What-If modernised USS Montana BB-67

[DJBattlestations]

I have followed this thread for a while and enjoyed the photos and the discussions here. I have for many years wanted to build a model of a modernized battleship but probably never will (lack of time, skills and money), but you never know. Any model built by anyone here in the form of a modernized Montana is, of course, fantasy, as they were never built and would not in these modern times be funded and built. So, with that said, depending on how rigid to real life operational weight and design rules one would want to adhere to, I believe a fair amount of license could be taken (such as the afore mentioned CIWS on top of a turret), if someone wanted to stretch the fantasy a bit, without going other-worldly. Ultimately, it is about the armour and the 16�guns of the battleships that drives all of us here, to fantasize and build these �what if� ships.

My challenge would be, to come up with a mixture of practicality in the use and placement of weapons, and to utilize the lastest, currently (or almost) availible automated technologies (gotta keep the manning low in the 21st century). My concept would involve a very recent or current modernization of preferably a Montana, or a fantasy 4-turret, lengthened Iowa (scenario; Montanas canceled, but the last 2 Iowas, Illinois and Kentucky, are built as longer 4 turret ships).

In my case, one aft turret was removed or never installed (due to wars end). I am undecided whether the missing turret is #3 or #4, as this could affect the weapons mix or the inclusion of helicopter facilities. No Aegis, but otherwise, the most modern or practical of radar and sonar. No nuclear power, but this time, the latest power plants (possibly the new AIM motors of the Zumwalts) are installed. All 10 5�-turrets will be removed Now we�ve got a clean slate.

I envision 2 to 3 of the 155 mm Advanced Gun System guns, which would out-range the 16�ers, in place of the 5 inch twins on each side, with placement in either Iowa or final Montana design configuration. Most definitely VLS between the stacks and possibly in turret #3 position (if turret 3 is the missing one). An alternative VLS location would be, uh�., anywhere else availible, or as all future ships will be, around the deck edges. Maybe a combination. We want Phalanx and/or SeaRam CIWS, of course. Possibly RIM-116 RAM launchers and/or Sea Sparrow boxes for close in defense. For defense against smaller sea vessels, we want the mk46 mod 2 30mm guns (or similar) in strategic areas and possibly 2 or 4 Mk 110 57 mm guns. It just depends on the mix and the space availible.

I realize, this is a bit ambitious, but possible, since we are dealing with fantasy. This ship could pretty much sail without escort (but wouldn�t). I know I�m just dreaming, but, are there possibilities here? I just felt compelled to throw this out there and give you something to think about and give your opinions on. Might make a good future project for one of you. What do you think? / How would you guys do it?

[navydavesof]

I have followed this thread for a while and enjoyed the photos and the discussions here...depending on how rigid to real life operational weight and design rules one would want to adhere to, I believe a fair amount of license could be taken (such as the afore mentioned CIWS on top of a turret),

Oh, no. CIWS cannot go ontop of a turret. It would NOT survive the gun's blast over pressure. CIWS must be in the super structure. Aside from range finders, nothing can be on top of the turrets.

My concept would involve a very recent or current modernization of preferably a Montana, or a fantasy 4-turret, lengthened Iowa (scenario; Montanas canceled, but the last 2 Iowas, Illinois and Kentucky, are built as longer 4 turret ships).

I would stick to the Montana design. What you just suggested is a Montana with less armor.

In my case, one aft turret was removed or never installed (due to wars end). I am undecided whether the missing turret is #3 or #4, as this could affect the weapons mix or the inclusion of helicopter facilities.

Only if you want. There is no need to remove or not install a 16" turret. Helo facilities can be accommodated in the super structure or below decks in the stern like in the Light and Heavy Cruisers.

...but this time, the latest power plants (possibly the new AIM motors of the Zumwalts) are installed.

If you want, but re-engining a propulsion plant is really, really hard, and if you have a Montana with an Iowa propulsion plant, you have a super battleship with the most reliable propulsion plant in history. The Montana with the Iowa plant can propel the ship to 31.5 knots. Why not just automate it and leave it?

