The Ship Model Forum

[quote="Cliffy B"]Turning the DDH Sprucans into flagships???!!!! NO, NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!!!!!!!!!!The Sprucans were the best ASW DDs we ever made and they did their job extremely well! Taking the much improved DDH version and turning them into friggin Flag barges is almost as wasteful as the entire LCS project! Our own top of the line SSNs were afraid of the Sprucans and in exercises were repeatedly killed by them; they were THAT quiet.[/quote]Yeah, no s#!t. If we had any Spruances...or any Haylers out here in Yokosuka...we would be in [i]fantastic [/i]shape. If one of those Spruances were instead turned into a flagship...we would just have another hull.

[quote="SumGui"]Now I need to select my hulls...[/quote]You may want to look at some of the foreign hulls if you want to build any of these ships. Busto suggested the Udaloy-class to me and boy, I think he picked a winner.

Turning the DDH Sprucans into flagships???!!!! NO, NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!!!!!!!!!!

The Sprucans were the best ASW DDs we ever made and they did their job extremely well! Taking the much improved DDH version and turning them into friggin Flag barges is almost as wasteful as the entire LCS project! Our own top of the line SSNs were afraid of the Sprucans and in exercises were repeatedly killed by them; they were THAT quiet.

Sorry man, but no. The old gun ships and amphibs are far better suited to that role.

[quote="Seasick"]90% of fire support missions can be accomplished by a 127mm gun.[/quote]The military disagrees. The 5-inch can only provide harassment fire. Harrassment fire is only 10% of NSFS missions.

[quote]A Spruance can only take a 32 cell Mk41 VLS forward if the Mk71 gun is fit. This was discussed in another forum I frequent. The 32 cell would be a tight fit too. Also the increase in weight might require a bulwark forward like on the Ticonderoga class which would be very expensive.[/quote]The only concern is weight, not space. The bow of the Spruances was deisgned to have the Mk26 Mod1 (B-sized weapons module) and the Mk71 forward. If you wanted to have a 64-cell VLS with only SM-2s loaded and a Mk71, you could. Heavy missiles like Tomahawks would be fewer missiles. What is expensive about bulkwark?

[quote]Being the 1980s the USN was developing the land attack version of the Harpoon now SLAM.[/quote]Our Harpoons have been able to do SLAM missions for a long time.

[quote]With the tanker war starting in 1981/1982 you can fit early 25mm Bushmaster mounts to the ship or twin 20mm guns of WW2 vintage carried by some ships as a stopgap [/quote]That would be fantastic. 20mm guns on a modern warship. Talk about cool!

[quote="Cliffy B"]Why they ever trialed the Mk-71 on such a small ship with a history of structural problems is just asinine! Add that to the "it works great, we want a bunch of them, oh never mind we're cancelling it for no reason, bye!" and I smell conspiracy!!!![/quote]I think you smell correctly. The Mk71 was 4 times more accurate than the Mk45 5". The inaccuracy claims were only that...claims. FMC could not repudiate those claims at the time, because performance data was classified. It's a myth that the gun was inaccurate.

Our sailors and marines have lost their lives because the Mk71 was not purchased and Mk45 5-inch was employed instead. Even with only 203 rounds in the magazine plus 75 in the ready service loader, the Mk71 would have provided the DDG Fligth IIAs with the ability to provide credible NSFS. The 5-inch does not.

[quote="Cliffy B"]You can mention something about your ships getting the latest Mod of the Mk-42 (if they didn't have it already) to save on weight and gun crew. I know they were built with the Mod 9 "lightweight" version but I'm not sure if there was another one after that or not.[/quote]Check out what the Japanese use. They have the most modern Mk42s in the world.

[quote="Seasick"]The USS Hull had a partial installation of the Mk71 gun. The gun, gun house, and training mechanism were fit. The magazine was not fit. There were problems with hull cracking on the hull after the trials completed. Repairs were made, but a long term fitting of the gun would have lead to serious problems.[/quote]
This is another popular myth amongst people who don’t go very deep in their research. Here is the quote from a Mk71 engineer answering one of the questions I had asked him and is now published on the navweaps site:

[list][i]"There have been many stories over the years about cracks in the structure of the USS Hull resulting from firing the Mark 71. Most of these I would classify as "urban legends."

Over time, all of these ships experienced cracks in the superstructure. These cracks were generally located around frame 50 where the expansion joint was located in the hull. When the ship modifications were being designed to permit installation of the Mark 71, special attention was given to the stresses that would result from the firing loads...

