sure, i would appreciate it
The quality may not be as good as those pieces, but I do have a friend who does 3D modeling on naval vessels. He's an amateur, but fairly good at what he does, and would probably do it for free. I could speak to him about this if you're interested.
sure, i would appreciate it
Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...
Ohh i like the montana!
I am currently in college to become a Naval Architect. i have been dreaming of becoming one for many years.
I have been drawing up designs for future Cruisers and destryoers to rival the new zumwalt, and cruiser classes. One of my main goals when i get my degree is to bring back the Battleships. So I have started my own version of the Montana (BB-72) When I have finished these designs I will post them.
I have just finished reading through the pages of this topic.
I must say you are all a wealth of information!
Gents what I know about designing and building a ship you can fit on DocHayes $0.20-cents
For a long time I have been a big fan and advocate of naval fire support!
As an Infantryman / Assault Pioneer, the largest caliber I have seen (during training – not combat!) NGFS has been of the 127mm (5’) type – which although visually impressive, lacked destructive power that I envisage and would want!
Unfortunately naval gun fire support is an art form that tends to come and go in the West, predominantly (I personally assume!) due o our heavy over reliance and faith in advanced technologies (not to much difference in Western Armies coming and going faith in mortars really!!)
A long time ago, but I can not remember where, I recall reading about one of the bridges in North Vietnam, that the USAF (and I think the USN?) sent mission after mission of strike aircraft against at perilous risk and danger of aircraft and more importantly their crews, when it was stated it was well known that the USN’s 16in gun battleships could have downed that bridge very quickly, cheaper! (has anyone else heard this story?)
Maximusslade I love your designs – well done and my hats off to you.
I really like the purposeful look of your original ‘Battlecruiser, ‘USS Constitution’
I am also impressed that you went for a raised hanger (above deck) arrangement, as I have just been reading about the problem the USN experienced with the below-deck hanger arrangement of the its Virginia Class CGN’s
If I may gents, I would like to voice my thoughts on a modern purpose-built Battlecruise/Heavy criuser.
Nor is it critacisam of your great work either Maximusslade!
Sorry if I ramble on……………………………….
I think for budgetary and operational reasons – not to mention the support of Congress (especially after the ridicules and expensive debacle of the Zumwalt-class destroyer project, which is going to leave a very long and lasting bad taist in Congress mouth), I think the modern Battlecruiser / Heavy cruiser design will have to have and show some multi-role flexibility.
Even the incorporation of the design to facilitate a primary role of Littoral War Fighting, would give this proposed Battlecruiser / Heavy Cruiser a greater chance of acceptance within the USN’s Order of Battle and the gaining of support of Congress.
The design will need to be as practically sized as possible – size and displacement being a great factor in the designs price and the size and output of its machinery!
The design will have to be designed with the greatest consideration of automation, so as to minimize the crew size.
I have always been an advocate of self contained, multi-role platforms that are an effective jack of all trades and master of none.
As much as I will cop flak for it……………….I believe that way to much money is spent by the USN on specialized classes of ships, so as to escort the likes of modern aircraft carriers (and in this case potentially our future Battlecruiser!)
Add to this the cost and logistics of crews needed for these escorts (especially when the cost and difficulty of recruiting and retention is considered)
Do not get me wrong – I am not advocating that this future Battlecruiser should have every conceivable weapons system and sensor fit hanging off her, for I know this is not practical or functional.
But what I am supportive of is that the likes of our future Battlecruiser should be fitted with its own Aegis combat system and the AN/SPY-1 radar systems, after all with the compactness and simplicity of the likes of the Mk41 VLS, coupled to the size of this design, these ships could and should contribute more to its own active defence in AAW and ant-ship warfare.
While its smaller number of needed escorts could assist and expand the AAW and anti-ship radius and specialize in more in the likes of flexable ASW protection.
I both like and support the idea of two twin 280mm (11 in) turret arrangement, as being the prime naval fire support weapons.
The reason for the two twins is that I have a great belief in the importance of operational and functional redundency – especially so when Im the Digger waiting on that naval gun fire support (I personaly know that in the Royal Australian Navy – the double ended arrangement of its now long retired Charles. F. Adams Class DDG’s are missed greatly – prodomanently because of this redundancy factor!)
The reason I have support this semi large calibre is due to the fact that with modern metal and forging technology, coupled with precision guidence technology, the likes of the giant and powerful 406mm (16 in) guns are way over kill, overly heavy and space consuming.
I still think that the likes of the 155mm (6.10 in) gun is still to small and light, when you have the luxury of building a purpose-built ship of this class and size.
