What-If modernised USS Montana BB-67

[BFR4570]

For new 16" barrels, could they be made with chrome sleeves to reduce wear & tear? Or something else used as a sleeve material. Some hunting rifles have this (or used to, I haven't kept up on it for years.) to reduce barrel wear, since chrome is so much harder than barrel steel. When the sleeve wears out, just replace the sleeve. Much cheaper than a whole new barrel.

[ingura]

...

[Sauragnmon]

Even if they could replicate the single-plate armour of the old battleships, why would they? Considering anti-ship missiles were designed to defeat exactly that kind of armour, why not do something intelligent, like using composite armour as seen on modern tanks. Why is it that most people who think of battleships automatically think that the peripheral technologies haven't changed since Vanguard was built in 1945? Always makes me shake my head.

[Russ2146]

Single Plate?

[Sauragnmon]

Comparatively, yes, single plate. Each armor section is homogeneous plate, all one composition, all one density. The armour on the old battleships is to current standards, what an IS-3 presented compared to, say, an Abrams 1A2. Solid, high-tensile homogeneous armor plating. The kind of thing that the Monroe Effect loves to go through like a hot knife through butter. Consider the multiplicative effects that composite armor provides, in the scale used on a battleship. The Effective Thickness of the belt armour alone would be bloody intense. Stop thinking 1940's tech, think 2010's tech. Yes, we could reproduce the armor scheme of the Montana if she were built today, but the question would stand to be - Why? If you're daring to posit the thought of a keel up brand spanking new battleship, I wouldn't dare use a single sketch line of old designs without some serious modern revisions. Build to accommodate the blast force to shield electronics, build to fully utilize anti-aircraft and anti-submarine technologies, build to mate missile and gun technologies. Sure, naval gunnery hasn't changed overall in the last while, but that doesn't mean that Artillery technology hasn't improved. Put a PzH-2000 beside an old Hummel, and there's a world of difference. Why not capitalize on such advances if you're going keel up.

[navydavesof]

Comparatively, yes, single plate. Each armor section is homogeneous plate, all one composition, all one density...

hey there Saura! I'm surprised you made that case. Usually you are the one making the case for battleship armor However, I think you might be basing your comparison on the advances in anti-tank weapons and how they penetrate tank armor. Tank armor is homogeneous, usually rolled, steel. Battleship/heavy cruiser armor was not homogeneous for the most part. It was usually surface hardened and varied in densities, fiber and crystal composition. When the material was being smelted and made in the first place, it was very specifically strained/homogonized, treated, and cooled, making different depths of the armor have different capabilities. Only Class B armor was a single piece of rolled steel, but even then it was super thick.

As you know, Saura, almost everyone underestimates gunnery much less battleship gunnery. People have no idea that a 16" AP round delivers several times the energy than most cruise missiles or bombs, and while a 16" HC round only carries a 250-400lb bursting charge the projectile body contains the explosion so long the reaction yields the same as a 750lb bomb. The same case can be made for naval armor. It's not just a bunch of steel. It's heavily and carefully worked steel.

(As I am sure you know but for the readership) The de-capping plate you see in Russ's post:
(the thicker "skin" of the ship near the main deck) would do the same thing to a missile as it did to projectiles. As designed, the de-capping plate would strip off the armor piercing nose and leave the main body of the projectile to impact the armor. Without its armor piercing nose the mass of the round was no threat to the armor. The mass would just smash it really hard and drop to the bottom of the ship. With a missile, the de-capping plate is so hard and unforgiving, 4" of STS (specially treated steel) in places, that it would detonate most missile warheads against it. Four-inches of STS is too much for most warheads to effect much less penetrate. Because most warheads are designed to penetrate into their targets 20 or so feet before they detonate, it is believed that the STS would be so unyielding it would literally crush the missile's fuses and the missile would not detonate. However, if the missile did detonate and the blast penetrated that 4" of STS (pretty heavy missile), the armor belt would only see fragmentation or a splattering of molten penetrator material. The de-capping plate is so thick it was expected that an Exocet would only mar its surface.

