USS Montana (BB-67) ca. 1988 Missile Augmentation

[David Latuch]

A few weeks ago, while browsing the Shipbucket Archives I came upon BB1987’s USS Montana (BB-67) refit history, and I wondered what if they were refit a la- the Iowa-class later 1980’s missile augmentation; not knowing at the time that BB1987 had already done so, and I began to draw using the A.L. Raven plan view which I copied and a bare hulled BB1987 profile. Many elements in the starboard elevation had to be relocated to correspond to the Raven dorsal view. While researching using the on-line image search, I happened upon BB1987’s drawings, but none of which were in Shipbucket. I proceeded to complete the drawing as I conceived it. You will note that rather than following the Iowa refit with quad tomahawk launchers, I used the Mk-41 vls launcher, and placed the phalanx and harpoon launchers in the pre-existing Bofor’s gun tubs. So here she is:

USS Montana (BB-67)
(ca. 1988 Missile Augmentation)

Displacement:
63,221 long tons (64,240 t) (standard)
70,965 long tons (72,104 t) (full load)
Length:
921 ft 3 in (280.80 m)[2] oa
890 ft 0 in (271.27 m)[2] pp
Beam:
121 ft 2 in (36.93 m)[2]
Draft:
36 ft 0 in (10.97 m)[2]
Installed power:
8 × Babcock & Wilcox 2-drum express type boilers powering
4 sets of Westinghouse geared steam turbines 4 × 43,000 hp
(32 MW)[2] – 172,000 hp (128 MW) total power
Propulsion:
4 × shafts
2 × rudders
Speed:
28 kn (32 mph; 52 km/h) maximum[2][5]
Range:
15,000 nmi (17,300 mi; 27,800 km) at 15 kn (17 mph; 28 km/h)[6]
Armament
4 x 3 - 16-inch (406 mm)/50 cal Mk 7 guns
10 x 2 - 5-inch (127 mm)/54 cal Mark 16 guns
5 x 1 - Mk-38/25mm (1in) Bushmaster chain guns
4 x 1 - 20mm Phalanx CIWSs
4 x 4 - (RGM-84A) Harpoon Block I missile launchers
96 - Mk-41 VLMS missile launchers

USS Montana (BB-67)

[Colosseum]

Nice stuff. A few things jump out at me:

1. Harpoon canisters have no blast deflectors and launching would be difficult especially from the forward position
2. The top view of the 5" guns doesn't seem correct to me - I think only the rear of the mount has a beveled edge. Check out photos of the singles aboard the Midway class carriers for an idea of what this mount should look like
3. Amidships VLS looks interesting, but I don't think there would be rigging between the masts in this case
4. The foremast tripod is really enormous and doesnt need to be nearly this big. I think you could get away with copying the format used on the Iowas since the radar fit is the same.

[JSB]

Nice, but would the MK41 work so constricted by the funnels and masts?

Could you not ditch some of the 5" guns and reduce crew & weight as well to give you plenty of space for the Mk41s say beside the rear funnel (then put the harpoons in the gap?)? Potentially also remove some 5" forward for more space for ever more flag facilities? Do you need more than say 4 or 6 5" pre side?

[David Latuch]

Ian:

Nice stuff. A few things jump out at me:

1. Harpoon canisters have no blast deflectors and launching would be difficult especially from the forward position
2. The top view of the 5" guns doesn't seem correct to me - I think only the rear of the mount has a beveled edge. Check out photos of the singles aboard the Midway class carriers for an idea of what this mount should look like
3. Amidships VLS looks interesting, but I don't think there would be rigging between the masts in this case
4. The foremast tripod is really enormous and doesnt need to be nearly this big. I think you could get away with copying the format used on the Iowas since the radar fit is the same.

Point 1. True but what do they look like?
Point 2. Correct, they've been fixed.
Point 3. Once again correct, it's been fixed.
Point 4. That is the Iowa mast top.

[David Latuch]

Nice, but would the MK41 work so constricted by the funnels and masts?

Could you not ditch some of the 5" guns and reduce crew & weight as well to give you plenty of space for the Mk41s say beside the rear funnel (then put the harpoons in the gap?)? Potentially also remove some 5" forward for more space for ever more flag facilities? Do you need more than say 4 or 6 5" pre side?