No I like the idea of 280mm gun for the reason of its range potential over that of 5’, 6’, 8’ guns, as well as its flexability in its round-size capability to carry an effective destructive payload, guidence package’s and its ability to be more easly adapted to be used as a delivey system for the interdiction of area targets behind the front line.
For a long time I have been very concerned with the United States Military (and my country – Australia!) focusing to much on COIN/Peacekeeping ways of war fighting, and I often think that due mostly for political reasons, that they have and are compromising its conventional warfare fighting capability.
With modern military technology, metal and composite material technology and research, I would invisage these 280mm (11 in) guns would utilise and incorporate the R&D used in the Zumwalt-class destroyers Advanced Gun System (AGS).
It would have a fully automated storage and loading system, meaning that it would have a high rate of fire.
The 280mm guns would be water-cooled to incease rate of fire and prolong barrel life.
As the design will not be expected to go head-to-head with an equivilant gun armend ship, the traditional heavy, thick and expensive armour of the Battlecruiser / Heavy Cruiser will not be a burden to its design – although saying this, and its closer proxsimity to hostile shores, so as to give naval gunfire support and interdiction, I would like to see some greater effort of armour and composite materials (ceramics and cabon fibre) protection to the design vital areas, due to its some-what greater exposure to harms way!
One weapon I would like to see aboard such a purpose-built ship, that nobody seems to have mentioned, and which seems to have been forgoten and no longer apriciated by Western navy’s is that of the reasnably cheap, simple and effective (and moral shattering) multiple launch rocket.
I have spoken to WWII and Korean War vetrans who swear by its effectiveness and phyicological power against an enemy during an assault landings!
The system I envisage is a naval variant of the U.S Army’s M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System.
Just imagin the fire power two of these systems aboard the Maximusslade’s ‘Battlecruiser, ‘USS Constitution’ would have and contribute!
This system is capable of firing guided and unguided projectiles to a distance of up to 42 km (26.1 miles). Firing ballistic missiles, (such as the U.S. Army Tactical Missile System—ATACMS) it is capable of reaching out to 300 km (186 miles) with the warhead reaching a maximal altitude of ~50 km (164,000 ft).
It would naturaly need to be located somewhere it is not going to fry everything – maybe needing retractable and water cooled blast shields
As well as be located so that it can be reloaded easly and safely – saying this the manual army way of reloading is some whatcumbersome, and yet I would say exceptable (my only hope and dread is that the Navy would keep to ‘keep it simple stupid’!!!!
Imagine this type of fire power being brought to bare on an area target – i.e beachhead.
Not to mention the interdiction and deep strike capability of the likes of the U.S. Army Tactical Missile System—ATACMS – with its capability of reaching out to 300 km (186 miles) with the warhead reaching a maximal altitude of ~50 km (164,000 ft).
I would like to see a strong combination of RAM and Goalkeeper CIWS’s (again I think to much faith is put into missile technology! I like the idea and principle of rockets roaring and bullets flying in combination and layer.)
As for secondary gun armament I would go for the likes of four single 76mm (3in) OTO Melara 76 mm/62 cal Or four single 127mm (5in) Mk45/54 cal DP lightweight mount.
I would think it not to difficult to develop a VL variant of the venrable Harpoon SSM, to allow compatability with the likes of the Mk41 VLS, if the USN so-deemed it a requirement – although saying this I think the Harpoon is long overdue for a more advanced and capable replacement!
But saying all this I find no problem with using the simple and effective fixed Mk-140 quad launchers – after all this will leave more cells free for ESSM, SM-2 Standard and Tomahawks and hopefully one day a revived RUM-125 ‘Sea Lance’.
I agree with the incorporation of a sonar system to be incorporated into the design!
I would like to see the incorporation of a minimal of two multi-role meduim helicopters into the design – these being used primararly for ASW and over-th-horizan targeting.
This same capable helicopter hanger, maintanance and repair facilities, should also incorporate system to support, maintain and operate the likes of Bell 918 ‘Eagle Eye’ VTOL RPV, allowing target spotting and target illumination of target at a stand- off distance with accuracy and safety.
As for Mk41 VLS vs. Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS)? I am somewhat a fan of the Mk41 system and the simplity and fire rate that it offers. Where as the Peripheral Vertical Launch System is somewhat new to me.
Thanks to forum members explaining the advantages (especially the minimizing the battle damage advantage of this arrangement!) I guess for this good and sensable reason and to maximise battle damage, I would be inclind to support PVLS.
Well thanks again gents for a great topic, which has allowed me to vent a long loved topic
P.S. Maximusslade if not to much of an ask could I ask that you give a crack at incorporating a couple of M270 MLRS launchers into your design?