That's with an internal armor belt. Montana, on the other hand, has an external belt and would face a detonation directly against it. The 16" belt on Montana would be so unyielding there is serious money that a missile would strike it and break up. However, we cannot plan on being so tough that a missile won't detonate against the hull. That's just icing on the cake if it happens. So, if the missile hit the plate directly like on Montana, the 16" is still too thick for any missile out there to penetrate, even the SS-N-19 Shipwreck.

So, this leads to the next question Carr might ask: "If the de-capping plat detonates all of the missiles early so they don't threaten to penetrate the armor belt, then isn't an internal belt better than an external?"

Excellent question, Carr! The trade off is repair ease and ability. When the North Carolina, a ship with an external belt, took a Long Lance torpedo, it cracked her exterior armor belt, but it was repaired fairly easily. When the Indiana, a South Dakota-class battleship with internal armor, was rammed by another battleship, the Washington, a lot of work went into repairing the rammed sections of armor, because it was all inside the ship behind the shell and de-capping plating. So, at this point to make an accurate determination whether an internal or external belt is best is the likelihood of the armor even being damaged. If it's surface hardened Class A armor then probably not. If it's soft steel, Class B armor, then maybe.

I have been told that in real life, we fired a harpoon anti ship cruise missile at velocity on one of those test sleds at a piece of 12" Class A armor from the incomplete Illinois in the early '80s. The armor was blackened and pitted, but that was it (and a Harpoon carries about half again as much punch as an Exocet).

So, with the exception of the SS-N-19, there are no cruise missiles out there that are classified to penetrate heavy armor. They are designed to penetrate modern ships constructed of aluminum or grades around "mild ship building" or "high tensile strength" steel. Neither of which approach the strength and resilience of STS.

I would suggest that the penetrating warheads, such as SS-N-19 or special versions of the SS-N-22 would do is melt a big crater out of the side of the armor, and it would have to be replaced at some point.

When I make my Montana, it will have an armor belt, modified torpedo protection, and a visible armor assembly pattern on the deck. Keeping it as "real" as possible I would have the main weather deck layered in either non-skid or flight deck material instead of Teak, because I think this is what the Navy would probably do.

Keep the pictures coming, GTDEATH!

[ingura]

...

[navydavesof]

...If your BB-67 would see its commission, don't you think we would see the above mentioned missiles being re-programed and thus able to attack in style of a Javelin ATM - by focussing on the topside of the target?

Peter! Good to hear from you, sir! Some have pop-up/pop-down programing, yes. Some go for the water-line, because they are IR guided (the waterline presents the most obvious sepration of IR and thus is most attractive to the seeker head and most dangerous for you), and some just go for a blob of radar return (super structure). Also, one must keep in mind that the speeds that the more dangerous ones fly at (Mack 2+) are going SO fast that they might actually miss the ship if they do anything crazy like a pop up/pop down maneuver. Even the SS-N-22 that jinks back and forth really, really hard pulling 20G turns at Mack 2.5 has been known to miss target barges during tests.

For me the key is not mainly the thickness of side armor, but the internal compartilization, the redundance and chance of surviving several big hits - without being knocked out completely.

Absolutly, sir. American battleship construction has always placed a great emphasis on protecting against plunging fire including the heavy major caliber AP rounds fired by other battleships and compartmentalization. In this case such plunging fire would be bombs, pop-up/pop-down missiles, and coastal artillery fire. The Montana-class were going to have the best deck armor arrangement of any US battleship...and maybe any battleship? Other than Germany (thank you for explaining to me, sir) I am not too familiar with how well other countries arranged their deck armor. Montana's deck armor would not be as heavy as its side armor, but as Friedman has stated in Battleship book, the Montana-class would have had 10,000 tones more deck armor than the Iowas, and the Iowas have an excellent and deck armor arrangement.

For those who don't know, because you can't have the 2 acres of deck 12" or so thick, the protection is/was broken up amongst decks with each deck taking a little less of the blow each time. The first deck did the same thing as the decapping plate on the side of the ship we talked about earlier. It broke off the armor piercing nose to an AP projectile and hopefully started its detonation cycle. Then the 1st deck caught the majority of the pieces or if the projectile did not start detonating on the main deck, it did on the 1st deck. Then the 2nd deck, a much thicker armored deck 6 inches thick in some places, would absorb most of if not all of the blast and fragments. If any passed through they would be absorbed by the third deck. This was effective in keeping the AP round fron traveling deep inside the ship before detonating. Instead it was detonated on the main or 1st deck and then likely stopped completely by the 2nd deck. The USS South Dakota made good work of the ship's armor arrangement.

