MY ideas for a FUTURISTIC BB

[maximusslade]

Well guys, it didn't take long for me to get a request to post my BB ideas. Before I do I just want everyone to know that this project is my baby and I am a little sensitive about it ( i guess anyone would be if they put 4 years into it) so please let the critisism be just and well founded. I want critics, not haters, LOL

A little history, I have been a BB fan for a long time and while i was in college I decided I would design the ULTIMATE BB. I was young and immature and so the design reflected that. Then as I grew older and my esperience with real warships grew, I refined the idea incorporated what I could of current naval philosophy and my own and yadda yadda yadda.

The result was two ships. The first, named USS Montana (BBN-72), and the second, USS Constitution (BCN-7).

Now for the pictures....

Here is the orginal concept.

http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/g...SSErinBB72.jpg


Shoot that idea up all you want. It had waaaaaay to many guns and instead of tactical missles, it carried strategic ballistic missles. Need I say more?

And here are my finished products....

USS Montana



Please ignore the stats on that picture. I havent updated them in some time.

Now for the battlecruiser, USS Constitution...

http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/g...BGN7wLAMPS.jpg

A little background on this. After much work on the Montana, I decided to show my work to some friends who said much of what you guys will probably say about it. So after all their kind words I went to modifying the idea to something more compatible with current ideas. In so doing i reduced the number of guns from 12 to 4. I havent come up with a caliber for these smaller guns, but so far i have been thinking of 12"/54's. The armor on this ship would also be somewhat reduced. How far recuced? I dont know yet. Again, these are works in progress.

Lastly, I have also decided to try to design the decks of this thing. So here is what I've got...

*NOTE* These deck plans, for now, just relate to the Montana.

http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/g.../crossplan.jpg

Well this is all I've got for now. Thank you in advance for any advice or suggestions.

[maximusslade]

Whoops... My Montana pic didnt go through.... here is the link....


http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/g...2withLAMPS.jpg

[DocHayes]

Very nice.

I can see something of a cross between the two coming to fruition.

Just some of my observations (I'm no expert, so take it with a grain of salt).
The need for four (4) 16/50 turrets? Myself I think two triple mounts, or two double mounts would work (like on the Constitution design). I think with advances in guidance and accuracy it reduces the amount of rifles needed, but is balanced with potential of putting mass volumes of fire on target.

The same applies to the secondary mounts. I can see single mounts... One per flank... maybe two per side. I say single mounts 5/54 or 5/62, because that is what is already out there, and for $$$ sake.

Whether to keep 16/50" or reduce the size to 12/54" I'm undecided. Whatever option that flies, the Navy has to make a long term committment to using that platform and system. I suppose the infrastructure is still around to logistically support 16/50"... But I imagine 12/54" would be more economical in the long run.

My $.02

[TopHatter]

Your original concept...The wing turrets...better to mount center-line turrets instead. The Germans made the same mistake with SMS Nassau. But, as you said, original concept.

Your modern Constitution and Montana...stunning works of art

Their superstructures are quite graceful and lovely.

What program did you use to draw those? What were your inspirations, particularly for those gorgeous superstructures?

Perhaps replace the 20mm CIWS with RAM or similar?

[ace16807]

Firstly, incredible artwork... Kudos to you. I only wish I could do that.

[maximusslade]

Many thanks for your flattery! My isnpiration was that of the Montana class (BB-67). The extra turret always facinated me and excited my testosterone fed need for more guns, LOL. As for the superstructure... the idea really didnt come from anywhere. It is a case of form following function. Although there are a couple of little bits that i took from warships of times past. Examples: the bridge is a combination of Iowa and Bismarck bridges. That can be seen in the navigation bridge surrounding the conning tower which comes from the Iowas. The Bismarcks contribution was that of the wing bridges, which I feel would help out in situations of navigation. They serve no combat function at all. (NOTE: Bismarck was not the only BB to have those wings. The first US dreadnoughts had this feature.)

As for the CIWS...I have no objection at all to using RAM, but I feel strongly that warships should have CIWS. Why? If the war in the Pacific taught me anything about ship protection it taught me that a wall of lead is an excellent protection against a determined pilot and plane streaking towards your ship. The only thing more determined than a kamakazi is a antiship missle moving at the speed of sound towards your ship. Granted a CIWS wont get them all in a massed missle strike against your ship (nor would RAM, no weapon system is perfect), but CIWS with RAM can provide two layers of protection which can go a long way to protect your platform and sailors. LOL so incase I rambled on too much, the short of it is that while i may reduce the number of CIWS, I wont get rid of them completely, it is a weapon system I believe in. Again, I appreciate your comments and look forward to more.

