What-If USS Kentucky BB-66 for Dave

[Russ2146]

Premise:
In 2010, the hull of the Kentucky, completed up to the Second Deck, and the pre-fabricated portions of the Kentucky and the Illinois were found in a long forgotten covered, climate controlled dry berth.
The Main battery tubes for the Kentucky, Illinois and Montana, having been completed by the Naval Weapons Factory, Washington, DC before the end of WWII, are discovered, with their mountings, in a remote storage area at Dahlgren. (Not improbable when you consider the history of the 16" mount now on display at Aberdeen Proving Ground.)
Renowned Naval Systems Designer, Mr. David Navaldavesoff (The name has been changed to protect the innocent), has been offered the mission to redesign the Kentucky to permit completion of the vessal as the centerpiece of a modern surface strike group, rather than be detailed to Gitmo.

Dave, will you accept this mission?

[navydavesof]

...offered the mission to redesign the Kentucky to permit completion of the vessal as the centerpiece of a modern surface strike group, rather than be detailed to Gitmo. Dave, will you accept this mission?

I know this guy. I will have to ask him, but he probably will. I think I saw one of his napkin drawings once of a new-build Iowa. I know he's done a new build Montana, and it looks pretty cool.

[Russ2146]

You might warn him that his efforts will be vigorously opposed by Sen. Robert Cahr

[navydavesof]

You might warn him that his efforts will be vigorously opposed by Sen. Robert Cahr

I have a feeling he might like it a little. However, guy named "I can't hold my breakfast on a boat" might have a problem with it.

[navydavesof]

This is a very in-depth subject which is best described with a model or a drawing. First and foremost, if we have the Kentucky as she was, we keep her propulsion plant as it is. The 600lb Babcox & Wilcox boiler is the most reliable propulsion plant the US Navy has ever had. The real Kentucky's plants lasted for 40 years. There is a very good leaning toward keeping the boilers. HOWEVER if there are funds, I would swap the propulsion plant in both Kentucky and Illinois to what the Makin Island has. The knowledge base for the Makin Island plant will endure much longer than main propulsion boiler plants.

Here is a general set up.

The armament would reflect:
9x16"/50caliber guns
4x8"/60caliber guns
2xMk110 57mm guns
128 Mk41 VLS positioned in 4 32-cell arrangements
16-48 Harpoons
2-3 Phalanx CIWS
2-4 RAM

(Cost is no concern)
SPY-5 radar with Aegis WDS
3 SPG-62 illuminators

(Reduced cost while maintaining maximum effect)
Full Improved New Threat Upgrade radar suite
SPS-49(v)5
SPS-48G (and/or TRS-3D)
SPS-67
SPQ-9B
3 SPG-51D/E track scan illuminators
The purpose for NTU is to mainly to provide the ship with a very, very good air awareness picture, not necessarily for shooting things down, but if shooting starts it becomes a major player.

Fire Conrol System:
2xMk160 Mod15 GFCS. One for the main battery of 16" guns and one for the secondary battery of 8" guns. The Mk160 currently employed aboard the DDG-51 class was specifically designed for the Iowa-class battleships to fire the exteded range 11" and 13" discarding sabot rounds. This would call for it.

Hangers:
In place of the aft most 5inch mounts on the Iowas would be 1 helo hanger on port and starboard. The hanger would be big enough for 1 SH-60 a piece, and it would span from the aft arm of the boat davit to the end of the super structure. RAST tracks would go all the way to the stern. The firing arch of Turret 3 would be restricted by 20 degrees on either side of the super structure so the hanger doors would not suffer blast damage.
-or-
While the decks are still exposed a below deck hanger would be cut into the decks large enough for 2 SH-60s, UAV storage area, workshops, and an elevator that raises a helo up. Atop that would be a large, flat door that slides forward or aft like found on the Des Moines-class. I am in favor of either.

Funnels:
Two funnels similar in shape to those of the Arleigh Burke-class.
Between the funnels would be 16-24 Harpoon missiles in an armored tub.
Along the after part of the aft funnel would be 8 Harpoons per side (16 more total) in an armored tub.

