What-If modernised USS Montana BB-67

[GMG4RWF]

[quote="navydavesof"]
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA210220
quote]

Yes�.Excellent , did you read this? Just what I said, the blast comes from the muzzle & propagates forward (with some back). If you look at figs. 9-17 you can see that the higher the angle from the direction of shot, the lower the overpressure. @ 70 feet & 150 deg, the pressure is less than � PSI. They didn�t test 180 deg, (and as stated before the barrels are 66�8� themselves + the length of the turret). The blast damage was caused by them training the turrets around & firing the guns with the bridge beside them (that�s like {with your rifle analogy} someone taking a rifle, putting it across your nose, in front of your face & firing� you would get a face full of muzzle blast {in that example�don�t test that� }) If you mounted a Mk15 on the #2 turret, skewed the turret 45 deg To port, then skewed the #1 turret 120 deg to starboard, elevated its guns 30 deg & fired, you�d get a rain of fiberglass down the front of #2 turret (don�t do that either� ). But the Mk15 would be safe from #2 turrets guns, because however you turn its muzzles the Mk15 will be turned the other way & stay 180 deg in the other direction.

[carr]

..

[navydavesof]

Don't forget that it's not necessarily a direct impact from the initial shockwave that you need to look at but the rebounded blastwave. As the report says, the rebounded shockwaves coming from the surrounding structure are far more intense than the direct wave.

There is a NEJ journal article that talks about this even more that I would suggest you seek out.

Something you should keep in mind is that if the Tomahawk box launchers and the SPS-49 were being damaged by both the direct and rebounded blast waves, especially the SPS-49 waaaaay up there on the top of the mast, the fragile Phalanx will have far more problems. It's not a "first-shot destroyed" issue, either but instead a cumulative effect. If you rattle it enough parts will start breaking, and that was an issue it took them a few years to work out on Iowa and New Jersey before all of the Phalanx mounts on all 4 BBs were good to go.

Also, you have established that placing the Phalanx on top of Turret 2 would greatly restrict the firing arc of Turret One. If you're looking for things that look cool, they considered putting the Tomahawk ABLs on top of the turrets. That would look pretty cool!

[GMG4RWF]

Don't forget that it's not necessarily a direct impact from the initial shockwave that you need to look at but the rebounded blastwave. As the report says, the rebounded shockwaves coming from the surrounding structure are far more intense than the direct wave.

Rebound from the structure behind the Mk15... there is no structure behind one on the back of Tu#2 or 3...just open air (unless the turret fires strait forward & then it�s a little distance away & glass!!!) besides, I'd go with something else...always thought the Mk15 was ...go with something beefier.

Also, you have established that placing the Phalanx on top of Turret 2 would greatly restrict the firing arc of Turret One.

Not realy, the turrets generaly fire in the same direction (at the most imprtant target at the time) not at such widly dispersed targets as my example (if you had to then thats where the aft turrets come in.)

If you're looking for things that look cool, they considered putting the Tomahawk ABLs on top of the turrets. That would look pretty cool!

Yea it would, but it's a good adjustable defensive position with clear arcs to protect the ship...too good to pass up!

[DJBattlestations]

I�ve been playing around with modifying a ShipBucket drawing of the Montana into my 2013 modernization idea, in order to get a handle on what would work on a model. While referencing heavily on the 1945 version, my base drawing is from a suggested 1948 version with 40mm quads replaced by 3" twins. This is the modernized weapons setup and layout so far. I have not delved into the radars much, yet.

In this case, Turret 3, which I originally favored removing, is left intact. This should make you all happy. Still wonder if I should put more VLS there or not.
12 - 16" guns in 4 triple mount turrets, (2 fore and 2 aft as in the Navy plans).

6 � Mk41 30mm Bushmasters (2 in old 40mm quad positions before 16� Turret 1, and on main deck, either side of Turrets 2 and 3)

10 � 155mm/62 AGS-L (in former 5� twin positions).

4 � 57mm/70 (2 on each side on inside 2nd level. just aft of bridge at former 40mm quad mount, and below aft gun director).

6 � Mk49 21-cell Ram (1 each side in tubs behind and below bridge, 1 each side just behind stack 1 at front edge of new VLS deck, 1 each side in tubs beside tower behind stack 2).

4 - Phalanx Block 1B (1 each side behind bridge, 1 each side bedside stack 2).

