What-If modernised USS Montana BB-67

[Russ2146]

How did we get from Montana Class to LCS?

But, I now have a mental image of LCS-2 with its bow on one wave crest, its mid-section suspended over the trough, the stern on another crest and the propulsion spewing out into thin air.

[BFR4570]

LOL!! That IS quite a stretch fromm BB to LCS! My mental image was of the LCS-2 having the port side on one wave crest, the starboard on another, and the middle bow down in the trough. Or if the waves are farther apart, port in the trough, starboard on top, and the ship sliding sideways up and down the waves like riding the inside of a W. I can see where that might make helicopter landing a wee bit difficult!

[navydavesof]

Here's the last bit on LCS-2's plight before I quit dragging this thread into LCS land

As you can see, the problems suffered by LCS-2 can be understood by its very shape. Even though it would be consistent with other poor LCS decisions, I really, really hope the Navy did not chose LCS-2.

So with the modern Montana, what kind of electronic suite would people recommend for GTDEATH's modern Montana? How sophisticated would people go with it? Would someone suggest something as intense and AAWish as Aegis or a CVN/LHD style suite?

[JasonW]

Any updates on this Nick?

I've also got a planned updated Montana on the drawing board. I have an older IHP Montana kit and recently acquired one of the newer releases of the IHP kit so the older kit is going to be updated along the line of the Missouri's in the 1980's. I'm thinking Harpoons, Tomahawks and possibly trying to figure out a hanger for a couple of choppers somewhere. I'd like to keep the four main gun turrets so I'm looking amidships to see if I can figure out how to squeeze something in there.

[navydavesof]

NICK!!! MORE UPDATES!!! Come on!

There was a whole lot of conversation earlier about if the Navy would have retained the Montanas if they had been built and could it have really wanted the 33 knot version. Well, in the real world, the Navy decided the one it wanted was the 28 knot version, so 33-knots was important enough to the Navy to build that much extra length, weight, and propulsion plant into the ship. As is sited in Malcolm Muir's book Iowa-class Battleships Weapons and Warfare on the Iowa-class, the Navy was given the choice: 2 super (Montana-class) battleships or 3 large (Midway-class) aircraft carriers, because the nation did not have enough steel to do both at the time. The Navy of course chose the Midways. Despite what some of the contributors on the forum have suggested, I think if any of the Montanas had been bought they would have been retained even at their 28 knot speed as opposed to disposed of like the other 28 knot BBS and would have likely made it to the '80s for reactivation, because they were to be by FAR the most survivable ships ever made, and they would have had the ability to deliver approximately 12-14 times the volume of ordnance in time of a CVN.

Thirty-three knots is NOT a big deal, because escort ships can't make 33 knots in the same seas as an Iowa or Montana could make 28 knots much less 30 or 33 knots. So even at 28 knots the Montanas would still have outrun their escorts in anything but the calmest seas.

The Iowas were used as AA escort in WWII simply because they happened to have the same speed as carriers, and they had so much deck space that they could hold a metric -ton of AA weapons...no other reason. The Iowas were built with such speed in order to be open ocean predators that would hunt, pursue, and kill other ships in mass. My understanding was that the Montanas, on the other than, were instead just huge, massively powerful battleships that would be able to out-endure (catch up to or out run) other ships and lay so much ordnance than there would be no hope for the enemy, Yamato included. In the 1980s 33 knots was just as stupid as it is today. The 28 knot Montanas would have been able to hunt down the Soviets as well, and at 28 knots they would have still outrun their escorts in anything but the calmest seas.

In the 1980s any time a battleship or an aircraft carrier had to be somewhere in hurry, they sprinted and out ran their battle groups, so in reality, 33 knots is not just stupid but dangerous. Out running its group puts the capital ship at risk, because it's no longer escorted, and even if the escorts could keep up with 33 knots they could not perform ASW anyway (too much water flow noise).

Let's see some more updates, Nick! She's sweet already, man!

-David

[Seasick]

The Iowa class contributed little to the design of the Montana class. The Navy went back to the South Dakota design and scaled it up. The top speed of the Montana's was to be 29 knots. The Navy test fired the IJN 18.1 inch naval guns (the ones built for Shinano) found that the guns were only slightly better than the USN's 16 inch/50 gun. The Montana's 12 16 inch/50 guns firing the 2700 pound super heavy AP rounds would be more than a match for Yamato. Had air power and missiles not come along battleships guns would have topped out at 16 inchs and yhe rounds they fire would have become even heavier and high explosive rounds would have packed more explosive punch per pound of explosive.

[navydavesof]

Had air power and missiles not come along battleships guns would have topped out at 16 inchs and yhe rounds they fire would have become even heavier and high explosive rounds would have packed more explosive punch per pound of explosive.

I think people would be very, very surprised how flexible we made the 16" guns in the '80s. The most capability expanding rounds were the extended range saboted 11" rounds and the most amazing were when we modified the 2240lb armor piercing rounds into high capacity rounds, filing them with between 500lbs and 700lbs of RDX and Composition D yielding significantly more than equal weighted aircraft weapons. It was phenominal.