Bridge:
The bridge would be angular, slanted outward from the bottom to the top, but would bear the same shape as the Iowas have.

Armor:
The armor arrangement would be the same, but another 5,000 tones would be added to the stern deck (as was planned in 1950s)

Missile Arrangement:
Because the peripheral VLS (PVLS) is a very questionable system, Mk41 VLS would instead be arranged in possibly a peripheral arrangement of the 8-cell modules stretching the lengths of the smoke stacks.

Boats:
Boats would be stored internally as the RMS was on the mine hunting modified DDG-51s.

Mast:
It would be a mast similar in scope to that of a Burke in that it would be square and triangular bar construction.

Purpose:
Like explained earlier, it would be a capital ship, the centerpiece of a strike/battle group. It would be able to engage heavily in both land and sea warfare. That means striking at the land (16" guns, 8" guns, and Tomahawks) and striking at the sea (Harpoons, 16" and 8" guns). The massive numbers of Harpoons is set so it can defeat up to 4-6 cruiser/destroyers before its missile compliment is depleted. Then it would have to move within gunnery range for more surface action. Land support is accomplished wtih the battery of 9 16" guns and 4 8" guns. Both would be capable of firing laser guided munitions in addition to unguided rounds. Any kind of swarm boat attacks would be addressed by the Mk110, Mk38 Mod2s and Phalanx.

That is a very general set up. I am going to build a new construction Montana-class next year, and it will reflect a lot of these features. I may build two amidships versions (so I don't have to build two hulls, too) one that reflects the arrangement if it were nuclear powered and one if it were conventionally powered. The hull would relfect an external armor arrangement with torpedo blisters to counter mine strikes. I may do two hull variants. 1. Full hull with extra beam, armor belt, torpedo blisters, and bow bulge 2. Water-line with only extra beam and armor belt.

How about them apples?

[Russ2146]

Dave,
As the hull is complete only up to the 2nd deck, you can do whatever you want with the rest of the hull and the main deck. Only the 16" barbettes are in place

Since propusion was apparently pulled, you can do whatever propulsion seems best.
The same goes for the hanger space.
In fact, the entire superstructure and stacks are wide open.

I take it you're replacing the Iowa design 5" with 8"

[navydavesof]

I take it you're replacing the Iowa design 5" with 8"

Yes, sir. The forward 5inch mounts are replaced and replaced with 8"/60caliber weapons. The mountings are placed a little further apart than the 5"/38s for magazine space.

(I am looking forward to building this beast now)

Are there any suggestions?

[LSUfan]

This is a very in-depth subject which is best described with a model or a drawing. First and foremost, if we have the Kentucky as she was, we keep her propulsion plant as it is. The 600lb Babcox & Wilcox boiler is the most reliable propulsion plant the US Navy has ever had. The real Kentucky's plants lasted for 40 years. There is a very good leaning toward keeping the boilers. HOWEVER if there are funds, I would swap the propulsion plant in both Kentucky and Illinois to what the Makin Island has. The knowledge base for the Makin Island plant will endure much longer than main propulsion boiler plants.

Here is a general set up.

The armament would reflect:
9x16"/50caliber guns
4x8"/60caliber guns
2xMk110 57mm guns
128 Mk41 VLS positioned in 4 32-cell arrangements
16-48 Harpoons
2-3 Phalanx CIWS
2-4 RAM

(Cost is no concern)
SPY-5 radar with Aegis WDS
3 SPG-62 illuminators

(Reduced cost while maintaining maximum effect)
Full Improved New Threat Upgrade radar suite
SPS-49(v)5
SPS-48G (and/or TRS-3D)
SPS-67
SPQ-9B
3 SPG-51D/E track scan illuminators
The purpose for NTU is to mainly to provide the ship with a very, very good air awareness picture, not necessarily for shooting things down, but if shooting starts it becomes a major player.