8 � Harpoon quad canisters (4 each side of stack 2).

384 to 480 ??? � Mk41 VLS between the stacks on new built up platform (bottom of VLS cells on main deck).

2 � Mk32 triple torpedo tubes (1 each side on main deck between AGS-L #1 and 3, directly below #2.)

New platform between the stacks for VLS, with roll up doors on outside edges for mission modules or life boat storage.

Elevator to below deck hanger facilities for 4 SH-60 SeaHawks aft of turret 4.

Several mack/mast changes.

Since you cannot see what I am seeing through this feeble description, I will post these drawings IF it is permissible here, and as soon as I figure out how to do it. The files are .png, but can be converted to bitmaps, .gif or .jpg. (Remember, I�m one of those dumb newbies) I certainly hope I can, since that would give you all the opportunity to scrutinize the idea, point out errors, call me crazy, and/or make suggestions (especially on the electronics).

[GMG4RWF]

...2 � Mk32 triple torpedo tubes (1 each side on main deck between AGS-L #1 and 3, directly below #2.)

Mostly sounds interesting, but these would never be able to be usable in combat & would be not only a wast of weight but a liability (something more to go BOOM when hit). That's why the U.S. Navy did away with a BB mounted TT's in the '30s (even the Japs were unable to employ BB mounted TT's during the war...the German raiders had them but that was mainly to use against fleeing mercies).

[DJBattlestations]

...2 � Mk32 triple torpedo tubes (1 each side on main deck between AGS-L #1 and 3, directly below #2.)

Mostly sounds interesting, but these would never be able to be usable in combat & would be not only a wast of weight but a liability (something more to go BOOM when hit). That's why the U.S. Navy did away with a BB mounted TT's in the '30s (even the Japs were unable to employ BB mounted TT's during the war...the German raiders had them but that was mainly to use against fleeing mercies).

I thought the TTs were probably useless as there are helos to deliver torpedos and we can carry a few ASROCs in the VLS cells. Thanks.

[TCS]

There were various studies done to remove turrett 3 of an iowa, and either add missile launchers, or a flight deck for helicopters and harrier av-8bs. It was determined that in order to remove the armored barbette below the turret of an iowa battleship, in order to gain the necessary internal volume for a VLS, you would have to remove the entire stern, and build a new one. The barbettes were solid cast. The turrets weighed over 400 tons, Philadelphia NSY, and Brooklyn NSY each had hammerhead cranes back in the day that lifted the turrets in place.

[Busto963]

...2 � Mk32 triple torpedo tubes (1 each side on main deck between AGS-L #1 and 3, directly below #2.)

Mostly sounds interesting, but these would never be able to be usable in combat & would be not only a wast of weight but a liability (something more to go BOOM when hit). That's why the U.S. Navy did away with a BB mounted TT's in the '30s (even the Japs were unable to employ BB mounted TT's during the war...the German raiders had them but that was mainly to use against fleeing mercies).

I thought the TTs were probably useless as there are helos to deliver torpedos and we can carry a few ASROCs in the VLS cells. Thanks.

In an ideal world yes, but the reality is that helicopters are not the panacea that everyone thinks they are.

Helicopters break, helicopters often cannot fly due to weather (dew point, dust/sand, etc.), helicopters can be out of position to respond, an entire class of helicopters may be grounded due to a defective part or maintenance condition, helicopters are subject to attrition... all reasons why a helicopter may not be available to prosecute a submarine contact. And submarines can penetrate a screen and may have to be dealt with at close range.

Look at British torpedo expenditure during the Falklands Islands war: it was many times times what analysts predicted.

[GMG4RWF]

...... all reasons why a helicopter may not be available to prosecute a submarine contact. And submarines can penetrate a screen and may have to be dealt with at close range.

Except that a Battleship can't prosecute at close range, they aren't equipped with sonar. for a large ship (BB, BC or CV) to operate sonar it has to be either a towed array pulled far behind or the ship has to stop dead in the water due to the noise the ship itself makes, so having ASW TTs on a BB is useless (unless you want to stop & make yourself an easy target), anyway the Mk41 carries ASROC for area ASW & escorts could fire from the perimeter if really needed. It's just not her job.

[Sauragnmon]

I would imagine the Kirovs don't have any problem with their bow sonar when under power. There IS a notable distance from the machinery to the bow, combined with the forward motion of the ship. They also have a towed array, but I would bet the motion and distance of the machinery to the bow would countermand that. Maybe it would be different with a Keel sonar, but not a Bow I think.