Like you've said, the key weakness in naval gunnery has always been range. But as I have said that is offset by vast availability of targets within gunnery range and the low cost of gunnery ammunition over aircraft delivered munitions.

I am very curious what modifications Nick has in mind concerning electronics for his modernization.

[navydavesof]

The Iowa class contributed little to the design of the Montana class. The Navy went back to the South Dakota design and scaled it up

I am curious why you draw that conclusion. My impression is that the Iowas were the ones that were directly based on the South Dakotas. The Iowas were literally up-scaled South Dakotas and doing what they wanted with the South Dakotas: expand their terribly cramped propulsion spaces, push the screws further apart, and give them the 50caliber guns (or at least so sayeth the Friedman).

But also, doesn't it look like the Montanas took the lessons learned between all three classes (North Carolinas, SoDaks, and Iowas) and made the domitable battleship? I say this, because the Montanas were to have had the exterior armor belts and torpedo blisters of the North Carolina , the engineering and weapons upgrades of the Iowas, and the armor protection that none of them were allowed to have due treaty limitations (North Carolina and South Dakota) and allowable growth margins (Iowa). Their 5" battery was to be switched to 2 mounts inboard and 3 mounts on the edges.

What impressive ships they would have been.

[Jed_Lp59]

Hey, here is my work in progress design for the BBN-67. As you can see i've been following closely to the iowa's design. First of all the shorter stern goes with the 890ft waterline length. The longer one, which just barely went off the graph paper is the 960ft design. I like the 960ft design better, because it leaves the same distance between the #4 turret and the stern as the iowa's distance from #3 to stern, thus plenty of room for the helipad and etc, to be determined... My main question is how much of the superstructure would have to be torn off in order to do the nuclear refit? And some feedback and suggestions for the design. I already plan to change the 5" mount configuration to three below and two above.


Thanks Jed.

[HvyCgn9]

In a Nuke refit the funnels can go, effectively you could gut the super structure (depending on if you are keeping the 5" secondary guns) down to main deck level and start fresh.
What era are you looking at for the build? Modern, cold war, or 1960's using 8 reactors like Big E??
Keep it up mate interesting stuff!

Cheers Bruce

PS a novel by the author Dale Brown featured a nuclear powered Iowa can't think what it was called !!

[navydavesof]

I would suggest the following:

Montana BBN build:
- Slim superstructure like originally planned for Montana
- All associated weapons and ones you feel pertinent to the ship's mission
- So ridiculously much real-estate that you can even put a 4 helo helicopter hanger between the turrets
- I would suggest the bridge and forward fire control tower fundamentally remain the same. Elements can be changed to allow for modernizations that may have happened down the road.
- 2-4 reactors. Enterprise had 4 for her screws and 4 for her catapults. There is no reason for 8 on a Montana.

Good luck, man. I am going to build a BB-67 and perhaps a BBN-67 at some point myself. I look forward to what you have in mind!

[Jed_Lp59]

ERA
For the era i was going with the flow of the 80's refit. but it's almost to easy
8 box launchers
16 harpoons
5 cwis phallax turrets; why, you ask? because one facing forward on the front of the bridge would look bada$$ , that's why.

i'm not so familiar with what the 90's potentially could hold. got some research to do.

the idea crossed my head that, say they got the nuclear refit and everthing else in the 80's, decomissioned, recomissioned, and decomissioned in say 2000ish. Then present day a "pressing matter," made congress think, "boy we could use those ships," so they were recomissioned, but were also planned to be refitted. Just a thought but are there any cool new systems that could be utilized, or is this just me getting excited over nothing.

Basically right now i don't have my heart set on a specific era yet, i guess what im thinking when i say "modernised montana," is 80's or there after.

Nuclear Conundrum

i agree, 2-4 reactors

The artistic side of me says keep the funnels, they are part of the image these ships give off. What if the stacks where converted to be cooling towers? thats the best reason i could come up with to save them.

The engineering side says more space to put stuff.

Starting fresh would be quite the undertaking. Ideally i'd like to keep the bridge and fire control the same. that also goes along with keeping the feel of these ships, plus when we start talking about entirely redesigning the superstructure and installing a new proplusion systems we start inviting the, "well why don't we just build an entirely new ship instead of rebuilding half a 40 year old one argument," in on our fun.

Food for thought

Can VLS pads take the overpressure? i was thinking of putting one between turret #4 and the helipad, maybe some non slip material around it. What about the vibration from the screws, is it something to worry about?

I wanted to keep the secondary guns at least three turrets per side.

My idea for this ship is to be the capitol ship of capitol ships, floating NORAD, you get the idea. Basically throwing anything at it to make it better within a certian amount of reason, and sense of reality.

Thanks for the input and ideas,

[JevJanson]

Hey, Nick! Whatever happened to this project? You didn't just pack it up and quit, did you? Anyway, I have enjoyed reading about your ideas for a modernized Montana class, as I am soon going to start one as soon as my supplies arrive. A very interesting idea you have going here!