An Arleigh Burke has only a twelve foot distance between the forward 5" mount and the launcher, I have eight feet between the launcher and the stacks, perhaps I could remove a bank fore and aft.

[erik_t]

I agree that removal of some 5" twins makes sense, even if they were replaced with nothing. Crewing these beasts wasn't cheap. Best might be to remove the center six mounts and relocate the Harpoon canisters to the newly-empty space. Then you could also remove the beam Mk 37, which would further reduce crew and topweight.

She also needs some boats!

[acelanceloet]

Well uhm.... While this is an interesting drawing, it deserves some more thought into it...... but I might be a bit late to the party for that.

Note that the iowa's, when they got the ABL's, had them in 2 positions: on the sides of the aft superstructure and on the midship. The proposed 1990's VLS conversion for them would have involved replacing the reinforced and enlarged aft superstructure with one with place for the VLS modules, 4 8 cell modules on each side with an total of 64 cells. This made it possible to keep the radio lines, harpoons and flaglines in place as is. During the discussion when I drew that conversion, we decided a fit of an modern ECM system and fire control was likely, especially fitting the SPG-60 directors as those are camera equipped and allowed for the main guns to be guided by radar, visuals or a combination thereof (the reference materials only included plans for the weapons, not for the radars/masts)

The main issue with this drawing is thus, what exactly happened to the ship between the 1940's and 1988? was the ship laid up for 30+ years only to be fitted with VLS, harpoons and phalanx after that? (which seems unlikely, 30 years or so in reserve will make her ready for the scrapyard IIRC) IF so, then this layout would make (some) sense, but in any other scenario the gun tubs in which you have placed the phalanx and harpoons would long be removed. The ship would only ever have carried about 4 ABL's, or a total of 32 tomahawks, because the superstructure is unmodified other then amidships, which means she carried half the amount the iowa's did. Those ABL's would also require removal of the cranes I suspect, as those are not in the field of fire of the current VLS but would have been in the field of fire of the ABL's.
In addition, in the current arrangement, I suspect your bridge wing is flooded with flame when the harpoons there are fired. The director platform straight above the aft harpoon launchers would make them hard to reload I suspect. I suspect that some of the deck equipment you removed compared to the montana drawings was quite important, stuff like ventilation for example. The 30? mm guns next to the pilothouse have a terrible arc for an anti-small craft weapon, and the aft ones would be quite wet and vulnerable on that position on the stern. Note how the weapons on the 1990's VLS conversion of the Iowa were placed as far as posible outboard on platforms, roughly amidships.

Your Mk 41 VLS would have had 96 cells, if I count correctly. That would thus have been an 300% upgrade over what would earlier be fitted on the ship with the space for 4 ABL's (Versus the 200% upgrade the VLS conversion of the iowa would have gotten, 8 ABL's --> 2 * 32 cell VLS) which seems a bit much, maybe. An single hole in a deck fitted with 96 cells would also be the biggest VLS module ever build, it is very likely this set of modules would be split IMO.

Note also that on the shipbucket wiki (and for ages before we had the wiki in various part sheets threads) we have an excellent Mk 41 VLS drawing with both side and top views, which could have saved you the issue of this one being about 50% too wide but a bit too short length wise.

As for the tripod mast, that huge unsupported pole worries me. Note how on the iowa that mast is connected to the conning tower and the funnel and supported that way. While your mast top might be the same, the underlying structure is completely different, which means there is no reason for it being the same. (I'd also hate to be the guy who has to fix the radars on that platform directly above a steam powered ships funnel, but the iowa's have that issue too......).

Btw, is that radar on the aft mast not of WW2 vintage? why is it there in 1990?

[1143M]

The VLS between two chimneys is problematic,there is not enough space here.For US navy,they'll probably take down the MK16 turrets and add missile launching container,like Iowa Class

[David Latuch]

I've taken all of your comments and suggestions under consideration and revised my original drawing. I have moved the Harpoons from the gun tubs afte
, resized the Mk-41 launcher, removed the rigging between the stacks, etc.

USS Montana (c.a.1988)

[erik_t]

For what it's worth, I think the original air search radar fit (SPS-49 and that's it) is much more likely. SPS-48 would be an expensive waste on a ship that has no real AAW fit and is not itself an aircraft carrier.