[Busto963]

I would imagine the Kirovs don't have any problem with their bow sonar when under power. There IS a notable distance from the machinery to the bow, combined with the forward motion of the ship. They also have a towed array, but I would bet the motion and distance of the machinery to the bow would countermand that. Maybe it would be different with a Keel sonar, but not a Bow I think.

I would also add the JMSDF DDHs to the list of large ships without sonar problems.

The key issue affecting sonar capability is not likely size, as much as it is hull design and machinery isolation.

[Busto963]

...... all reasons why a helicopter may not be available to prosecute a submarine contact. And submarines can penetrate a screen and may have to be dealt with at close range.

Except that a Battleship can't prosecute at close range, they aren't equipped with sonar. for a large ship (BB, BC or CV) to operate sonar it has to be either a towed array pulled far behind or the ship has to stop dead in the water due to the noise the ship itself makes, so having ASW TTs on a BB is useless (unless you want to stop & make yourself an easy target), anyway the Mk41 carries ASROC for area ASW & escorts could fire from the perimeter if really needed. It's just not her job.

I am not talking about prosecution, I am talking about dealing with an emergent submarine at close range.

Worse case, I want a weapon that gives me a chance to kill the SOB who likely is in the process of pulling the trigger on me. It may lead to a phyric victory - he shoots me, I shoot him; but I would want every enemy submarine CO to know that that even if he achieves a perfect firing position, he will still be fired upon. I want to impose as much mental stress on my enemy as possible.

I think it is a mistake for western surface ships to have given up on potent ship launched torpedoes (ASW and anti-surface).

Torpedo tubes can do other things like launch UUVs and mines.

[GMG4RWF]

I would imagine the Kirovs don't have any problem with their bow sonar when under power. There IS a notable distance from the machinery to the bow, combined with the forward motion of the ship. They also have a towed array, but I would bet the motion and distance of the machinery to the bow would countermand that. Maybe it would be different with a Keel sonar, but not a Bow I think.

....The key issue affecting sonar capability is not likely size, as much as it is hull design and machinery isolation.

Actually the key issues are: size of screw, # of screws & speed of turn, these are the issues that make the most noise. shape of hull has some effect but not that much (if designed properly) as all ships are designed to cut threw the water with the least effort as possible. the larger the screw the more water is thrown threw it per revolution. thus more noise. the more screws likewise, the more water & the faster they turn the more water.... this is the cause of cavitation. even an OHP (or a Knox) running at max speed has mounted sonar issues. the towed array is used because it can isolate the pickups from the towing screws. you could mount a hull sonar on an Iowa or Nimitz but the ship will have to stop dead to use it due to the immense cavitation their screws make even at low speeds.

....I would also add the JMSDF DDHs to the list of large ships without sonar problems.

An HDD is not a "large ship" regardless of what someone chooses to classify it as (its still a DD) & the Kirov's are much larger, but not nearly as large as an Iowa of Montana & it's twin screw not quad.

[GMG4RWF]

I am not talking about prosecution, I am talking about dealing with an emergent submarine at close range.

Worse case, I want a weapon that gives me a chance to kill the SOB who likely is in the process of pulling the trigger on me. It may lead to a phyric victory - he shoots me, I shoot him; but I would want every enemy submarine CO to know that that even if he achieves a perfect firing position, he will still be fired upon. I want to impose as much mental stress on my enemy as possible.

If the sub got that close then chances are you wouldn't know it till the torp hit anyway (& if the sub were properly equipped he would be launching AS missiles from range anyway (Harpoons can be launched from TT tubes)), anyway if it did happen that you noticed him just before he emptied his tubes, just launch ASROCs (they carry the same TT on the end as the Mk32 fires - or a depth charge.) so all you really need for that is Mk41 tubes set aside for ASROCs

I think it is a mistake for western surface ships to have given up on potent ship launched torpedoes (ASW and anti-surface).

Torpedo tubes can do other things like launch UUVs and mines.