[oldnavyguy]

The original Montana design in this thread is cool, and I liked what the Iowa's brought to the Navy, but adding Nuclear power to an existing vessel is near impossible. Back in my teen years, many moons ago an old gear head listened to my buddy's and I talk modifications and such and said "Nothing is impossible if you have enough cubic dollars." Please understand, because of the weight, of the plant and necessary shielding retrofitting a a nuclear power plant to an older hull just doesn't make sense. The issues brought up earlier about super heat are just the tip of the iceburg. Reactors need a great deal of very specialized equipment and need all of it to fit correctly. About the only way to pull off somthing like that would be to put the vessel in a huge dry dock, cut it in two removing the entire boiler section and then build a whole new plant where the boilers were and then weld it all together. There is also the concern of how the plant would react to the concusive effect of broadsides. When talking power, most focus on the shaft horsepower of the ship. As NavyDave, correctly pointed out, the power plant must power all the electronics, and other systems. An A4W has plenty of power to operate a BB. I have never heard of an A1B. The Enterprise used 8 A1W, which were the same Rx as the Long Beach's C1W. They were not 4 for propulsion and 4 for catapults. The designers at the time did not know how to make a larger surface ship Rx, so they built in redundancy. The engineering of a Rx plant is amazing. It has to be. I would love to see a modern CAGN, CBGN, or BBGN. I have followed Dave, and Sum through the threads and value their opinions as to how best to armor and arm such a beast. In todays political climate I can't see such a project starting until 2016 soonest. Hmmmm? 16" auto loaders?

[GTDEATH13]

I wish to thank you all for your contribution to this subject.

My build is postponed mainly due to the lack of modelling skills to fullfil it. I am doing minor work at frequent intervals but not much to show. But I will definately finish it before takling my 1/350 Montana.

[Jeffcsr]

A what if question, I saw someone's Montana model some time ago while searching and they had a CIWS mounted atop turret2. Would a CIWS, or for that matter a SeaRAM, be able to withstand the shock of recoil from being on a 16" Turret and still maintain functional?

I'm just curious before I glue 1 on top of my #2 Turret

[navydavesof]

Would a CIWS, or for that matter a SeaRAM, be able to withstand the shock of recoil from being on a 16" Turret and still maintain functional?

I'm just curious before I glue 1 on top of my #2 Turret

No, sir. The closest one could get is mounting it on top of the bridge, specifically the citadel. Neither CIWS nor SeaRAM could survive being on top of a 16" turret.

[Busto963]

Would a CIWS, or for that matter a SeaRAM, be able to withstand the shock of recoil from being on a 16" Turret and still maintain functional?

I'm just curious before I glue 1 on top of my #2 Turret

No, sir. The closest one could get is mounting it on top of the bridge, specifically the citadel. Neither CIWS nor SeaRAM could survive being on top of a 16" turret.

Do you think that bridge top mounting of a CIWS on all ships, not just a BB is viable?

A stablized small-caliber cannon mounted atop the bridge might also be handy for dealing with mines. Perhaps just in front of the bridge could work too.

George

[navydavesof]

Do you think that bridge top mounting of a CIWS on all ships, not just a BB is viable?

A stablized small-caliber cannon mounted atop the bridge might also be handy for dealing with mines. Perhaps just in front of the bridge could work too.

George

Hey, Busto! I don't know of any problem to it. It would not be too loud if placed on top of a ship's bridge. There are ships with them directly in front of the bridge without causing trouble.

Concerning the mines, are you thinking of mines that have already been cut from their submerged moorings so they would be floating on the surface? Currently, either M2s or Mk38 25mm guns do the job pretty well.

Check out the San Antonio-class. They have a 30mm gun just ahead of the bridge. I have a GMC who was on the San Antonio for 4 years, and he says the weapons are most disappointing. :'-(

[Busto963]

Do you think that bridge top mounting of a CIWS on all ships, not just a BB is viable?

A stablized small-caliber cannon mounted atop the bridge might also be handy for dealing with mines. Perhaps just in front of the bridge could work too.

George

Hey, Busto! I don't know of any problem to it. It would not be too loud if placed on top of a ship's bridge. There are ships with them directly in front of the bridge without causing trouble.

Great!

Concerning the mines, are you thinking of mines that have already been cut from their submerged moorings so they would be floating on the surface?

Dating myself, but I was thinking that if Iran were to repeat her depredations from the tanker war of the mid 1980s, she might use a host of "civilian" small craft from dhows to merchantmen to dump floating mines. By this point, she has probably also procured more advanced bottom mines, but of course a gun is not going to deal with those.

Check out the San Antonio-class. They have a 30mm gun just ahead of the bridge. I have a GMC who was on the San Antonio for 4 years, and he says the weapons are most disappointing. :'-(

Disappointing would be my description of more things than just the bushmaster guns on the San Antoinio LPD!