Shipbucket

I feel like I'm repeating myself, but I would strongly recomend that this ship have a pair of Macks (combined mast-stack) as the Albany class had.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

is the external appearance of the deckhouse directly related to the GMLS laying inside it?
sorry, maybe i've missed your post, you mean the 1976 or the 1960 one?

_________________
My Worklist
Sources and documentations are the most welcome.

-Koko Kyouwakoku (Republic of Koko)
-Koko's carrier-based aircrafts of WWII
-Koko Kaiun Yuso Kaisha - KoKaYu Line (Koko AU spinoff)
-Koko - Civil Aviation

Timothy, while I agree with you about the viability of the Macks ( heck, I started my Missoula project with them!) there's the inherent cost increase in reducting smoke uptakes, rearranging the deck and boat stowage layout, fitting new ventilators and fans for the generators etc. in other words: budget! I would like to see such a version, for sure, but I believe the version BB1987 has come up with now, is the more realistic one. That was a reason why I discarded the macks, reverting to the original funnel arrangement of the Baltimores ( though, strictly speaking, I ought to have fitted a Boston-style single stack!)

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

Ok, for your Talos variant, I'd suggest the following modifications to your ship: discard the boat crane between the aft funnel and the Talos guidance radar tower; in fact, level that unnecessary deck house, delete the Mk37 FCS and use it for boats and the FAST. Also, with so much space compared to the cramped Clevelands, you can move the main mast aft, freeing it from corrosive smoke interference. Also, I think a ship of this caliber, would've shipped the massive SPS-2 very long range 3D radar set, instead of the SPS-8. Yes, the former was defective and unreliable, but I presume you're showing the Granite State Wagon as completed, right? I also would like ace's input whether a twin Talos installation would be feasible. The twins tacks may have to be trunked together and other structural changes done, but the thought intrigues me.

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

The 1960 one would almost certainly get a mack just for the increase in centerline space it offers, but the 1976 one is also a possibility.

As a minor note, I've checked the inner dimensions of the barbet on the Montanas (Thank you Voyager989!), and at least 37' 3", which means you can stick a full 44 round Mk 26 Mod 1 GMLS right down in the barbet hole without any other cuts to the ship. A few hundred tons of balast (extra electrical generators and concrete!) down in the old magazine, and you're good to go. A properly modified Mk 4 GMLS with a similar magazine size to the Mk 26 Mod 1 might also be a possibility. Both of these would reduce centerline space taken by the GMLS systems, and might reduce the need to cut through the armor deck.

One final note - horizontal magazine spaces can be directly adjacent to each other - for example, this 1956 design for a refit Des Moines shows Talos and Terrier magazines right next to each other:
Big image

We're looking at refit Montanas with multiple Talos mounts any objections to Macks on cost grounds is just stupid. That said, the Mack also provides a much more stable platform for a large radar such as the SPS-2 (It's a box girder!), which I agree, she would have mounted.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Fantastic work, but my goodness - I forgot how boring post-war ships really are.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

Well, Timothy, I think you are looking at that, which is perfectly alright. BB1987 seems to have gone the way of austerity, which is also quite right, though, like I said, I'd love to see a version of Montana-sized macks as an alternative. In this case, Timothy, I agree with you with regards to hull volume. I discarded my macks, since people regarded the ship as massive, and questioned its stability. Such problems does not exist with a ginormous hull like this, however. As for cost, it is not stupid, but reasonable to think about how the navy would've spent its dough. After all, for cost-reasons, there were no attempt to arm the Albanys with a more comprehensive of modern gun-suite, except the open 5"/54s. Sometimes austerity and elaboration went strangely hand in hand...
As for putting the SPS-2 high on top of a mack (which, given this ship's already generous dimensions, would be quite tall!), I would not recommend that. Remember, it was a very heavy unit. The Little Rock-style platform would serve sufficiently, and was stable enough. It was not the mounting of it that caused problems; it was the sheer complexity of the installation that did. However, to get the SPS-39/52 even higer up, putting that on the aft mack makes sense.

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

in case of the Mk 7 GMLS, yes! the deckhouse IS the GMLS. in case of any other, no mostly no.

also, I join TJ on the fact that those pole masts on some setups look flimsy, and need an girder mast or an mack (as much as I dislike macks, they work in this case)
another option might be to build an girder frame over the funnel, and let the tip of the funnel bend only. (look at the dutch zeven provincien and de ruyter cruisers)

EDIT: that is bullshit, and you know it. yes, the CoG can go a lot higher on ships this high, but that is not anything like saying 'stability problems do not exist on hulls this big'. I have the plans of an FPSO of L*B*T:360*54*21, with the calculations for it's movement and part of it's stability, lying next to me right now. you don't get much bigger then that, and stability is still VERY much an issue.

_________________
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

Ehh, ace, before you start "bullshitting" other people's remarks, study carefully -really carefully, what is actually written. I'm aware that English is not your first language, but there's something as reading between the lines, understanding the implicit context, not merely the literal. As you know the Mack-towers of the Albanys were made of alloy. That was a weight saving measure, so was the fact that the superstructure was composed of the same material, with only certain sections manufactured of high-tensile steel. Yet, the three units throughout their careers experienced problems with stability. Now, a corresponding structure on the Montana, manufactured from the same material would not impose such problems, since the Montanas were 121 ft wide compared to the Albanys 70ft. As for your stated vessel, I've no idea what material it is (was?) supposed to be constructed from, but, considering that the number of decks of the Albanys numbered seven (eight in the Chicago) and taking into consideration its relative narrowness, and further considering that there need not be any further decks, and if the original superstructure is basically preserved, none, in a Montana superstructure, and with a subsequent comparatively reduced windage-area (sail-area), I maintain my previous proposition that the Montanas would not experience the kind of inherent stability problems that the Albanys suffered from. And, I reiterate, that was the reason why I on my Missoula, went back to conventional stacks.

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

you did not say, 'these ships would not suffer from that same stability problems'. you said, 'and questioned its stability. Such problems does not exist with a ginormous hull like this, however. '
if you are dealing with people who don't have english as their first language, I suggest you write things in a way I can understand them. because, well, this is not a case of my english being bad, but one of your sentence meaning not what you are now saying it means.

_________________
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