I will tell you what program i used to draw them, but before I tell you, you should be sitting down. I used MS Paint to draw them.... yes, MS Paint. The actual picture if it were printed out in actual size would be some 3 feet long. lol makes for a huge bitmap file. Anyway, not having a CAD or some high priced graphics program I used what i had available to me and in order to get the level of detail i wanted i had to draw the picture BIG and sometimes pixel by pixel.

[RAL's_pal?]

So, on your Montana, where do you plan to put your reactors and main engines? By the time you put in your main guns, barbetts, powder and shell magazines, there's not much room for the stuff that makes the ship go.

Do your really want to surround the reactors with large guns?

I see a problem with room for habitility... sailors have to eat and sleep in comfort.

You also need things like feed water tanks. The reactors may not need fuel, but they need water to make steam, lots of water.

Where are the CHTs (contaminated holding tanks)? Sailors eat and sleep, they also do other things that you can't pump overboard anytime you want.

[maximusslade]

*Sigh*

First off, I am not a Naval Architect. I also don't think too many people here are either.

Sailors eating and sleeping in comfort? Have you ever spent the night on a warship? I tell you the only thing the Navy has to do is give you 3 squares and a rack to sleep in. Granted you SWO daddies may have a bit more space to work with, but I doubt they are too much more comfortable than a submarine rack. Hell, I know guys on carriers that have to sleep RIGHT UNDER THE FLIGHT DECK. That is all I am going to say about that.

I am basing crew accomidations on warship cutaways and what I have seen first hand on museum ships. On my Montana, much of the bow can be used for crew berthing as well as spaces above the armored deck in the rest of this ship. BB's that I have been on have had the officers living in the superstructure and the enlisted types berthed in various places above the amored deck with the galley and crew's mess being somewhere amidshps.

As for the powerplant, I have put a lot of thought into this. I have never been able to tour the power plant of a CVN, but I have been in a few SSN enginerooms. Without divulging any secrets I estimate I can fit a power plant that uses two reactors and generates around half the Megawatts of power of a CV plant in a space that is 80 feet wide and 40 feet tall. And looking at my drawing so far, I think that would fit perfectly in that big empty space forward of the X turret. It would make for long shafts, but there you go.

Tanks... tanks are everywhere, stuck in nooks and crannies in engine rooms and everywhere else on ships. Reserve Feed Tanks for the steam generators would be in the engine rooms of course, and the size of the tanks would depend on space available and the water making capability of your plant, and etc. "Contaminated water holding tanks" as you call them would be inside the reactor compartments where they should be. I like to call them Discharge Storage Tanks. But I can tell you that submarines at least do not discharge all that much contaminated water out of a running plant. And yes, at sea, you can discharge your contaminated water overboard alllllll you want so long as you are outside of 12 miles.

In the end, these are very valid questions of yours. Just please don't think that I haven't put thought into it. I am proBB, that is known, but I am also a former sailor who had to lay in my rack and try to sleep, and I also a nuclear trained electrician who spent 2/3 of my awake time in the engine room and the rest of it in the forward end of the boat fixing other stuff.

Many thanks for your thoughts...I do hope to hear more. Thank you

[RAL's_pal?]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

Sailors eating and sleeping in comfort? Have you ever spent the night on a warship? I tell you the only thing the Navy has to do is give you 3 squares and a rack to sleep in. Granted you SWO daddies may have a bit more space to work with, but I doubt they are too much more comfortable than a submarine rack. Hell, I know guys on carriers that have to sleep RIGHT UNDER THE FLIGHT DECK. That is all I am going to say about that.

Yeah, I've managed to tour a few ships in my day, even slept aboard....

WWII sailors slept in racks sometimes 5 high... and those were the lucky ones enough to get a rack. The others had to string their hammocks on hooks. If you ever get to see an Iowa class BB, go to the mess decks and look for the hooks in the overhead. I don't recommend those conditions to keep sailors alert or happy.

Originally Posted by maximusslade

It would make for long shafts, but there you go.....

Due to the size of barbetts and the location you put them in, I don't see any "straight shots" you could put the shafts in unless you put them very far aft and then that would require very long main steam piping to the main engines.

Originally Posted by maximusslade

Tanks... tanks are everywhere, stuck in nooks and crannies in engine rooms and everywhere else on ships. Reserve Feed Tanks for the steam generators would be in the engine rooms of course, and the size of the tanks would depend on space available and the water making capability of your plant, and etc. "Contaminated water holding tanks" as you call them would be inside the reactor compartments where they should be. I like to call them Discharge Storage Tanks. But I can tell you that submarines at least do not discharge all that much contaminated water out of a running plant. And yes, at sea, you can discharge your contaminated water overboard alllllll you want so long as you are outside of 12 miles.

To my knowledge, the CHT tanks on "modern" BBs are very far outboard, outside the armor belt. They're not near engineering.

[maximusslade]

Originally Posted by RAL's_pal?