[BFR4570]

As you know, Saura, almost everyone underestimates gunnery much less battleship gunnery. People have no idea that a 16" AP round delivers several times the energy than most cruise missiles or bombs, and while a 16" HC round only carries a 250-400lb bursting charge the projectile body contains the explosion so long the reaction yields the same as a 750lb bomb. The same case can be made for naval armor. It's not just a bunch of steel. It's heavily and carefully worked steel.

It has always amazed me that a 16" AP can penetrate something like 20 Feet of hardened concrete bunker, yet the armor plate on the Iowas and Montanas were designed to withstand that kind of impact without allowing any penetration! Now THAT, IMHO, is some serious armor! What was the ship that was hit in the Persian Gulf many years ago by a missile (Exocet?)? An Aegis Cruiser? Anyway, the missile tore it up pretty good. There was a lot of talk going around back then that if it had been the Iowa on station at the time, the missile would have blistered the paint, but thats about all it would have done. I think that example led directly to the last upgrade of the Iowas?

I have another question for those who are in the know. Has the Navy done any testing of how much effect it might have on ship armor to have it cryogenically treated? Similar to how industry is doing with things like drill bits, brake discs and drums, brake shoes, nuts and bolts, and a thousand other things. I am not talking about dipping it in liquid nitrogen for a few minutes. I mean full cryogenic treatment, which includes putting the part being treated in minus 250 degrees for 12 to 24 hours, then slowly raise the tempurature to plus 400 degrees for an equal amount of time, then repeating this process a half dozen times or more. It forces the molecules in the steel to molecularly align themselves and fill in all the little gaps in the material of even polished material to make the material incredibly harder. Treated high speed steel drills have a similar lifespan to carbide drills, and if you do it to carbide, they really last a long time. Treated bearings have shown a similar increase in lifespan. Tests on brake discs, front and rear, on Paramedic Ford F-450 units have shown that the discs last many times longer without having to be turned. And their performance under harsh conditions actually improve, such as repeated stop & go with heavy brake use from high speed. As the discs got hotter the braking distance was shortened, as opposed to normal discs where the braking distance kept lengthening until the brake failed completely. So I would think that something that would make steel a lot tougher would be of interest to the Navy. Maybe with Cryo armor, a new Montana could get the same protection from 10" to 14" of armor instead of 16". That would save a lot of weight, thus adding potential faster speed, without sacrificing armor protection.

[navydavesof]

It has always amazed me that a 16" AP can penetrate something like 20 Feet of hardened concrete bunker, yet the armor plate on the Iowas and Montanas were designed to withstand that kind of impact without allowing any penetration! Now THAT, IMHO, is some serious armor!

Depending on range,it was between 20 and 32'. Some people think material that provides you more protection than 32' or reinforced concrete is out-dated. Crazy.

What was the ship that was hit in the Persian Gulf many years ago by a missile (Exocet?)? An Aegis Cruiser? Anyway, the missile tore it up pretty good.

It was the Stark, a Perry back when they were FFGs.

There was a lot of talk going around back then that if it had been the Iowa on station at the time, the missile would have blistered the paint, but thats about all it would have done. I think that example led directly to the last upgrade of the Iowas?

Well, there were lots and lots of reasons why the battleships were reactivated. The Stark incident happened after 3 were back in commission and the 4th was getting fitted out. But you're right, an Exocet is silly against a ship that was designed to take hits. Judging by how the Gearings took damage and kept going in combat during WWII, a Gearing would have taken the damage a lot better than the Stark did...a whole lot better.

I have another question for those who are in the know. Has the Navy done any testing of how much effect it might have on ship armor to have it cryogenically treated?

Great question, but I would suggest not. The Navy does not research armor any more. It develops kevlar and aluminum flack protection.

Maybe with Cryo armor, a new Montana could get the same protection from 10" to 14" of armor instead of 16". That would save a lot of weight, thus adding potential faster speed, without sacrificing armor protection.