UUVs & mines can be launched in other (& some cases more effective) ways, such as Helos & Sub mounted TTs. Subs can enter enemy waters undetected (I understand that during the cold war the U.S. maintained a tap on the Soviet base at Vladivostok & regularly did a data download dump by sailing a sub right into the harbor & linking directly to the tap & were never detected) also during WW2 U-230 sailed right into Chesapeake Bay, laid a mine field & left undetected (they actually used the same technique depicted in the movie "Down Periscope"). the ship mounted TT is actually a rather less potent weapon with limited range, large area/volume/weight requirements & adds extra exposed explosive potential to a ship. missiles can do most anything a TT can do but at longer range & with less exposure (well usually). On an episode of Myth busters (re guarding the "Confederate long range rocket") Adam said he'd "take accuracy over range any day". But if I can kill an enemy OVER THERE where he can't shoot me back, I'll take that any day.

[Busto963]

I am not talking about prosecution, I am talking about dealing with an emergent submarine at close range.

Worse case, I want a weapon that gives me a chance to kill the SOB who likely is in the process of pulling the trigger on me. It may lead to a phyric victory - he shoots me, I shoot him; but I would want every enemy submarine CO to know that that even if he achieves a perfect firing position, he will still be fired upon. I want to impose as much mental stress on my enemy as possible.

If the sub got that close then chances are you wouldn't know it till the torp hit anyway (& if the sub were properly equipped he would be launching AS missiles from range anyway (Harpoons can be launched from TT tubes)), anyway if it did happen that you noticed him just before he emptied his tubes, just launch ASROCs (they carry the same TT on the end as the Mk32 fires - or a depth charge.) so all you really need for that is Mk41 tubes set aside for ASROCs

You are making assumptions about ASROC and other weapons that do not advance your argument.

A submarine torpedo, or missile launch requires the rapid displacement of a lot of water at depth; it is a very noisy affair.

There are minimum range and depth of water considerations. Also, the torpedoes launched by the MK32 and VLA are *much* inferior to larger 21"/533mm (or larger) weapons.

I think it is a mistake for western surface ships to have given up on potent ship launched torpedoes (ASW and anti-surface).
Torpedo tubes can do other things like launch UUVs and mines.

UUVs & mines can be launched in other (& some cases more effective) ways, such as Helos & Sub mounted TTs. Subs can enter enemy waters undetected (I understand that during the cold war the U.S. maintained a tap on the Soviet base at Vladivostok & regularly did a data download dump by sailing a sub right into the harbor & linking directly to the tap & were never detected) also during WW2 U-230 sailed right into Chesapeake Bay, laid a mine field & left undetected (they actually used the same technique depicted in the movie "Down Periscope").

I disagree.

Helicopters are a hugely inefficient means of delivering a minefield, and I think most professionals would characterize it as a waste of assets. The truly large UUVs and mines designed for submarines, which are the most effective examples, cannot be carried by H-60 aircraft without major (read massively expensive) structural modifications to the airframes. If the USN wants to get back into the aerial delivered sea mine business, and I think that they (and the USAF) should, then fixed wing aircraft is the way to do it.

But that is not even remotely the end of the story. While submarines are indeed a fantastic means of delivering mines clandestinely, and particularly into harbors; the bulk of sea mines should be delivered by surface ship. The reason is that frees up the submarines to hunt enemy submarines which is the optimal employment of a submarine, and also for reasons of economy. Also, as pointed out above, installing a 21� torpedo tube on a surface ship to deliver UUVs, mobile and captor mines, would be significantly easier and less expensive than mucking about with helicopter structural modifications.

the ship mounted TT is actually a rather less potent weapon with limited range, large area/volume/weight requirements & adds extra exposed explosive potential to a ship.

Ahem, this was my original point. The USN was stupid to give up 21"/533 mm torpedoes. The most efficient means of sinking a vessel or man-made platform (oil rigs, etc.) is to employ a torpedo. In fact, the amount of gun or missile ordinance required to sink a large commercial hull would be cost prohibitive. Not only is there a strong historical requirement for delivering the coup de main using torpedoes, but the only effective way to stop a terrorist hijacked ship (research the Tamil Tigers) before it inflicts 911-type damage, is a torpedo.

missiles can do most anything a TT can do but at longer range & with less exposure (well usually).

Missiles would be my first choice for killing a warship, but they are not likely to guarantee a kill on a very large merchant hull.

Missiles are not an efficient or cost effective means of delivering mines, drones, or other munitions and sensors.

Ergo, missiles cannot do �anything� a TT can do.

