The Ship Model Forum

I have both kits. The biggest, most notable difference is that Niko forgot to add the deck planking - though the box art shows and instructions specifically call out for "Natural Teak". Otherwise, it does look good. The Admiralty kit... just looks better, with much more thorough instructions. There's also some specific parts and directions to differentiate the two sister ships. And the deck *is* planked in this kit. The only thing the Niko kit has that Admiralty doesn't is a helicopter for the stern. I can't comment on fit, as I haven't built either yet.

To make the best of things, I figure on using Admiralty kits for the two that were actually completed, and the Niko for one of the cancelled sisters, postulating the Vallejo or Gary was completed but had the wood deleted to save cost and weight. (Remember that the Atlanta-class CLs lacked wood decks, too, so it's not unheard of in the US Navy's line of gun cruisers.)

- Sean F.

If it's just a budget thing...and that's a perfectly valid reason then go with a cheaper kit your going to modify anyway. You do get what you pay for with Paval's kits. His moldings and engineering are worth $45 in time and sharpness.....if you have 45 exra dollars

[quote="Cliffy B"]Jason, glad you like the design. I still need to tweak it some more, its lacking some extra firepower I think.

Niko and Admiralty Model Works make 1/700 resin kits.

[url]http://www.admiraltymodelworks.com/index.php/1/700th-Scale-Resin-Kit-s/USS-Worcester-/-Roanoke-CL-144/flypage_new.tpl.html[/url]

[url]http://www.freetimehobbies.com/NIK7050.aspx[/url]

Anyone know which kit is better, more accurate, etc...? Admiralty's is $120 but Niko's is only $75, which is the better value? From looking at the photos of the kit they both look great but without a side by side comparison its hard to decide.

Only review I could find is for the Niko kit.
[url]http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/ships/cl/cl-145/700-niko/niko-review.html[/url]

Thoughts?[/quote]I have a couple of Niko kits and have been pretty impressed with them, especially considering how much they go for. In the resin ship market, $75 for a cruiser is pretty good in my opinion. I am sure the Admiralty Model Works kit is beautiful, but I'm on a bit of a budget and $120 for a 1/700 cruiser is a little more than I'm willing to pay right now.

As for value I'd say the Niko kit, just because it will look almost as good but costs $45 less.

Jason, glad you like the design. I still need to tweak it some more, its lacking some extra firepower I think.

Niko and Admiralty Model Works make 1/700 resin kits.

[url]http://www.admiraltymodelworks.com/index.php/1/700th-Scale-Resin-Kit-s/USS-Worcester-/-Roanoke-CL-144/flypage_new.tpl.html[/url]

[url]http://www.freetimehobbies.com/NIK7050.aspx[/url]

Anyone know which kit is better, more accurate, etc...? Admiralty's is $120 but Niko's is only $75, which is the better value? From looking at the photos of the kit they both look great but without a side by side comparison its hard to decide.

Only review I could find is for the Niko kit.
[url]http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/ships/cl/cl-145/700-niko/niko-review.html[/url]

Thoughts?

Cliff, another excellent sketch. I like the idea of an upgraded Worcester. The class gets little love from the warship masses in my opinion.

From a purely operational and functional perspective, I like what you've done with her. As far as aesthetics I tend to agree in part with a previous post in keeping some of her very original appearance, perhaps leaving the forward three turrets intact?

She was a sharp looking boat, if somewhat hard to get a hold of in 1/700 scale. I think Niko Models did/does one?

have you started building her yet, your design looks great, the only suggestion would be to omit the elevator for the helo she would only have the ability to land and refuel not house helos. the only other thought would be an eight cell asroc box launcher and some harpoon canister instead of the second 6" gun turrent.

I like your configuration... :thumbs_up_1:

Just a suggestion though:

Replace the SPGs at the lower position with one MK-68 GFCS and one Mk34. Also go for an SPS-39 and some ecms, like the ones the C.F. Adams class had.

Have you started building it? :wave_1:

Looking forward for some more progress...

I suppose so Timmy but I opted to upgrade them to triple turrets to compensate for the loss of the other 4 turrets. Plus it was planned to upgrade to triple turrets but the end of the war put a stop to that. The 6"/47 were rapid fire guns but because they had 2 ammo hoists per BARREL in order to rapidly change from AP shells to AA shells, they wound up jamming quite frequently. Since its a whiff I magically fixed the jamming problems since the thought of a 6" DP gun was just too nice to shelve due to a design flaw.

Anything you guys would change? I was thinking about maybe moving the after 5"/54s aft some adding another set superfiring above them and raising the amidships director for better coverage. What about nixing the 5"/54s altogether and replacing with some OTO 3"/76s instead? She needs some sort of secondary gun armament. All that deck space is crying out for some additional weaponry but which do you think would complement her 6" battery best?

Should I add some triple Mk-32 torpedo tubes?

I did forget to add ECM domes on the forward mast though and have since drawn them in.

For me, the triple gunned turrets result in making her look too much like the Cleveland conversions. It now lacks the distinctive characteristic that made the Worchester special.

Quite an interesting little arrangement in there, all told I find it quite attractive. The reloads for ASROC, the Mk10's, it's quite a compact design, and she looks good all round. Quite a nice little CLG, and those 6's were rather rapid fire IIRC.

Quite the design you have there, Cliff.

Anyone?

I had this idea floating around for awhile; what if they used the [i]Worcester Class[/i] for some of the CAG/CLG conversions back in the 1960s?

In my little alt universe the class doesn't come online until 1951-1953 time frame due to the need to work out more of the kinks in the 6"/47 DP main battery. In reality they were considered unreliable due to a number of design flaws/deficiencies. It was also planned to mount fully automatic triple DP turrets in later units of the class but they were canceled when the war ended. Taking that into consideration I whiffed up some triple auto DP turrets for them and ran them through a missile conversion in the 1968-1970 time frame.

Given the relatively compact superstructures needed for the 6 twin turrets of the original design I found ample space astern for 2 Mk-10 Terrier launchers and 4 SPG-55Bs. Forward an ASROC launcher with reload magazine (ala the [i]Farragut[/i]) and 2 Triple 6"/47 DP turrets. Given the obsolescence of the 3"/50s by the '70s I chose to remove all of them and added 4 Mk-42 5"/54 in their places to round out the gun armament fore and aft. Radars are '70s era SPS-29/48 combo for air search, SPS-10 for surface, and MK-68 GFCS for the 5" battery and an upgraded MK-34 for the 6" battery. I chose to replace the amidships MK-37 directors with additional MK-68s for better coverage/survivability. Directors above the bridge can only see but so far.

I added some flag spaces near the bridge (ala [i]Newport News[/i]) and enclosed the boats in deck houses with accordion doors to get them out of the way as well as to reclaim the deck space. CIWS and SRBOC can go up there as she gets modernized later on. The original seaplane hangar is now the helo hangar with an elevator and the landing area has additional parking space on deck.

[img]http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu194/CliffyB/Artwork/CLG-1441970Design1.jpg[/img]

What do you guys think? Any suggestions, thoughts, comments, questions, etal. welcome.