck edge downwards, proportionally equivalent to that of the picture.

The second, and more difficult part, of the belt will consist of a 2mm thick strip from the waterline down to the base line... The strip will be sanded to resume the crosssection of the picture... At each end of the belt, fore and aft, I will gradually thin the strips.

I hope that pics of my progress will be available soon...

[GTDEATH13]

I agree with Marco here for sure. There are plenty hangers out there. I think for the era, the ones on the Belnaps would work the best. The reason I like it is because it can be center-lined, which is great for compensating for the over-pressure of Turret 3.

Thanks for the tip, I like the way the hanger looks but that will be only half of the one I am considering... Perhaps if you double the size and the doors...

[Sauragnmon]

I'm a little late to this party it would seem. I would have to agree with Chuck - as it stands, your helipad area is insufficient - the Iowas needed that space additionally for their machinery and other maintenance - this is why they never received a hangar in all truth. 5" guns I would suggest the Mk42, or Mk45 if you really want to push that edge. VLS, you might wish to try a little more conservative than my layout when I did Mightier Mo (I'll admit, That was a bit over the top on bulk quantity).

As to your hangar, two helicopters is optimistic - Dave suggested the Belknap hangar because it's further back from the blast pressure on a broadside, it's in the center, and it gives you space to shield it against the blast pressure when your ship unloads a broadside.

That said, the concept looks pretty mean and wicked. You might also just consider calling her the successor After the Montanas in order to avoid the dimensional disputes as well, but who knows. It's your model, and if you enjoy it, that's the important key. We're really just giving you food for thought.

[Cliffy B]

I agree with Marco here for sure. There are plenty hangers out there. I think for the era, the ones on the Belnaps would work the best. The reason I like it is because it can be center-lined, which is great for compensating for the over-pressure of Turret 3.

Thanks for the tip, I like the way the hanger looks but that will be only half of the one I am considering... Perhaps if you double the size and the doors...

Remember though that that hanger is ONLY big enough for ONE SH-2 LAMPS I helo. It would need to be widened and raised a bit to fit SH-60s or SH-3 helos.

[navydavesof]

Remember though that that hanger is ONLY big enough for ONE SH-2 LAMPS I helo. It would need to be widened and raised a bit to fit SH-60s or SH-3 helos.

Really? Well that's interesting. I am sure if we are looking at new-construction ships that should be taken into account. I did think the hanger looked a little small in comparison to some of the other ones out there. That must be why.

Something one might want to consider as well is putting the helo hanger in the super structure with the actual flight deck itself hanging over the top of Turret 3. The missile directors could be ontop of the helo hanger, and stepped down just forward of the helo hanger could be your battery of VLS or ABLs depending on which way you want to go.