You should thoroughly read Captain Wayne Hughes book on �Fleet Tactics.�

On an episode of Myth busters (re guarding the "Confederate long range rocket") Adam said he'd "take accuracy over range any day". But if I can kill an enemy OVER THERE where he can't shoot me back, I'll take that any day.

This is why the Myth Busters run a TV show instead of the navy.

The naval maxim to "attack effectively first" - effectively requires accuracy as prerequisite. Unleashing tomahawk strikes on terrorists camping in tents is not viable. Unleashing long range missile salvos based on sketchy EW reports is not viable.

Admiral Percy Scott observed: �Hit first, hit hard, and keep on hitting is what we have to do if we want to win. Strategy and tactics count for nothing if we cannot hit; the only object of a man-of-war is to hit.�

Perhaps Dave, or other member of the pipe hitters union will weigh in, but Google Larry Vickers for an explanation of the motto of a real warrior:
�Speed is fine � Accuracy is final...�
Wyatt Earp

[navydavesof]

Hey, gang! Sorry for a long delay in checking the thread. I am at sea doing Navy stuff.

...Perhaps Dave, or other member of the pipe hitters union will weigh in...

You honor me, Busto. It's been a while, fellow meat-eater.

Of course, I do agree with Busto on especially this point. Anyone who has been in the need to get an accurate shot off knows that it's not the first one to shoot that makes the difference but the first one to score a hit (accuracy over speed). That of course means that you need to fire accurate shots to guarentee the best chance for landing on target. Aside from harrassment fire (which is specifically to put "mental stress" on the enemy) landing a torpedo, field or naval artillery, a tomahawk missile, or JDAM on target (or many on target) to do the job is what matters.

The axium that is greatly impressed into shooters is "slow is smooth and smooth is fast". That means to take just long enough to get everything you need to done before you try to fire. In small arms engagement that goes from drawing, flipping off your safety, pointing the gun at the target, bringing it up, securing good hand positioning, coming into your stance, getting a lock on your front sight, and pulling the trigger. If you're good this takes less than .5 seconds. The same goes for shooting an ASROC out of a VLS cell, dropping a JDAM, or aiming a 155. If you're good those take less than 5 minutes. If you don't know exactly where to shoot and start blindly launching ordnance, or you don't get all of the steps right, people could be put at more risk than doing nothing at all.

...Larry Vickers for an explanation of the motto of a real warrior:
�Speed is fine � Accuracy is final...�
Wyatt Earp

I think Larry Vickers is one of the quietly and nearly unsung heros of the GWOT. He's been working the issue for a long, long time, and my understanding is that he kept going into the field until he left government.

By the Pretty cool stuff going on in my part of the Navy today. I had to tell a TACCOM he was a turd over secure coms.

[DJBattlestations]

It's been a lively discussion on the merits of my 2013 Montana TT's. Both sides of the argument have merits, but I have removed them. While they would make a kitchen sink addition to a fantasy ship, I don't think this BB would ever be in a situation to use them and since I added a good deal of weight with the VLS, I thought it best to discard them. I had hoped some of you would give me more input on the other weapons I placed aboard, ie; what is a realistic number of VLS tubes. I had listed 384 -480 between the stacks, but I'm not sure exactly what will fit, and if maybe anybody saw any potential problems with anything else.

[SumGui]

That is a damn fine looking illustration. BZ.

I'm with retaining/mounting the Mk32 - the torpedoes are already aboard for the helos, and a snap shot down an attacking torpedo bearing when the vessel turns to run can't hurt. There was also work on decoys and anti-torpedo torpedoes in that size.

[Cliffy B]

Just a note on Mk-32s and their usefulness on non-ASW dedicated ships. Sorry if its been covered already as well

While they provide you with a last ditch defense against a sub they can also be used to fire decoy torpedoes! My father's FFG was part of the testing program for the decoys while he was XO back in 1990. He said they were a bit longer than the normal torpedoes and actually stuck out a few feet from the front of the tubes. The idea was to provide a set of Mk-32s for ALL capital ships for the express purpose of using decoy torpedoes. I have no idea what the actual designation for them was/is or anyth other specifics save for what Dad told me about their effectiveness. They worked and worked REALLY WELL!!! They spent plenty of months testing the things against live targets and hit just about all of them. He has no clue what happened to the project other than the obvious; they weren't procured. Guess they were just another worthwhile system that we SHOULD have but lost due to $$$....

So yeah...this is Whiff world! Fill her with 'em and site decoys as their main ammo and you'll be just fine