I envision 2 to 3 of the 155 mm Advanced Gun System guns, which would out-range the 16�ers, in place of the 5 inch twins on each side, with placement in either Iowa or final Montana design configuration.

Installation of a full AGS would require some heavy modification of the existing hull. The AGS(L) could replace the 5" mounts 1 for 1. AGS(L) is far preferable.

Most definitely VLS between the stacks and...uh�., anywhere else availible, or as all future ships will be, around the deck edges.

I know, I was sucked into this for a few minutes once. Let me ask you, why the deck edges? If you chose this missile arrangement, you guarantee your weapons to be struck by enemy fire or by a collision with another ship, or a collision with a pier. Why put your missiles around the deck? DDG-1000 used it (the Mk57 PVLS), because it is experimental, and that class will probably be the only warship to use them around the periphery of the hull.

We want Phalanx and/or SeaRam CIWS, of course. Possibly RIM-116 RAM launchers...

for sure!!!

...Sea Sparrow boxes for close in defense.

Why the box launchers instead of VLS?

...For defense against smaller sea vessels, we want the mk46 mod 2 30mm guns (or similar) in strategic areas and possibly 2 or 4 Mk 110 57 mm guns. It just depends on the mix and the space availible.

Oooo, interesting. Why the Mk110 57mm instead of the 76mm Super Rapidfire gun?

This ship could pretty much sail without escort...

I am a super battleship proponent, but I disagree with your statement. This ship would have a very hard time being by itself without an Aegis escort. I would say it probably would not remain mission effective by itself. It MUST have an ASW and a high performance AAW escort.

...What do you think? / How would you guys do it?

Take it on, man! Make it your own project! All you need is a Tamiya 1991 USS Missouri 1/350, Veteran Models CIWS, RAM, Mk38 25mm guns/NULKA, and scratch build your own AGS, and some sheet plastic to lengthen the hull and build up the missile decks to accommodate as many VLS as you can realistically put in there! Heck, you could even redesign the stacks to be like larger DDG-51 stacks. It should be an good 60 day project. You can do it, man!

[DJBattlestations]

Thanks for the response, guidance and encouragement. That was quick! Unfortunately, I was unsubscribed from the topic and just got around to my monthly check of the forum. So with this guidance in the decision process, here is where I'm at.

1. No CIWS on turret(s)
2. I had already favored the Montana design, so I'll go with that.
3. I definitely want to drop a turret. Still not sure whether it be #3 or #4, but I favor losing #3 to accommodate either helo facilaties or additional modern weaponry, but I do favor your suggestion for helos in the stern at this point. Just not sure.
4. We will keep the propulsion plant and automate it.
5. We'll go with the AGS(L). Just don't know how many yet (6 or 10).
6. Having a few PVLS sounded like a good idea in addition to the VLS between the stacks. The real life PVLS concept was to keep a single hit by enemy fire from taking out all of a VLS module.
7. Definately gonna cover all that close in stuff.
8. No Sea Sparrow boxes.
9. I suggested the Mk110 57mm because it is US built, has a higher rate of fire, and is being favored by the Navy and in use on the LCS's and Coast Gaurd ships.
10. I did say, it wouldn't sail without escort, but could if it had to.
11 An additional question.... Any logical suggestions on where to put these Phalanx, SeaRam, RAM, 57mm, and 30mm systems? It's a lot of stuff and I'm not sure where to start.

[navydavesof]

Thanks for the response, guidance and encouragement.

Oh yeah, man! That's what we're here for.

2. I had already favored the Montana design, so I'll go with that.
3. I definitely want to drop a turret. Still not sure whether it be #3 or #4, but I favor losing #3 to accommodate either
helo facilaties or additional modern weaponry, but I do favor your suggestion for helos in the stern at this point. Just not sure.

I would suggest that if you are going to drop a turret, it should be Turret 4 so you can use the whole stern for a landing pad and keep Turrets 1, 2, and 3 for the main battery. Otherwise, if you try to jam a landing pad and hangar onto Turret 3 and the amidships structure, you're losing out on all of that extra area aft. What it would look like is a hangar underneath the barrels of Turret 3 large enough to do what you have in mind with a large landing pad that can launch and land more than one bird at a time.