Fire Conrol System:
2xMk160 Mod15 GFCS. One for the main battery of 16" guns and one for the secondary battery of 8" guns. The Mk160 currently employed aboard the DDG-51 class was specifically designed for the Iowa-class battleships to fire the exteded range 11" and 13" discarding sabot rounds. This would call for it.

Hangers:
In place of the aft most 5inch mounts on the Iowas would be 1 helo hanger on port and starboard. The hanger would be big enough for 1 SH-60 a piece, and it would span from the aft arm of the boat davit to the end of the super structure. RAST tracks would go all the way to the stern. The firing arch of Turret 3 would be restricted by 20 degrees on either side of the super structure so the hanger doors would not suffer blast damage.
-or-
While the decks are still exposed a below deck hanger would be cut into the decks large enough for 2 SH-60s, UAV storage area, workshops, and an elevator that raises a helo up. Atop that would be a large, flat door that slides forward or aft like found on the Des Moines-class. I am in favor of either.

Funnels:
Two funnels similar in shape to those of the Arleigh Burke-class.
Between the funnels would be 16-24 Harpoon missiles in an armored tub.
Along the after part of the aft funnel would be 8 Harpoons per side (16 more total) in an armored tub.

Bridge:
The bridge would be angular, slanted outward from the bottom to the top, but would bear the same shape as the Iowas have.

Armor:
The armor arrangement would be the same, but another 5,000 tones would be added to the stern deck (as was planned in 1950s)

Missile Arrangement:
Because the peripheral VLS (PVLS) is a very questionable system, Mk41 VLS would instead be arranged in possibly a peripheral arrangement of the 8-cell modules stretching the lengths of the smoke stacks.

Boats:
Boats would be stored internally as the RMS was on the mine hunting modified DDG-51s.

Mast:
It would be a mast similar in scope to that of a Burke in that it would be square and triangular bar construction.

Purpose:
Like explained earlier, it would be a capital ship, the centerpiece of a strike/battle group. It would be able to engage heavily in both land and sea warfare. That means striking at the land (16" guns, 8" guns, and Tomahawks) and striking at the sea (Harpoons, 16" and 8" guns). The massive numbers of Harpoons is set so it can defeat up to 4-6 cruiser/destroyers before its missile compliment is depleted. Then it would have to move within gunnery range for more surface action. Land support is accomplished wtih the battery of 9 16" guns and 4 8" guns. Both would be capable of firing laser guided munitions in addition to unguided rounds. Any kind of swarm boat attacks would be addressed by the Mk110, Mk38 Mod2s and Phalanx.

That is a very general set up. I am going to build a new construction Montana-class next year, and it will reflect a lot of these features. I may build two amidships versions (so I don't have to build two hulls, too) one that reflects the arrangement if it were nuclear powered and one if it were conventionally powered. The hull would relfect an external armor arrangement with torpedo blisters to counter mine strikes. I may do two hull variants. 1. Full hull with extra beam, armor belt, torpedo blisters, and bow bulge 2. Water-line with only extra beam and armor belt.

How about them apples?

What would you do for propulsion? You mention stacks, but what about nuclear power? Would it be practical to install a nuclear propulsion system? That would negate the need for funnels and stacks above deck.

[Russ2146]

I agree on going gas turbine for propulsion over steam. I believe that the knowledge base on steam now lies solely withing the Navy. A little known aspect of the First Gulf War was that it was extremely difficult to find merchant mariners to man the SS type cargo ships that were being pulled out of moth balls.
(There were mariners around who were experiensed with steem and they wanted to go, one for his 4th war, but they were so old that their feet and legs couldn't handle hours on a steel deck) For that matter it was hard to find vessal masters who were dry cargo types, rather than tanker types. You wouldn't believe the ro-ro lashings we had to double-up or the space wasted by their refusal to allow double stacked containers, even when the given ship was equipped with the proper fittings. But I digress.

The question has been brought up, by the post above, of whether to go nuclear on power. It is my understanding that this woulde be prohibitively expensive in terms of both reactors and manning.

