The modernized Yamato

[JSB]

A few points (IMO),

- Why have the 6 twin gun turrets when you have 2 missile launcher's ?(will they fit in the barbets ?and are they blast proof ?)
(if you have missiles/CIWS, the AA guns give you nothing that keeping the 6inch would not do better ?)

- By 1990 Yamato will be 50 years old ! she will be a museum or scrap (or sunk), (I would go for a 50/60s rebuild ?).
If a 50/60s rebuild I would keep the 18(3x3)/6(2x3) inch guns, and replace all the rest (127/25mm) with up to 12 x twin 3/70 (or later AA missiles ?), mainly to save crew numbers.

- If you are going down the all round ship (with AA missiles/etc) then you will need much more radar than a NGFS only ship that just sits inside the amphib fleet air defence bubble. (this will cost more and be harder to do with 18inch blast).

JSB

[Thiel]

I suspect the gun blast is going to turn your missiles into mush.

[Colombamike]

Comments plz

Well,
I am still preparing to make you a very very special round (aka "Colombamike-Sheet" or "Colombakaze-Attack" round )
(a real Yamato (in various versions) by 1946-1970s, no more)
be Extremely patient

PS: forget all (impossible) 1980s/1990s Iowashised Yamato, a huge (infamous) shipbucket joke/farce

[battleship lover]

A few points (IMO),

- Why have the 6 twin gun turrets when you have 2 missile launcher's ?(will they fit in the barbets ?and are they blast proof ?)
(if you have missiles/CIWS, the AA guns give you nothing that keeping the 6inch would not do better ?)

- By 1990 Yamato will be 50 years old ! she will be a museum or scrap (or sunk), (I would go for a 50/60s rebuild ?).
If a 50/60s rebuild I would keep the 18(3x3)/6(2x3) inch guns, and replace all the rest (127/25mm) with up to 12 x twin 3/70 (or later AA missiles ?), mainly to save crew numbers.

- If you are going down the all round ship (with AA missiles/etc) then you will need much more radar than a NGFS only ship that just sits inside the amphib fleet air defence bubble. (this will cost more and be harder to do with 18inch blast).

JSB

I'm trying to find a way how to removing them with out messing the superstructure up. Its hard so please give me some time.
Also im tying to show the ship at the end of her career.

[heuhen]

Comments plz

Well, I am still preparing to make you a very very special round (aka "Colombamike-Sheet" or "Colombakaze-Attack" round )

I love that you take the all those comments lately with humor!

[JSB]

My bad attempt of showing what I think upgrading may look like.



I will not guess what radars you would fit but you will need lots. (and new directors etc)
Not I'm not sure its worth the cash (and maybe only fit some of the 3/70s) and finish in 60s.

JSB

[Rodondo]

You might want to actually research deck thickness across the ship especially if you want VLS, the Americans didn't go with it for the Iowa as, presumably there was too great a difficulty in installing it plus finding space were it wouldn't be damaged by the concussion of the guns

[Colombamike]

My bad attempt of showing what I think upgrading may look like

Hmmm,
Not interested by the U.S/ALLIED versions (US weapons)
(severals "AXIS" versions is incomings, 1946-early 1970s)

[Colombamike]

Comments plz

Well

However while that was mainly because the Japanese focused on quality over quantity but it is worth mention that external political reasons somewhat saved the Japanese capital ships before 1920 the fate of their western counterparts, the cost was the huge expansion plan of the IJN in the 1920's was either scrapped or converted (Hence we get the Kaga and Akagi), Nagato and Mutsu were the last of the Existing battleships before the Yamato. Worth also noting that most sea going ships last 25-35 years.

So after studying some Japanese battleships I realized that the IJN seemed to put there ships in service for a long time. And if Japan won ww2 it was likely that if the Yamato survived they would of kept it going for a long long time

every Japanese battleship ever made lasted for 30+ years.

Let me just stop you there
Kawachi-6 Years
Settsu-10 Years
Fuso-29 Years
Fuso-27 Years
Ise-28 Years
Hyuga-27 Years
Nagato-26 Years
Mutsu-22 Years
Yamato-4 Years
Musasahi-2 Years
Average-18 Years
Battlecruisers
Kongo-31 Years
Hiei-28 Years
Kirishima-27 Years
Haruna-30 years
Average-29 Years
Only one made it to the 30+ bracket, one other made it to 30.

YES ROW-DON-DOUGH !!!!!!!
Yamato commissioned by december 1941 (Musashi by mid-1942), with probably +/- 30 years of service = "retired around 1966-1975", no later !!!, no 1980s-2000s versions !!!

this "Modernized Yamato would be the 1990's- 2000.

Not a good thing
A 1980s-1990s Iowanised YAMATO is a big joke/farce
During 1990s, you want to put him with twelve 8"/55 Mlk71, 200 VLS & 2 nuclear-reactors (on a 50 years old-hull )

I eagerly await the masterpiece that this thread will inevitably produce...

Not necessarily catastrophic (aaaaah the Shipbucket decline !)
it depends on the "seriousness of the guys"
if he draws a "Iowanised" yamato (1980s/1990s) version, (even a 1990s/2000s version with VLS), it is not serious (a another AU design)
If he wants to draw a modernised Yamato, it must be a Yamato (AXIS weapons) by 1946-1975, no more
Wait & See...

The difficult part of this is that you have to "invent" Japanese weapons because in modern japan all the navies ships are based on US weapons and ships

Therefore,
Either you follow the US/ALLIED scenario (US weapons/systems)
Either you follow the AXIS scenario (1946-mid 1970s era)
You have two paths, choose the most serious (for me AXIS) or the one that you like

I was thinking of making very wide VlS launchers which would originally be used by the V2 missile then be use by a more "modern" one.