5. We'll go with the AGS(L). Just don't know how many yet (6 or 10).

That will depend on what other weapons, equipment, and boats you want to put in/on the super structure. You will wind up losing a few gun mounts to accommodate the missile systems. I imagine you might be able to get away with 4 per side, but likely only 3.

6. Having a few PVLS sounded like a good idea in addition to the VLS between the stacks. The real life PVLS concept was to keep a single hit by enemy fire from taking out all of a VLS module.

Kind of. The only way that works is if you have them scattered around the perimeter of your ship. If you have them clustered together, then the effect would be the same as that of the Mk41. If DDG-1000 gets hit, you still lose an entire module of VLS, the only difference is that with the DDG-1000 design, you just don't lose more than 4 cells. PVLS must be used with a tumbleholme hull shape, and DDG-1000 is probably going to be the only one to use that hullform. In all likelihood, the Mk57 won't be used as a PVLS beyond the DDG-1000s. If the Mk57 is used at all after the DDG-1000s, it will probably be used in clusters like the Mk41 to where the survivability you're talking about won't work.

Also, other than the Mk57 being new and a little bigger than the Mk41, why do you want to use it?

11 An additional question.... Any logical suggestions on where to put these Phalanx, SeaRam, RAM, 57mm, and 30mm systems? It's a lot of stuff and I'm not sure where to start.

That's the hard part, man. I learned how to do it by examining ships of the 1980s and current CVN, LHD, LPD, and LSDs. Like I said, if I were to do this, I would use the Tamiya 1/350 USS Missouri 1991 model and go from there.

...in fact, I may use the Tamiya USS Missouri 1991 kit to build a modernized/new build Montana or New Hampshire this year...

There would be minimal scratch building to correct the super structure and 5" gun placements to accommodate the Montana arrangement, and it's no big deal to scratch build a hangar, even if it were a big one like you would have on your Montana.

What mission specifically are you wanting the ship to accomplish? If you can list that, we can best modify the Montana to meet that mission requirement.

[navydavesof]

In such a case of the Navy spending the 1980s reactivating the New Jersey, Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin, followed by the Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, and another through the 1990s, I think the Montanas would have probably seen the following modernizations from the bow to stern:

1995 reactivation:

- NTDS mast on the bow.
- SPS-48 on forward mast
- SPQ-9A on the forward fire control tower
- Phalanx on starboard/RAM on port
- P/S 32 Mk41 VLS between the stacks
- Elevated platform as on the Iowas for RAM on starboard/Phalanx on port
- SPS-49 on aft mast
- P/S Mk41 VLS on either side of the aft fire control tower
- Mk95 Sea Sparrow illuminator on each of the Mk37 mounts
- Possible Major structural modification:
Stern Below Decks helicopter hangar for 2-4 SH-60 helicopters

[GMG4RWF]

Just found this post.

love the Idea
I KBed a 700scale Alabama with MK41 in place of the aft 16", replaced the 2 lower MK38s on each side with MK42s the others & some of the 40mm quads I replaced with MK15s, GAU-8s & 40mm Beretta. (only 4) The Mk15 is only good for 4-8 missiles max before its out of ammo & cant be reloaded in any real time. If you can carry more why wouldn't you? I gave mine layered PD with 4-MK15s 7-GAU-8s & 7-40mms, keep at least the 6 you have.
You asked what time frame to make the rebuild, but you never mentioned 50-60s. If the Montana's were to be built then the Carrier freaks couldn't have taken over so completely. so it's probable that some BB's would remain in service to recieve CA-CG type conversions. with MK10, MK11 or MK13/22 mounts inplace of their 5"/54s.
why only 1 conversion, I was thinking of 2: 1 50/60s where the lower 5"/54s are replaced with 4 Mk10s on the ends & 2 MK11s on the center lower mount, the MK10 mags would be angled toward the midships MK11 to fire out the ends (btw the Montana's would not have had 40mm quads they would have had MK33 3"/50s {my gun mount} which would have been mostly retained & 5"54 twins so a replacement to MK42s would have been redundant you mite have to KB the 5"/38s to twin 54s). then after a period of mothballs, a 2nd modern refit mite replace the MK11 with a MK29, RAM or small MK41 position, MK15s added, & the remaining 5"/54s replaced with RAMs or MK29s in the central position & 155mm AGSs in the upper fore&aft positions (btw the basic AGS weighs only 106tons, barley more than a MK42 so you don't need to downgrade to the AGS-L).