When the Hull returned from her first WESTPAC deployment, I talked to the engineers doing the structure inspection. They told me that the cracks they found were no different from what was found in every ship of the class. They said the only difference was that the rate of cracking was slightly increased which was probably due the increased weight added to the bow by the Mark 71 installation.

When the ship modifications were being designed to permit installation of the Mark 71, special attention was given to the stresses that would result from the firing loads. Later, during the structural firing tests, the Ships Engineering Center installed several hundred strain gages in the bow of the ship. The data collected during these tests showed acceptable stress level in all locations.

I have never seen anything in official documents that reported or alluded to cracks in the hull. This is the best explanation I can give for the stories about cracks."[/i] [/list]

There you have it. Another myth debunked.

The Hull also had the 75 round ready service loader. The gun itself does not have a "magazine". A magazine is designed in whatever hull the gun will be fit. The Spruances and first 5 Ticonderogas were going to have 500 rounds. The Long Beach was going to have 600. The DDG-51 Flight IIAs were going to have 203. The USS Hull had no magazine but just the loader drum.

I have the schematics for the magazine designed on the Spruances. They chose 500 rounds for weight reasons. They could fit a lot more than 500 rounds in that magazine. A wider, more appropriate hull (like CGN-42) could carry far more in the frame length devoted to the magazine.

[quote="SumGui"]I've never been a fan of a 'flagship' that is really just an accommodations barge. A real 'Flagship' is a ship of war...[/quote]The Blue Ridge and Mount Whitney are going to be SLEPed very soon to extend their lives to...get ready for this...70 years.

If they can do that with a boiler driven weak-sister flagship, they can do it with a remarkably well built battleship or heavy cruiser :big_grin:

First heard on SPG-60 SeaSparrow commonality - thanks for that.

I am not a fan of SPS-40 - I have referred to it as the "Ray Charles" of radar. To be blunt, on active duty I never considered the -40 an asset. I much prefer -49, but left the existing equipment in place for simplicity.
When operating brown water, the Mk23 TAS becomes more important. -49 would be a nice have, in any case.

Flagship facilities is one of the excuses I plan to use to bring the CAs back in about 1984-85. As far as flagship for the 90's, I intend a refit of the Virginia class.

I've never been a fan of a 'flagship' that is really just an accommodations barge. A real 'Flagship' is a ship of war...

Yes the AN/SPG-60 can illuminate the target for NATO Sea Sparrow. The software needed was written after the Stark attack. The Mk23 TAS and NATO Sea Sparrow's fire control system were able to control the AN/SPG-60 just like the Mk95 radar. In addition VL NATO Sea Sparrow was adopted and I believe some ships were fit with it for deployments to the Gulf.

The three Hayler class DDH @1990 are retasked. Hayler DDH-997, DDH-998, DDH-999 all land their Mk71 and VLS. During a 16 month rebuild each ship is rebuilt into a fleet flagship. One for the 6th fleet, one for the third fleet, and one for the fifth fleet. All three ships have flagship facilities built aboard them. Space from the removed 8" gun and VLS is used for this purpose. Communication facilities are improved, the SPS-48E is gone and a single AN/SPS-49 is fit on the main mast. The reconstruction adds a deckhouse ahead of the bridge. The Phalanx gun is moved from beside the formast to a platform on the front of the deckhouse in a setup like the Arleigh Burke class. THe Phalanx is upgraded to Block 1B in 1997 and replaced by a 21 round RAM launcher in 2003. UAV are added after 2005.

A note about AN/SPS-40. SPS-40 is a low frequency 2D air search radar, its fine over the blue water, if the modified Knox is planned for brown water (littorial) enviornments switching to AN/SPS-49 would be advised. Its higher frequency will provide better coverage. Also the AN/SPS-40 was not sufficient for NTU. Another portion of NTU was the redesign of the ships galley food preparation/storage, new ovens in the bakery, several electrical modifications including rewiring, the pharmacy was also modified as well as the PX.

Ok, after valuable feedback from Seasick and Cliffy B, I am totally off Mk 71 for this application.

1 - I need there NOT to be 8" rifles already at sea in number in order to legitimize reactivating Salem and Des Moines in my timeline. (if the Mod Knox carried 203mm with its much smaller crew size, why reactivate CAs - just bring in a few more Mod Knox...).
2 - The math says, even IF it would work by weight, there would simply not be much ammo aboard.
3 - The conversion will be cheaper without it, allowing more ships to be converted (granted, MK 86, Mk23 et al will be expensive enough)

Harpoons: I am still going with Mk141 behind the mack instead of in the ASROC to save magspace and increase number of Harpoons aboard. In 1991, I can easily see some of those rounds becoming SLAM. Visually, this also makes for a more interesting modeling subject. I envision 4 being aboard for normal operations, with the ability to carry 8 if needed (much like the Kidd class).

