Montana Class Missile conversions

tecnhically they are 16-inch ones, but i think the point is perfectly valid; it might be interesting for the full missile conversion, i don't know if i'll try on it yet tough.

Meanwhile, while working on the (now never-ending) Talos armed BB-70 i've also progressed with the 1976 Uss Ohio fixing the missile launchers as Acelanceloet suggested me, mk10 with RIM-67 SM1ER as the primary launchers and two mk26 with RIM-66 SM1MR and RUR-5 ASROC missiles; there are also two RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles placed abreast the aft funnels (one port, one starboard), i hope to have fitted them far enough from the main guns to protect their systems from blast damage.

the most important thing left to be done is to find a way to retrofit the sonar needed for the ASROC, Acelanceloet ponted me to the Charles F. Adams and Spruance classes, but i can't just spat them under the keel because i think it may be better to not increase the depth even more as a battleship has already an enourmous draft; it may be possible to fit it by modifiying the existing bulb (and thus using the Spruance one as reference) but i prefer to be sure it's doable, i'd also keep learning this way.

thanks in advance.

Your battleship has no business, absolutely none whatsoever, to fiddle with enemy subs! It is supposed to sail as close escort in a carrier task force/group, or as the flagship in a Surface Battle group. So, I'd recommend deleting the Asroc completely and forget about the sonar. Let the frigates and destroyers take care of the subs! You also know that aft, you need to have the MFC set, since the missile directors can double as gun directors as well. It is basically just unnecessary weight. As for the aft Tartar launcher it'll have blast issues from the aft 5" gun batteries, so that placement is not optimal. The ship may or, most likely may not ave had the SPS-40 air search radar. In all likelihood it'd be equipped in a similar fashion as the Terrier-armed CLG:s, check the Springfield for a proper radar set. Speaking of radar; I discovered that you've put a pair of SPG-62s aft and beneath the SPG-51s. There will be rather unfortunate wavelength interferences there. Very poorly situated in other words. And, lastly, if you equipped the ship with Sea Sparrow, that would hardly be feasible in 1976. New constructions, such as the OH Perrys and the Spruances, sure, but no earlier conversions.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

bezo, may I note that there are USN aircraft carriers which had sonar installed (or at least planned, I don't remember if they were actually installed)
I would deem it very possible to install sonar and ASROC, but I have to think about where (IIRC, it has to be under the keel, as otherwise the entire aft section would be blocked)
also, BB, IIRC, I was wrong on the CFA sonar, you need the one on the spruance

and I am really wondering where you got those SPG-62 from bezo, SPG-62 are AEGIS illuminators, and I don't see any on this vessel.

the Mk 26 will have no issues from the 5 inch guns if those are not firing close to the launcher, as they are further away from the launcher then they are on the kidd and tico. the firing arc of the 5in would be restricted though, and it might be worth it to look in to an placement with an 5in gun more to the stern and the mk 26 more towards the center.

the NSSM had nothing to do with new constructions but more with the missiles on board, tartar/SM and NSSM were never coupled on one ship in the USN until ESSM came around, but on a ship this size I would suppose it would make sense.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

I remember it was USS America (CVA-66), which had a AN/SQS-23 fitted.

on a quick recheck, you will need AN/SQS-26 or AN/SQS-53, IIRC. AN/SQS-23 might be possible too.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Having a Mk 10 and a pair of Mk 26s on a ship, even one this large, is something I have a hard time seeing. I honestly don't see Sea Sparrow being added to the mix.