[GMG4RWF]

btw - you have all those other parts left over & can make hull extentions, you could kb a sister ship with the 2 turrets fore&aft & MK41 vls as well.

[DJBattlestations]

What mission specifically am I wanting the ship to accomplish? 1. The deterrent factor that comes from a battleship with a large mix of long and short range guns and missiles, sitting off the coast of a sabre rattling country. 2. A fire support ship. 3. Carrier Battle Group support and protection in hostile waters with the mix of VLS missiles adjusted for the specific mission need of air defense vs. attack.

Ok, we'll scratch that PVLS idea. The missing turret #3 or #4 idea is still up for debate. One idea I see, would be to have a below deck hanger aft of turret #4 (I figure, you could still accommodate maybe up to 4 Seahawks), instead of building larger facilities. Of course with Turret #4 gone, as has been suggested, you could think about also having SeaCobras which would add another attack tool.

I just wonder how many VLS cells would fit in place of turret #3? Just sounds intriguing to me.

I have often wondered what a 50's conversion in the CA/CG style would have looked liked, either retaining the 16"ers or removing them, or a combination of the 2. Then doing a 2013 conversion from that. I suppose we could play with all kinds of storylines. I think my storyline still leans toward; my Montana was almost completed (still needing 1 turret) when WWII came to an end. Was mothballed while planners could come up with a future use. Maybe activated with turret still missing for Korea and later Vietnam, but kept in reserve with no weapons modernization, until now.

These have been some great and interesting ideas. You guys know much more about what your talking about than I do.

[GMG4RWF]

Ok, we'll scratch that PVLS idea. The missing turret #3 or #4 idea is still up for debate. One idea I see, would be to have a below deck hanger aft of turret #4 (I figure, you could still accommodate maybe up to 4 Seahawks), instead of building larger facilities. Of course with Turret #4 gone, as has been suggested, you could think about also having SeaCobras which would add another attack tool.

I just wonder how many VLS cells would fit in place of turret #3? Just sounds intriguing to me.

Removing any of the turrets invalidates the whole project - just make a super Iowa then - as I noted earlyer he has enough left over that (with a little more hull work) he can explore those options later.

[GMG4RWF]

I have a pic of my 700scale Alabama with MK41 in place of the aft 16". Replaced the 2 lower MK38s on each side with MK42s (rof 80rpm!). The others & some of the 40mm quads I replaced with 4-MK15s, 7-GAU-8s & 7-40mm twin Berettas in layered defense. no getting missiles anywhere near me!

[GMG4RWF]

....I have often wondered what a 50's conversion in the CA/CG style would have looked liked, .....

There were several... look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Columbus_(CA-74) & CG12 for 1.

[GMG4RWF]

Concerning using the left-over ABLs, I think if the Navy were to reactivate the ship when the ABLs were coming off decomissioned ships (mid 1990s), they would likely be putting VLS in place instead. ABLS fell out of favor very quicly. The foot print of the ABL is huge for what you get. You get as many as 16 VLS tubes for the same surface area as one ABL.

Other than cost, the reason the Iowas were getting ABLs in 1981 (NJ) and 1983 (Iowa) was because they were new equipment and could be installed quickly and easily. Mo and Wisky got them because of restricted budgets

Actually the Mk143 did not go out of favor. While the Mk41 would provide more missiles per deck space it takes up massive internal volume, the purpose for the Mk143 ABL was to allow ships to carry tomahawks without having to do any internal (& costly) rebuild, just slap it on an open deck space & go. that's why the Iowas received them in the upper works. the reason they aren't being used now is, all current ships were built from the keel up with Mk41s.