With regard to gas turbine, would two stacks, or macks, be necessary? Similarly, would required engineering space be decreased? Looking at the plans of the NJ and WI on the HNSA site, I not that the outboard prop shafts are very long, necessitated by alternating boiler and engine rooms. With the boilers eliminated, could the engine rooms all be moved aft, thus shortening the prop shafts? At the same time, this should free up a tremendous amount of space both below and above the splinter deck, from reduced space for boilers and presumably reduced uptakes. Electronics spaces??

A side effect of shortening the shafts might be a reduction of vibration at higher RPM's. Back when the BB's were being reactivated in the early 80's, an MM told be that nobody really knew the speed performance of the Iowa class hull because the longer the shafts, the less "true" they would be, which increases vibration with RPM increase. Therefore, vibration ultimately determined the top speed. That causes me to wonder if the most efficient operating speed of the gas turbines could be above the the speed that the shafts could handle. In other words, with the longer shafts would you essentially be deprived of useful turbine power via the degree of gearing down needed to accomodate the capability of the shafts/bearings?

With regard to the main battery, how about elevating #3 to the level of #2? This would allow you to have superstucture 01 deck go all the way back to maybe frame 178. The only question is whether the remaining main deck space would be sufficient for the chopper pad.

[Sr. Gopher]

This sounds very interesting! Finally, a truely modern battleship! But why does there need to be two helicopters? Couldn't the rest of the battlegroup pick up the slack if the ship only had one? If the hanger were to one side of the ship, make the other side the helipad. But, you would need a ballast on the side with the helipad. And also, an elevator? The thing is built for attacking with guns and missiles. I personally think that you are better off building the hanger under the superstructure, and making the helipad just aft of the No.3 turret. An elevator is quite a waste of weight for a ship of this size. You could also reduce the number of Helos to 1, and the other hanger could be dedicated to UAVs.

And I'm just throwing this out there, what if you made a sliding deck that could come directly out of the hanger? You could basically launch and recover the helo or UAV from without using the aft deckspace.

But, if you want to use the aft deck area for a Helo, why not put the hanger under the main deck, and have an elevator tha would bring it up to the helipad? The hanger could handle one Helo, and 2 UAVs. The section of the ship not used by the hanger could accomodate more 8" guns, and possibly more missiles. Accomodations for an admiral and his staff? A CWIS mounted on No.3 turret could cover a lot of air.

I'm not much of an expert on hull design or modern ships, so please try and bear with me.

[navydavesof]

What would you do for propulsion? You mention stacks, but what about nuclear power? Would it be practical to install a nuclear propulsion system? That would negate the need for funnels and stacks above deck.

No, I would not do nuclear propulsion. Mutilating the ship to get to the propulsion plant is really hard but not impossible. Nuclear propulsion, however, is remarkably expensinve in upfront costs, maintenance, and the "life time" costs of the ship. The hull is already completed. There is already an incredibly good propulsion plant in Kentucky. Keep it. It's a 50 year plant. Use it.

If there would be a swap I would suggest it be with the Makin Island plant. It offers extremely good fuel economy. If money was not an issue (which I am assuming it is since this is set in 2010) I would go nuclear.

[Timmy C]

If there would be a swap I would suggest it be with the Makin Island plant. It offers extremely good fuel economy. If money was not an issue (which I am assuming it is since this is set in 2010) I would go nuclear.

On the other hand, you're operating in an universe where the Kentucky was made available. You're no longer constrained to history as it occurred in our timeline.

[navydavesof]

If there would be a swap I would suggest it be with the Makin Island plant. It offers extremely good fuel economy. If money was not an issue (which I am assuming it is since this is set in 2010) I would go nuclear.

On the other hand, you're operating in an universe where the Kentucky was made available. You're no longer constrained to history as it occurred in our timeline.