Come to think about itt I would guess the stern would be the best location for rocket plume on launch reasons
Space and weight being a premium on warships, I would think that a better solution would be to do exactly as they did back in WWII. That is, to build simple, seaworthy platforms (i think they used LSTs back then) on which to mount the M270s. I would envision a 2,000ton corvette or frigate sized ship with 2 M270 lauchers with the ability to reload and an additional 1 or 2 57mm or 76mm gun. No real need for any sophisticated radars or comms, just your basic naviational arrays and radio room. Something like this could be shallow draft for close in work. One could also build a varient armed with 2 AGS or some plain old 5 inchers. Trade off is that to keep numbers up and cost down, they will have to forego comples missile systems. I imagine one could fix the quad harpoon launchers if need be, but not much beyond that. The ships would have to rely upon more complex radar stuff from other ships in the fleet, but I see that as OK since these ships would probably never operate alone. These would be purpose built ships for specific situations.P.S. Maximusslade if not to much of an ask could I ask that you give a crack at incorporating a couple of M270 MLRS launchers into your design?
Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...
Pg.64 shows a picture of the van located on her bridge structure.
You can also see in the background one of her main battery guns being removed via sling and hoist for inspection.
Last edited by Dreadnought; 28 May 09, at 18:35.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
I just stumbled on this thread today, so I figured I would reply with what I have. In younger years, warships always fascinated me. I drew them, and in high school I learned AutoCAD and SolidWorks. It wasn't long before revisions of BBN's were slaved over. Now I am an unaccredited automotive engineer getting my Mechanical Engineering Degree. What I am posting is a design that I have been toying around with, using a wider knowledge base and better modeling techniques. I appreciate feedback, want to incorporate as many actual systems as I can in the coming months for this model, and YES I do realize nothing like this will ever be built. It's a whimsical dream of an engineer... "What would it look like if we did make one?"
So without further ado:
Nuclear Powered Battleship
Weight: 58,975 Long Tons (So far)
Draft: ~35 ft
Overall Length: 1062ft
Overall Width: 129ft
Waterline Length: 1000ft
Waterline Width: 120ft
-12 x 16"/50cal Guns
-10 x 76mm Oto Melaras
-36 x Mk 57 (6 cell upgrade) Peripheral Launch System allowing for 192+ of:
BGM-109 Tomahawk Surface Attack Missile
RUM-139 ASROC Anti-Sub Missile
RIM-161 Ballistic Defense Missile
RIM-174 Long Range SAM
RIM-66 Medium Range SAM
RIM-162 Short Range SAM (4 missiles per cell)
-2 x Mk 144 Launcher, each carrying 21 x CIWS RIM-116 short range missiles
-4 x 20mm Phalanx CIWS
-Modernized TDS (Torpedo Defense System) utilizing 15ft of strategically placed empty and solid voids (either Mk 57 or freshwater/avgas/saltwater ballast) and a vertical 12" homogenous steel belt
-Active Phased Array Radar system
-Nuclear reactors powering Permanent Magnet-Synchronous Motors, driving 4 variable pitch propellers
-Bow and Towed sonar arrays
-Bubbling system to improve hydrodynamic efficiency and reduce radiated noise
-Retractable bow thrusters, similar to the Perry class
-Full hospital suite and space for military and relief operations
-Helipad for 3-5 SH-60 Helicopters
-Reduced crew due to automation and system simplification (I do not have an exact number yet, I am still working on all of the sub-systems)
There are allot of other features I am sure I am forgetting about at the moment, I will post updates as much as I can... especially if there is some prodding and interest. This latest revision (BBN-117) was done in the last week or two in SolidWorks, which I have been using recreationally since 2009 and professionally since 2012.
Any constructive criticism is greatly appreciated, especially about the radar and propulsion systems as I have only a limited knowledge base on these subjects.
Where are you AD and radar dishes?
It's not "width" it's "beam".
The "bubbling system" is called "Masker Air" and also absorbs enemy Sonar pings but it's mostly to absorb our own pings.
The retractable thrusters such as on the Perry class are okay, but for a ship that size you need built in bow thrusters just aft of your Sonar dome.
For added stability you need retractable fin stabilizers. All foreign cruise ships use them and they work just fine. Those used in the U.S. Navy don't work so well because we are afraid of wearing them out. To maintain efficiency they MUST be used as much as possible and they will last for years.
Your ASROCS are good for long range anti-sub. But for close range you need the triple tube Mk-46 or Penguin launchers.