I would also look at having macks as opposed to the stack/pole mast configuration you have. I might buy you a bit more centerline space, and it would reduce the vibrational movement caused by the radars rotating - which in turn improves radar performance.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Dear ace, yes, you're right. I inadvertently mixed designations up. I should've written SPG-55 for the Terriers and SPG-51s for the Tartar. My bad. However, my principle point still stands: a battleship, like a carrier has/ had no business getting itself entangled with sub chase! As for the USS America there's still the widely spread misconception, unfortunately supported by such reputable sources such as Jane's Fighting Ships that she was, indeed, fitted with a sonar (AN/SQS-23). She never was. She did had the necessary dome as well as a sonar operating room, but neither was, in the end, used for their intended purpose. Also the near-sister, John F. Kennedy (CVA-67) was planned to have a similar installation, but in her case, while having the dome and anchor configuration of the America, no sonar operating room was even conceived. There was a reason why the USN experimented in converting certain Essex-class CVs to dedicated ASW carriers, so that the main carriers would be freed up for their chief mission: establish air superiority over a battle area, and engage and defeat an enemy's main battle fleets. A ship the size of a Montana, let alone an America are very nimble and maneuverable, and thus would easily become quite literally sitting ducks for a sub commander. Thus the ASW-carrier project turned out to be a dead end one. It should be noted that the only true cruisers (as opposed to the later redesignations from DLG/DLGNs to CG/CGNs; and excluding the USS Long Beach from the category of true cruisers, since she started out as a large DLGN on the design board), the Albanys were equipped with sonar and Asroc, but never were used in that capacity. Essentially the Asrocs were afterthought installation in lieu of the cancelled ICBM Polaris.
As for the positioning of the aft Tartar, my criticism is maintained. There will be blast interference. Besides, having two, heavy installations abeam, is a waste of volume and tonnage. and, ace, if you study more carefully the missile history of the USN you'd realize why, in this case, your wrong about the Sea Sparrow at that chronological date (1976).
So, BB1987, my recommendation stands: do not "install" any sonar, nor an Asroc. Devote your conversion to what is its true purpose: as fleet flagship and littoral warfare fire support unit, as well as the main component of a Surface Battlegroup.

yes, they were never fitted. but the fact they were considered and even provisioned for would show that it would make sense to add them to an ship as this. yes, operationally it would not be used (much) but it could have been fitted, just as you note out has been done on some other vessels.
note also that ASROC was build for exactly the purpose of shooting at submarines when these were still out of attacking range.

and you did not mention the date before, indeed NSSM was not fitted before 1979/1980.

and on volume and tonnage, I think you have more then enough of that in reseerve here, I actually think she will loose displacement with this fit.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Ok, better, but since you've (correctly) got the very-long range SPS-39 on the foremast, I'd recommend you to check my Baltimore-class flagship conversions. The experience in the USN was that a pole mast, albeit however, well girded, would cause so much vibrations as to render the operation and accuracy of that radar nil. But, here's a caution, due to the very different heights of your funnels vs mine (Flagship Baltimores), I'd not recommend the transfer of the heavy mast of those Baltimores, but it ought to give you an idea how to solve the issue of gaining a stable electronics platform. And I still think you should delete the aftermost MK37 FCS. It is not necessary. Oh, one thing you might consider: by 1976, the open flagbridge on the tower would've been, at the very least semi-enclosed, if not fully so. Also, in all probability, many of the empty guntubs, such as the one aft of the main flagbridge and the one above Nos7-8 5" turrets would've been deleted or suppressed. In the former case, you may, with advantage increase the flagbridge area, expand the bridge wings and, perhaps make it fully enclosed. Afterall, it is a fleet flagship, right?
ace: I did write thusly:

Quote:

And, lastly, if you equipped the ship with Sea Sparrow, that would hardly be feasible in 1976. New constructions, such as the OH Perrys and the Spruances, sure, but no earlier conversions.

- So I think I covered my sixes there. Now, who's not reading posts carefully?

As for the comment on volume/displacement: yes, I believe you're right about the theory that the Montana would turn out lighter STD in this configuration. However, do remember that the Iowas were overly wet ships, with a heavy roll; frequently being awash amidships and taking seas over their bows. The Montanas, with only slightly larger dimensions would've been no different. Besides, I see no use in actually wasting either space or volume, just because you happen to have that available. That is, I think very bad naval engineering! And being a student of that particular profession, you ought to be aware of that, which I'm certain you are.
Lastly, the USN, at the end of the 1950s and beginning of the -60s weren't sure exactly how to combat an increasing Soviet submarine force threat. Mind you, BB1987s ship is depicted as of 1976; when the USN had plenty of escorts afloat, and a policy, advocated by Adm. Arleigh Burke of wide zone perimeter defense of the CVBGs and other task forces. It was a return to Cdrs. Roscoe C. MacFall and Chester W. Nimitz' proposals already made in the 1920s to concentrate the carriers (or battleships in that day!) within a circular-patterned chain of destroyers and cruisers; albeit now extended both to littoral warfare, and BBGs. So, in other words, the proposal to install sonars in the CVA-66-67 were misdirected attempts to secure this perimeter. Soon enough it was realized that the carrier should not be diverted at all in its main task; to obtain that air superiority necessary to strike at the enemy. In fact, though the first three vessels of the Kitty Hawk-class were also equipped with the long-range Terrier, it was quickly realized, too, that it wasn't an optimal solution; hence why the JFK received, instead the Mk25 SeaSparrow.

Shipbucket

Who is online