While that's true, I am saying I would remove the ship's propulsion plant only if it were direly necessary. In any time line with any amount of money, the practicality of replacing an existing propulsion plant in a battleship is not there. Battleships are really, really tough. That's why there are large access hatches in the armored decks to get to the boilers and pull out large pieces of machinery. Those hatches, though, are not large enough to remove the plant and replace it with a nuclear or gas turbine plant. You would have to mutilate the ship. I would suggest the cool thing about "discovering" the Kentucky as she was is that she is ready to drive around. All you have to do is finish her.

[Russ2146]

Dave,
Questions:
1. Is there any reason, other than sentimentality, to put any wood on the weather decks?
2. If weater deck space became a concern, could you place CIWS/RAM on the tops of #'s 1 & 3 16" turrets?

BTW. if you have time and think of it, could you ask your Navsea contact if there is a listing hiding somewhere of the standard lengths of boat booms used on various classes of combatants? There's a blueprint at Floating Dry Dock of a 23' version for destroyer size vessals. How about cruiser and BB?

[navydavesof]

1. Is there any reason, other than sentimentality, to put any wood on the weather decks?

Yes, something has to go on top of the deck. This can be seen on the New Jersey, because she has a lot of her teak removed on her stern half. The decking is very uneven. The armored decks are overlapped and rivited together. So, if it's teak wood bolted to the deck and then adhered with a thick sealing coat of tar-like caulk that extrudes between the teak planks or if it is a flight-deck-deck asphalt-like material, something has to go on there to make it smooth. Non-skid won't work, because a filler is needed. The Navy wants to change the non-skid it has used for the last 20 years, because current non-skid keeps rust spots in the deck from being discovered. The deck will be rusting away, and you won't know until the non-skid cracks or chips off, revealing the rust and usually pitting damage.

2. If weater deck space became a concern, could you place CIWS/RAM on the tops of #'s 1 & 3 16" turrets?

I think this is really just a "what looks cool" question instead of a practicality question. If you run out of weather deck space, you build a platform standing off the structure, but the battleships will never run out of weather deck space. However, to answer your question...I would not, no. They considered putting the ABLs or Phalanx on top of Turrets 2 & 3 when trying to equip the ships with 8 ABLs and up to 6 Phalanx in 1980, but getting power to stuff on top of the turrets is a real problem, and the overpressure on top of those turrets is pretty incredible. The forward most Phalanx on the Iowas had problems with overpressure damage for a few years. Iowamen figured out how to fix it. I don't think Phalanx could survive on top of the turrets.

...could you ask your Navsea contact if there is a listing hiding somewhere of the standard lengths of boat booms used on various classes of combatants?

I think Cliffy B is best for that question! He came up with variations of the Essex and Des Moines that had booms ranging from boats to landing craft. I bet he knows.

[navydavesof]

OOPS!!! Going back over this thread, I missed a whole block of responses! The first and most important is that the propulsion plant has already been removed. Well, indeed that is a game changer. So, 1. If money is no concern, and the people-counters can bear another 400 people on board, yes, make her nuke. If we are operating in a plausible environment, Makin Island gas turbine plant.

Finally, a truely modern battleship!..."

Indeed.

But why does there need to be two helicopters? Couldn't the rest of the battlegroup pick up the slack if the ship only had one?

If you are going to be a capital ship, you need your own birds. Thus it dictates the minimum number of equipment facts, and this is very true with helicopters. If you are going to have one, you need two. Helicopters are down for maintenance all the time. Any of the modern escorts with two birds can only reliably get one in the air at a time, because the other is being worked on.

If the hanger were to one side of the ship, make the other side the helipad. But, you would need a ballast on the side with the helipad.

There is not enough room between the super structure and the railing to put a turning helicopter, but you can store one in a hanger. Also, you have that huge stern, so why not use it as a helo landing area?

... I personally think that you are better off building the hanger under the superstructure, and making the helipad just aft of the No.3 turret.

How would you build a hanger inside the structure (directly in front of Turret 3) and then get the helos to the stern? Would it be some huge RAST track?