With a modern gas turbine propulsion system you can have twice the power output than the big, old, giant boilers could produce, so speed with the 27knot design is not an issue. Remember the one approved was just a 4th turret Iowa with a greater beam and external armor belt and torpedo protection, not the 1050' beast of beasts. It should be able to drive at 33knots just fine without reducing armor. That is a good question, though. If it produces a better material...

I have a questions about the cryo process. My AR15 has a 16" cryo barrel, and it shoots better than my Navy M4 without a cryo barrel. With the drill bits I have noticed that while they are rather hard, they can break apart. I know that on a basic level as you increase your hardness you increase your brittleness. To your knowledge, does this hardness/brittleness factor apply to material having undergone the cryo process as well?

If it does not, I wonder if the size of the armor might be prohibitive for the cryo process. The barrels, plates of deck armor, big giant armor belt, are usually very large pieces that would require huge refrigeration chambers in comparison. Hey if they have chambers that big, maybe!

[Sauragnmon]

I still have to laugh and shake my head at the same time, Dave, that the Navy thought it was a good idea to build ships with aluminum - have they forgotten what goes into Flash Powder and Thermite?

[navydavesof]

I still have to laugh and shake my head at the same time, Dave, that the Navy thought it was a good idea to build ships with aluminum - have they forgotten what goes into Flash Powder and Thermite?

It's crazy, isn't it?! The Navy compromises on too many things these days, At least I will do my part to influence future construction development.

[SumGui]

Aluminum became all the rage in naval architecture when vessels design shifted from weight to volume limited.

Once massive electronics become the driver for design, architects had to find a way to get the space they needed, and steel over a larger area naturally increased weight immensely.

A good example of this was the CAG refit of the Chicago.

On Chicago, they removed the steel superstructure and had to find a way to fit the massive electronics of the day onboard the same hull. Being limited by the existing stability margins of the hull, they had to have a way to increase the available space on a limited weight � thus, aluminum instead of steel.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/136/04136.htm

The same superstructure would not have been possible with steel. If you provided enough steel-enclosed space, the stability margins would be unacceptable.

The aluminum also was less expensive than steel, and any cost saving was a good thing with the massive cost increases cause by the introductions of electronics as the primary cost driver.

So this worked (structurally speaking� the economic viability of all this work on a legacy hull didn�t pan out), and as is common in humanity, once something works, we tend to repeat it.

We repeated the idea on new-build classes after that � notably the Leahy/Belknap classes and then the Spruance and derivatives. Keeping displacement lower translated to cost savings in the minds of the decision makers of the time, so no real attempt was made to change the habit.

Sailor hat showed the deficiencies in aluminum to blast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXTwFsO1UvE

(the video states �steel walls� but those are aluminum bulkheads fit to the former USS Atlanta as a test ship � you see her as the vessel with two superstructures in most shots � both were simulations of the Leahy/Belknap deckhouse � one reinforced, one not)

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/104/04104.htm

But this was not enough to change minds � after all, if a vessel took that kind of blast she would have been a mission kill in any case with the loss of antennae and such.

The Belknap fire changed minds � but at that point the Perry, Spruance/Kidd were too late to change, the Ticonderogas had to have aluminum as compensation for weight (just like Chicago�s conversion), so there was no opportunity to change them (especially since they were sold as the cut-rate way to get Aegis to sea).

The next new-build class after that was the Burke, where we returned to steel superstructures.

As far as the Sailor Hat test, I doubt the BBs would have cared much about the blast. Exposed personnel and electronics would have been damaged, but with those rangefinders under armor, there would be a pretty high chance the vessel would still have had some combat effectiveness.

That�s why the former USSR navy hated those ships so much.

Aluminum - brought in to solve a problem, it just punted that problem to a different place.