I see 12-16 ships fit this way, with the balance of the Knox fit as they were (although I am an advocate of the external Harpoons instead...). Mk 86, MK 23 TAS, Sea Sparrow, Mk 95, SLQ-32v3 are all going to add up to a lot of money, and all of that on all 46 ships in the class is probably not tenable.

As pointed out by Seasick - the Mk 38 really came on during the tanker war/gulf patrols. Many of the Mk 38 mounts were rotated onto ships coming into the gulf an off upon departure. For these ships, I intend to mount them permanently as they would always have close into shore as one of their primary missions. Rather the mount is a Mk 38 or a 20mm left over from WWII in 1981 I haven't decided yet. By the mid 80's it certainly would have been Mk38. Two mounts will be on the aft deckhouse roof, and two more may be on the after end of the forward deckhouse (if not 20 or 25mm, those mounts will be .50).

I do not intend to mount a second Mk95 at this time - visually there isn't a good spot for it, and even the Spruance class (much larger) only carried one director. Now, if the SPG-60 could guide Sea Sparrow, I'd be set. (besides, that would break the spirit of the Knox class - ONE of everything, redundancy be dammed! :) )

Now I need to select my hulls...naturally the first refit and therefore name ship of the subgroup has to be a Seattle built ship...lets say Downes as she was the test ship for Mk23 TAS and the Mk 29 launcher anyway.


Downes subgroup, 1981:
1 x Mk 42
1 X Mk112mod ASROC launcher (8cells) w/SMARTROC capability (NMLRS added beginning approx 1985). MK 16 launcher group - 16 reloads
SPG-60 above the bridge (replaces Mk 68) yes, the Mk 86 GFCS.
SPQ-9A immediately aft of the SPG-60 on a short mast similar to the mounting of the Mk 92 on the OHPs
2x TV/IR search and designator: one fwd on the mack, on aft on the mack (basically, the MMS from the OH-58D)
SPS-40 stays in place
Mk23 TAS takes the masthead position away from the SPS-10/67
SLQ-32(v)3 either side of the mack. Active jamming to allow close to shore operations.
4-8x Harpoon immediately aft of the mack
2xMk 38 Mod 0 on the Hangar roof, P/S
Mk95 director for Sea Sparrow on the Hangar roof
1x Mk 29 Sea Sparrow aft (8 Cells)

Having two illuminators, one fore and one aft, gives you 360 coverage regardless of whether or not the launcher is fore, aft, amidships, or somewhere in between. SPQ-9A was also credited with detecting sea skimmers at a decent range so including one on a "littoral" ship would be a big plus. I know they always seemed to group SPQ and SPG together but they can be separate and should be for survivability sakes, IIRC they separated them when the put the DDG-993s through NTU conversion.

Why they ever trialed the Mk-71 on such a small ship with a history of structural problems is just asinine! Add that to the "it works great, we want a bunch of them, oh never mind we're cancelling it for no reason, bye!" and I smell conspiracy!!!! :Tirade:

You can mention something about your ships getting the latest Mod of the Mk-42 (if they didn't have it already) to save on weight and gun crew. I know they were built with the Mod 9 "lightweight" version but I'm not sure if there was another one after that or not.

While swapping sonars would improve your performance in the shallows it would degrade blue water capability (which was probably a big no no as you said) and would cost a pretty penny so yeah, keep the 26. Remember they did have a tail as well as ASROC and a helo with sonobouys so their ASW capabilities were pretty well rounded. They did put 56s on the FFG-7s though and they were built for the express purpose of escorting trans-Atlantic convoys if the Cold War turned Hot so...if you REALLY wanted to do it I'd say its certainly in the realm of possibility, just remember cost.

[quote="Cliffy B"]Technically cruisers WERE defined by their gun calibers but that's mute as well given the time period :big_grin: [/quote]

Sure, by the treaties in the 1920' and 1930's. Those treaties were abandoned by/due to WWII...but in 1975 the USN realigned ship designations as well. From the Long Beach (1961) on caliber of gun did not define a cruiser... but I know you're just poking fun.

[quote="Cliffy B"]Have you ever seen photos or drawings of FF-1070? She trialed the Mk-29 system for the class. Photos seem to be very rare but I do have one line drawing (just side view) of her I can send you if you'd like.