... And also, an elevator?�and hanger would be to heavy for a ship this size�But, if you want to use the aft deck area for a Helo, why not put the hanger under the main deck, and have an elevator tha would bring it up to the helipad?

Brain-finger filter, my furry, subterranean contributor. That's what I said above. I referred to it being like on the Des Moines-class. Take a look at their hangers.

The hanger could handle one Helo, and 2 UAVs.

What size comparisons are you referencing? What UAVs are you talking about? Gunfire spotting UAVs are big RC model airplanes. The hanger would accommodate 2 SH-60s and 5-12 UAVs depending on the model of UAV: Pioneer - 5 Scaneagle - 10-12.

The section of the ship not used by the hanger could accomodate more 8" guns, and possibly more missiles.

I may be misunderstanding what you�re talking about. Where would the guns go? Keep in mind guns and missiles are not just what is on top of the deck with things magically coming out of them. Guns penetrate reasonably far into the hull, and their mountings can be large. The Mk71 in particular has a base ring that is 2/3 the size of three-gun turret of the Des Moines-class. VLS penetrates remarkably deep into the deck. So, what do you have in mind for which guns and missiles that will fit on either side of the super structure just forward of Turret 3?

Accomodations for an admiral and his staff?

Nope. Screw them. It's a battleship. If they want to play, too, there is plenty of room. They can find a space not being used. The admiral�s aids can eat a turd. Nothing special is going to be done for them.

A CWIS mounted on No.3 turret could cover a lot of air.

What kind of CIWS mount do you suggest? There are 3 different kinds (Phalanx, RAM, or Sea Sparrow) Like I said a bit earlier in this great thread, Phalanx would not be able to survive the overpressure being on top of the turret (that close to the ends of the guns). I would suggest neither of the others would, either.

I'm not much of an expert on hull design or modern ships, so please try and bear with me.

Calm your mind, and filter your fingers, padawan. Common sense combined with research and logical deduction is the key to WIFing.

[Timmy C]

Further adding to Dave's comments: Whenever you're talking about putting stuff that goes into the ship's hull or structure, you have to look at what's already there - ships don't have giant empty spaces in them just for you to put new stuff into them (unless you're an LCS thingy built for that). You have to either relocate the stuff that was formerly there or to make that stuff redundant.

This is one of the things that I rarely see WHIFers address when concerning an historical or existing hull.

[Russ2146]

Timmy,

You are missing a point, the hull is completed only up to the second deck. It still requires completion up to the 1st deck and then the main deck. The superstructure is non-existent, so it can be anything. Its design is going to be influenced by the choice of power plant and their respective air supply/exhaust requirements. In the case of nuclear, that would be none.

Once that is determined, it seems to me that the next consideration for superstructure design would be the desired weapons mix, beyond the 16" guns, and the sensor arrays. The crew's berthing enters into this because, if we go with a cruiser style hanger below the main deck, the chiefs' quarters, in the original design are eliminated. However this should not be too much of a problem as the crew requirements will be much less. Likewise, going back to power, if we go nuke or gas turbine, what are the engineering space requirements in comparison to the original steam boiler design? Could space that is picked up be used as electronics spaces that should be more protected than a superstructure location allows?

[Cliffy B]

For all of those questions about space inside the hull take a look at the Builder's Plans for Wisconsin (1956) and New Jersey (1984) over on HNSA. They should clear up some of those questions.

BB-64
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/bb64.pdf

BB-62
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/bb62.pdf

Dave, have you discussed yet the downside of going nuclear with a BB? Scramming the reactors after the first hit isn't a nice thing to have happen.

[LSUfan]

For all of those questions about space inside the hull take a look at the Builder's Plans for Wisconsin (1956) and New Jersey (1984) over on HNSA. They should clear up some of those questions.

BB-64
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/bb64.pdf

BB-62
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/bb62.pdf

Dave, have you discussed yet the downside of going nuclear with a BB? Scramming the reactors after the first hit isn't a nice thing to have happen.

Please explain more about "scramming the reactors after the first hit." I am not familiar with that. Thanks.