[Seasick]

For the record
Leahy class: Steel hull, aluminum superstructure
Belknap Class: Steel hull, aluminum superstructure
Ticonderoga class: Steel hull aluminum superstructure
Spruance class: steel hull, aluminum superstructure
Charles F Adams: Steel hull, aluminum superstructure
Kidd class: Steel hull, aluminum superstructure.
Arleigh burke class: steel hull, steel and aluminum super structure.
Oliver Hazard Perry class: Steel hull, aluminum superstructure.
LCS-1: Steel hull, aluminum superstructure
LCS-2: all aluminum
Knox class: Steel hull, aluminum super structure
The USN except for LCS-2 has built all of its ships with a steel hull and aluminum superstructure above the deck. The Arleigh Burke class is all steel except for the funnels above the deck which are aluminum to hold down top weight. The problem with aluminum is its lower melting point than steel. The LCS-2 which is smaller than a Perry class frigate is an expendable vessel.

[navydavesof]

For the record...Arleigh burke class: steel hull, steel and aluminum super structure.

We know that the Sprucans and as a result moreso the Ticos were built so close to their topside weight margins that they did not have a lot of growth potential. Do we know what growth potential the Burkes have?

[Cliffy B]

And here's what happens when an aluminum superstructure burns! Poor Belknap...

[SumGui]

Nice shot of Belknap - I hadn't seen that one before.

The Spruance class, as built, had huge margins - the Tico version just ate all of that margin up.

Aluminium is back in vogue with the LCS to save weight - after all they are not designed to take a hit and continue to fight. The crux of the street fighter concept is that there will be another to take the ships place in the event of damage. The LCS is inteded to retire from the battlefield in the even of damage.

You will note that the Burke's aluminum uptakes are not manned spaces.

[Seasick]

Aluminum is quite strong and has a significant weight savings over steel (35% to 50%) The use of aluminum in the funnels of the Arleigh Burke class is acceptable because they aren't manned areas. On the LCS-2 class aluminum is used because it is a small vessel. The purpose of the LCS is to build a number of ships to take the work load off of the Arleigh Burke class DDG. The Burkes are chasing pirates around in the Caribbean and east Africa and are yet to need Tomahawk, Standard, or Aegis to accomplish this task. To put Aegis (AN/SPY-1F as well as the Mk7 Aegis combat system (Aegis is more that just the AN/SPY-1 radars) on the LCS is not a good idea because the entire Aegis system has considerable weight. You would need to enlarge the ship to the size somewhat larger than the Perry class. Then you have a ship that is half as powerful as an Arleigh Burke for 3/4 the price of an Arleigh Burke. Now that the LCS-2 is going to be the production model the price should fall if the USN purchases enough of them for a production line to be maintained.

[carr]

Now that the LCS-2 is going to be the production model the price should fall if the USN purchases enough of them for a production line to be maintained.

Seasick,

Where did you hear that? I've been unable to find any announcement indicating either version has been selected, yet.

As a side note, the latest budget figures from the Navy show the cost of LCS-1 to have been $637M and LCS-2 was $704M. Those figures do not include the cost of the modules themselves which will be $250M or more, if they are ever finished. These are whopping expensive ships!

Thanks,
Bob

[navydavesof]

Aegis combat system (Aegis is more that just the AN/SPY-1 radars) on the LCS is not a good idea because the entire Aegis system has considerable weight. You would need to enlarge the ship to the size somewhat larger than the Perry class. Then

There is an Aegis version of both designs already. Both have SPY-1F, VLS, and Harpoon weapons package designed for them. Neither one increases the size of the ship but does eat some hanger space. Reference the LCS thread for pictures.

Now that the LCS-2 is going to be the production model...

When was that decision made? LCS-2 is the wounded of the two designs:

LCS-2 cannot launch and recover boats while underway. LCS-1 can.

LCS-2 is all aluminum and has been suffering a lot of cracking.

LCS-2 is over 10% more expensive than LCS-1.

The worst of all:
LCS-2 has stability problems that are not suffered by LCS-1. LCS-2 is so wide that its sponsons ride from peak to trough of waves with its center hull acting as a pivot point in most sea states. This rolls the ship so much they cannot operate helicopters. The ship has to be cutting through the waves to not roll, but then it pitches too much so they have to drive faster not to pitch. What they have found is that at sea, in littoral environments, LCS-2 has to be making way through the waves at considerable speed all the time or else it pitches and rolls too much to operate helicopters, and helicopters will be its only asset for the foreseeable future.

The last I heard the entire LCS program was in jeopardy.