For a hypothetical modernised YAMATO (1950s-1960s, using early generation of missile systems (large, cumbersome & somewhat inacurrate/fragile)), think the two large interior aera aft (aft-hangar & aft 18" turret magazine)

I'd recommend against using the V2 - Japan never used it, Unless you explicitly want a land-bombardment rocket, in which case, putting a V2 - with all of it's delicate gyros, etc - on a rolling ship probably renders it a) extremely inaccurate and b) very dangerous to the crew - it's at least not using hypergolic fuels but I can't imagine that much lox and alcohol fuel will play nice with the rest of the warship - there were stories about WWII Japanese surface ships taking heavy damage from secondary explosions of their own torpedoes and I'd worry this would cause essentially the same effect

I fully agree again V2 onboard.
But a think that a full improved (newer) missile can be used onboard (look the earlier (large) soviet anti-ships missiles of the 1950's-1960's)

and if we're looking at some sort of post-war build off German tech they had quite a few other projects that would probably have been of more interest - Wasserfall for one, but there really were a suprising number of prototype SAMs in development by various arms of the Third Reich

I fully agree.Look my proposals below

thus bigger the ship, thus more power needed, more speed needed, more power needed, more power needed, more fuel needed. Yamato had 150.000hp for 27knots, and used steam turbines. to get steam she needs boilers, boilers need either coal or oil. Iowa was smaller than Yamato but needed 212.000hp to get up in 32.5 knots. 1 knots more doesn't mean 1hp more on ships like yamato it would need minimum 50.000 hp more for 1 more knots

The Yamato would probably have to have a rebuild to increase her top speed by at least 1.5-2 knots, as even when she was built, she was in the slower category of Major IJN unit.

Increase the speed of Yamato class (from 27 to 30 knots, even 33 knots) is a astronomical cost, even a "Marsian" cost...
In 1954-1955, the U.S. Navy studied & refused modernization of the North-Carolina/South-Dakota BB class, because the cost of changing (increasing or replacing them by more powerfull sets & even slightly modifing the aft-hull curve & deleting the aft 16" turret !!!) the machinery would have been astronomical (better to build a new ship !)

Given the apparently severe blast effects from the 18", I think you could make a very reasonable argument that the after turret would have to be landed, so that more sensitive gear could be repositioned as far aft as possible.

I fully agree with the 18" blast-effects/muzzle-blast-firing. With the appareance of realy (fragile) missile technology by mid/late 1940s, better, by mid-1950s, to delete the aft 18" turret & use the magazine for missile storage & launchers

note also that for example to kongo's got an rebuild with new machinery, superstructure, bulges, lengthening......in how much sense these ships were the same before and after the rebuild (since machinery is one of the first parts that actually gets too old to operate safely) and how much time these ships thus really had......note that, IIRC, the yamato was at least partially war build, which is never good for construction standards.

Think two rebuilds of some sort actually for most Kongo's just to show the need to update over their lifespansIndeed Ace, IIRC certain hull sections and armour joints were poorly designed in a rush and built even more poorly, undermining the ships immense figures. I remember hearing of statements that even the Shinano wasn't built correctly, as air and water rushed through gaps in bulkheads when she was torpedoed, not to mention sections of the frames actually knocking down other bulkheads.

I agree that usually war-built ships was "poorly built" (too quickly).
For the YAMATO, the only serious "machinery-update" was probably a "in deep" machinery-overhaul during mid/late 1950s.
Any fully modernisation would cost a fortune

So why are you starting with the 1941 version and not the 1945?

Yes, you are right "Shipright", to draw a "what-if" modernised Yamato (late 1940s to early 1970s), better to begin with the lastest YAMATO version, obviously !!!

Since fuel is such a problem for the ship I'm thinking of making the ship nuclear.

One thing I'd suggest for your refit is to take another look at the bridge structure - IJN bridge structures evolved to the point that they did in an attempt to provide good spotting positions for optical equipment

I agree for the japanese "optimal optical position" trend, but I don't agree about the critics on the YAMATO bridge-tower. The Yamato bridge-tower was very modern in 1940s-1950s, dramaticaly improved from the (strange but successfull "Pagoda") early japanese bridge-towers style

By 1990 Yamato will be 50 years old ! she will be a museum or scrap (or sunk), (I would go for a 50/60s rebuild ?)

Yes, not same the US IOWA
(too many people think of Iowa's careers, it is a serious error !)

I suspect the gun blast is going to turn your missiles into mush.

YES !!!
The early missiles generations (1940s-1950s) was usually large, cumbersome, fragile (to shock) & somewhat inacurate. Any missile system onboard the YAMATO need to be positionned at some distance of the 18" guns muzzle-blast-firing !

Also im tying to show the ship at the end of her career

=>1966-1975, with AXIS weapons systems
1946-1948

1949-1954

1956-end of career

[JSB]

Nice and I like, but my only doubts would be,

1) Baika - last ditch suicide weapons where only used after it was to late for the IJN to survive, so I cant see any follow on later versions of the ship.

2) Weserflug VTOL - if it was that easy why did they have so much fun with the osprey ?

3) Later ships (post war ? how long is you war, and who fights in it ?) will be dependant /influenced by other navy's tech (USN/RN/etc)

4) why all the German tech ? (that they would have to pay for, no Tizard Mission here they are not nice to each other ) would the IJN not develop stuff themselves ? They are bigger than the KM ! (but then they did burn everything in 45 didn't they ).

5) I cant see a post WW2 Yamato (it will be sunk and IJN will lose due to simple numbers) so any 50s/60s/etc Yamatos need to be in a world without big pacific battles (and therefore knowledge about how many AA guns you need ?).

JSB