To my knowledge, the CHT tanks on "modern" BBs are very far outboard, outside the armor belt. They're not near engineering.

They very well could be. I am not privy to modern engineering layouts.

[maximusslade]

I should add though that water that could possibly be radioactivly contaminated would most likely be stored within the reactor compartment. It could be possible if the reactor compartment(s) were against internal bulkheads that discharge water could be stored there. I should also ask, when you say CHT, are you talking about black and gray water tanks or are you talking about reactor coolant??

[RAL's_pal?]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

I should add though that water that could possibly be radioactivly contaminated would most likely be stored within the reactor compartment. It could be possible if the reactor compartment(s) were against internal bulkheads that discharge water could be stored there. I should also ask, when you say CHT, are you talking about black and gray water tanks or are you talking about reactor coolant??

Navy surface ships, CHT is black and gray waste. CHT tanks to CHT piping to scupper valves to overboard.

[RAL's_pal?]

I guess I should write that my comments were for the original concept of the "Montana" which are now modified heavily. The modification looks much better.

I was doing about 3 things at once and skimming (which I shouldn't do) instead of reading fully.

I get bored really quickly these days, sometimes in mid.............................................. paragraph.

[mweber24]

Hate to tell you, but large caliber powder guns are simply obsolete. For land attack, it is much better to have the capability to change firepower from very low to very high. This normally can be accomplish with a variable rate of fire. Extreme accuracy is essential in all cases. There is a need for penetration too, but this most likely would be best accomplished through a change in velocity, not shell weight. A 5inch accellerated into orbit and falling down will penetrate, but it can also be launched at a flatter trajectory if penetration is not required with less velocity, and fired more often if broad area coverage is required.

I am more open to the idea of armor making a comback in surface ship design. Highly damage resistant warships have a broad appeal, think of the MRAP in Iraq. Protect the crew, prevent mission kill, or worse, total loss of the ship. It may become increasingly difficult to prevent a weapon from hitting the ship (some of the new missiles are scary, torpedos and mines are already really scary), so maybe we should look to how we can take the hit and move on? Missile (and perhaps direct fire weapons like rail guns) kinetic energy will increase, but I believe only at the expense of accuracy, making the weapon designer choose between vulnerability to countermeasures and penetration. In either case, more armor (and residual watertight integrity) is alway better for the crew

My battleship would have LOTs of electrical power generation capabilty (nuclear power would probably be required, plus they are closed systems requireing fewer armor penetration points), numerous small caliber, VERY high velocity (but variable velocity) guns capable of high rates of fire, preferably rail guns. A combination of rail guns and conventional rocket firing guns (like the 155mm AGS) if GPS accuracy cannot be achieve for the rail guns (I don't know how the electronics could survive the launch). Low freeboard, broad beam, relatively shallow draft, four props like Queen Mary 2 (no rudder), electric drive, LOTS of watertight integrity (automated when possible, with counterflooding capability). An active torpedo defense if possible, with laser point defense, capable of blinding missile sensors (or pilots). Ah, one can dream, I am sure my design would only cost half a trillion....

[maximusslade]

mweber,

You make a lot of good points and I appreciate your input. I realize that the big bore guns have their limits, but they also have advantages. The best way I can describe our difference in opinion is to compare it to the argument of those who support the 5.56 NATO round vs. the supporters of the 7.62 NATO round. This is how I see it. I see a lot of talk about the 155mm AGS weapon, a lot of people speaking its praises... but where is it? I hear they are still trying to develop the rounds to use in it. Right now, at this moment, I am trying to work with technology that is tried and proven. Not to say the 155 wont come onto the scene and do its thing, it just hasnt yet and no one is 100% sure that it will. Secondly, you would need that 5" shell to be moving at near hypersonic speeds to carry the same amount of energy as a bigger bore shell. Am I advocating a 16" shell? Not necessarily. As I mentioned in my description of my Constitution, I would be willing to scale down the main gun to perhaps 12". I would be willing to go with most any size caliber if I thought it would perform the job well enough. As for scaling of fire, there are a few ways to deal with that. Using sub caliber rounds for the main guns, which is not a new idea. I am certain you could get a pretty sweet velocity with a 10" round using a normal 16"/50 powder charge. It is my understanding that the Army can change powder loads with their large artillery to get different ranges and effects, but I would like to hear from an artillery man if I have that wrong. Not only sub caliber rounds but you also have the secondary guns which could very well be the 155mm gun if it comes to fruition or perhaps the good ole 5"/54 or something new.


Now... for the engineering suggestions. The Navy has tried electric drive ships before, namely on submarines (i.e. USS Glenard P Lipscomb SSN-685). They didn't like how it turned out. That is all I have for now, it is the end of the work day and I am ready for a break. I am grateful for you interest and look forward to hearing more of what you guys have to say.