[GMG4RWF]

Oh, no. CIWS cannot go ontop of a turret. It would NOT survive the gun's blast over pressure. CIWS must be in the super structure. Aside from range finders, nothing can be on top of the turrets.

really? I wonder how many US Naval gunners were permanently disabled in WWII from being at there 40mm/20mm posts on top of the main turrets when the guns were fired ? I would think a CIWS mount would be far sturdier than a human eye ball . most of the over pressure is directed outward from the muzzles. a mount on top of the turret is well (over 67 feet) away from these muzzles. they should be fine.

[GMG4RWF]

and finally:

I guess a nuclear conversion would prove too costly and very difficult to complete....

A)actually if your going to do a nuk conversion, then you would definitely want to remove all of the shafts & gears, then add multiple pod mounted electric drive systems along the underside (as with the QM II) this also allows removal of the rudders as 1 or more can be made to rotate for active steering. this allows the aft end to be armored, removes the vulnerability of the rudders (as with Bismark) & is much more efficient is operation & repairs (if 1 breaks down just yank it, replace it & send the damaged one to a repair ship). also you can add however many you need.
Oh & you also get a massive amount of freed up volume in the hull for other things (like helo hangers).

B) this is my 2400 scale lead Montana. the bow was to be very similar to the Iowas but just a little beefier, I think with your added armor along the sides you can smooth them nicely into a suitable parody.

[DJBattlestations]

I've been on board the Alabama several times. Wonderful ship.

....I have often wondered what a 50's conversion in the CA/CG style would have looked liked, .....

There were several... look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Columbus_(CA-74) & CG12 for 1.

The link was for Cruiser conversions. Since there were no battleships converted, what I had said was, I wondered what a '50s battleship conversion would have been like done in the style of the CA/CG conversions of that time period.

I agree with GMG4RFW on your reasoning for the CIWS on the turret but I will still avoid it. This is a fantasy ship, so license could be taken regardless.

[GMG4RWF]

I wondered what a '50s battleship conversion would have been like done in the style of the CA/CG conversions of that time period.

ooops...yea I just realized I miss-read what you said....sorry.

[GMG4RWF]

I agree with GMG4RFW on your reasoning for the CIWS on the turret but I will still avoid it. This is a fantasy ship, so license could be taken regardless.

Well anyway...if not an autonomous mount like the Mk15 or GAU-8 (the electromics are the weak area), then at least a separate gun mount like the Berretta 40mm twin or the Russian AK-630. I went with the GAU-8 myself.

[BFR4570]

Oh, no. CIWS cannot go ontop of a turret. It would NOT survive the gun's blast over pressure. CIWS must be in the super structure. Aside from range finders, nothing can be on top of the turrets.

really? I wonder how many US Naval gunners were permanently disabled in WWII from being at there 40mm/20mm posts on top of the main turrets when the guns were fired ? I would think a CIWS mount would be far sturdier than a human eye ball . most of the over pressure is directed outward from the muzzles. a mount on top of the turret is well (over 67 feet) away from these muzzles. they should be fine.

You can feel backblast overpressure from a big game rifle 10 feet behind the gun. That is comparitively further from the muzzle than the top rear of a turret. To my knowledge, they did not have any AA gunners on any decks when the 16s were being fired. At least not on the side the guns were fired toward. Maybe on the opposite side of the ship if it was dealing simutaneously with surface craft and aircraft, but did that ever happen? Anybody experience any different? I am sure some of you have seen studies for this subject.

[navydavesof]

Anybody experience any different? I am sure some of you have seen studies for this subject.

The over pressure studies in the 1980s showed that even where they are now, the Phalanx mounts still suffered damage from overpressure. Even the Tomahawk ABLs took damage. Train arc restrictions were placed so the turrets could only train so far so the overpressures would not damage the ship's new systems.

For instance, check this document out. This is an unclassified report on the gun blast tests they did on New Jersey and Iowa. As you will see, they blew out and damaged a lot of the ship's new electronic systems.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA210220

It's a model! Of course you could put CIWS on top of your turrets. The only restriction is if you want it to represent anything realistic. Other than that, put a CIWS mount on the bow, too! That would look pretty neat

[DJBattlestations]

Here are a lot of pictures of a model built by David J Salvin of the USS Montana in a modernized version.

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... /index.htm