You need to slant all bulkheads, masts, handrail stanchions, etc. inboard 15 degrees for DEflection of enemy targeting RADAR. Any section that must remain vertical should be covered in RADAR absorbing material. Somebody may have copies of the FFG-7 Shipalt and Installation instructions. I know they exist because I wrote them.
You have a neat idea going and I encourage you to complete your model. Too bad it will never be built, but then again some bits and pieces will be added to a future generation of warships.
Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.
- No armor plating except around critical areas like reactor spaces and magazines to increase speed/reduce power requirements.
- sacrifice the two (stern) turrets for additional vertical launch systems (leaving 6 main guns)
- point defense systems replaced by multiple SLAB laser systems in the 200-300 kilowatt range.
- retain but reposition (also to the stern) the landing pad for personnel transfer/resupply etc but no organic (is that the word?) helicopters. Use multiple (4-6) VTOL recon, ASW/surface light attack drones instead. (I don't know for certain but I imagine helo pilots would hate trying to land amidships because it would complicate their approach out the yazoo.
Alternatively retain a single helo alongside a reduced number of drones.
Oh and seriously consider (if available) replacing conventional naval guns with linear accelerator 'tubes' to reduce magazine space and utilize the available electrical power.
Last edited by Monash; 30 Jan 15, at 10:38.
Now for the hard stuff. As a retired Navy Captain with just a whole bunch of time working in the field of naval engineering at sea, I am one of those who had to live with the great ideas of others who never knew the pain of dealing with them in the real world. So with that as a glass of sobriety, here are my thoughts regarding the last paragraph of incomplete details.
As a certain rotund, conservative talk radio host is wont to say, "Words mean things." When dealing with projects like this, one has to have the terminology right or else people like Rusty and I are going to make one's life miserable. That said, issue number one is the use of the term "AVGAS." Within the pantheon of USN fuels, AVGAS is one thing and one thing only; high test gasoline for use in piston poppers that no longer are in the fleet . . . or anywhere else in the military to my knowledge. It is extremely volatile, and no one, and I man NO ONE would want AVGAS aboard their ship. It would be, without question, the single most dangerous facet of either liquid or solid cargo carried aboard a warship, to include ammunition. The term you are looking for is either "aviation fuel" or actually, just "fuel." More specifically, it is NATO F-44 or in the US inventory, JP-5. All marine diesels, gas turbines, and aircraft jet engines run on JP-5.
Second, all screws on USN ships are "variable pitch." The pitch varies along the longitudinal run of the propeller blade to run most efficiently at different RPMs. The term you are looking for to "activate" your idea is "controllable reversible pitch" (CRP) such as those found in all of the gas turbine GOGAG powered ships from Spruance on up to the latest Arleigh Burke. However, my real question to you is simply, "Why?" CRP is one more thing that has a lot of moving parts, and makes sense when you have an LM2500 that cannot be reversed. Meanwhile Permanent Magnet-Synchronous Motors can be reversed and quite easily by opening one potentiometer and closing another. Don't create work where it is neither needed nor appreciated. Lose the CRP.
Third, as Rusty already pointed out, a "bubbler" is something found on ship's plans from which crew members drink potable water; in everyday sailor terms, a "scuttlebutt." Again, as Rusty pointed out, the Masker air band is contiguous with the engineering spaces and aids in reducing self-generated noise being transmitted into the water. Prairie air meanwhile is air forced out of the trailing edge of the screw to reduce the noise emitted by screw cavitation.
Forth, what is it you want; a battleship or a destroyer? When one labors to make a combat systems platform a jack of all trades, it surely will be a master of none. Lose all of the ASW capability, including ASROCs. There are other ships and crews in company that are much better designed for it, better trained at doing it, and more to the point, have more time in their mission profile for actually doing it. All you are doing is adding unnecessary cost to your project.
Fifth, if you are going to do bow thrusters, as Rusty said, ditch the Perry idea and go with the standard installed through hull variety. Much like CRP, all the retractable variety are going to do is add more moving parts to maintain and worry about. Rusty and I could have a long, informed from both ends, discussion on fin stabilizers. I don't like them, nor do most crews. They impart a rather disturbing "snap" to the natural rolling motion of the ship and really add nothing to the efficacy of combat systems. Were it me, I wouldn't have them . . . but that's just me.
Last, but most importantly, I see you have fallen in love with technology and the concomitant savings due to reduced manning. Who then will save the ship when all of those systems fail, which they surely will? I fear that if you go down that trail, you are creating a multi-billion dollar paper weight.
Does anyone have a picture or can describe how the Perry-class retractable azimuth thrusters look and work?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)