Mods were:
A Mk-29 in place of the Mk-25
One Mk-95 in place of the Mk-115,
SPS-40 moved to a small lattice quadpod in place of the after SATCOM antennae atop the hangar
TAS in place of the SPS-40
One Mk-95 on a tall lattice quadpod directly behind the Mk-68 GFCS.

The mods look sound. Only thing I'd suggest changing is possibly switching the locations of the SPS-40 and TAS. Depends on which one you want to see further and/or have better coverage.[/quote]

I have seen the line drawings, and the photos. The photos do not support the line drawings relocation of SPS-40. In the photos, it looks like SPS-40 was replaced my Mk23TAS - No SPS-40 aboard. But between MK23TAS and SPQ-9A, another surface search radar is probably not needed, so I gave the prime real estate to the Mk23.

I think they put the Mk95 in the wrong position - it had a forward arc while the launcher it supported had an aft arc - so I moved it for my build.

[quote="Cliffy B"]Also, the ASROC mag only carries 16 reloads, not 18. Harpoon was first fitted to the 1052s in August of 1976 aboard FF-1090. Just saying, its not "inconceivable" to have them in the ASROC launcher, just a matter of preference. I think housing them outside is always the best decision unless you physically can't put them anywhere.[/quote]

Good point - fat finger on the number. I did not know Harpoon was installed on Knox's that early. Logical to potentially have them in the mix until quad launchers replaced them - maybe a 1985-ish refit where the vessels would pick up NMLRS.

[quote="Cliffy B"]One other to consider is how the Mk-71 performed when installed on the [i]Hull[/i]. I've discussed this with Dave before and almost all of its misgivings can be attributed to the fact that it was mounted on a ship too small to handle it. The 1052s aren't much larger and neither were built to take the stresses of the gun. The 963s were built from the onset to have the gun installed, all of them! Not saying the 1052s couldn't have one but that it probably wouldn't perform as effectively as it could if it was in a larger hull.[/quote]

Hull reported cracks BEFORE installation of the Mk71, and she was built MUCH lighter than the Knox class. The Knox was designed and built to take more shock than any escort before it - they theorized it may have to actually use the nuclear depth charge available (a fools errand, but they tried...). Not saying they could have survived, but they had higher knee knockers than most ships. The Sherman's had a reputation for being lightly built, the Knox's had a reputation for being heavily built.

As I backed into this from a systems approach - using the systems that could have been available, naturally the first swing added the systems in question. Today, I am leaning toward leaving the Mk 42.

I have another theory adding the Mk71 and eliminating the SQS-26 for the SQS-56, as medium frequency works better in the shallow water a fire support ship would primarily operate in. That may trade some weight, but I shelved it as probably being more work than was worthwhile, especially since it reduces blue water ASW capability during the cold war - that probably never would have been acceptable.

[quote="Cliffy B"]Not trying to rain on your parade, just voicing some opinions :wave_1:[/quote]

No issue - I like the debate - it helps logically flesh things out.

The USS Hull had a partial installation of the Mk71 gun. The gun, gun house, and training mechanism were fit. The magazine was not fit. After sea trials were completed the gun was removed and the original Mk42 gun replaced. There were problems with hull cracking on the hull after the trials completed. Repairs were made, but a long term fitting of the gun would have lead to serious problems.

Technically cruisers WERE defined by their gun calibers but that's mute as well given the time period :big_grin:

Have you ever seen photos or drawings of FF-1070? She trialed the Mk-29 system for the class. Photos seem to be very rare but I do have one line drawing (just side view) of her I can send you if you'd like.

Mods were:
A Mk-29 in place of the Mk-25
One Mk-95 in place of the Mk-115,
SPS-40 moved to a small lattice quadpod in place of the after SATCOM antennae atop the hangar
TAS in place of the SPS-40
One Mk-95 on a tall lattice quadpod directly behind the Mk-68 GFCS.

The mods look sound. Only thing I'd suggest changing is possibly switching the locations of the SPS-40 and TAS. Depends on which one you want to see further and/or have better coverage.

Also, the ASROC mag only carries 16 reloads, not 18. Harpoon was first fitted to the 1052s in August of 1976 aboard FF-1090. Just saying, its not "inconceivable" to have them in the ASROC launcher, just a matter of preference. I think housing them outside is always the best decision unless you physically can't put them anywhere.

One other to consider is how the Mk-71 performed when installed on the [i]Hull[/i]. I've discussed this with Dave before and almost all of its misgivings can be attributed to the fact that it was mounted on a ship too small to handle it. The 1052s aren't much larger and neither were built to take the stresses of the gun. The 963s were built from the onset to have the gun installed, all of them! Not saying the 1052s couldn't have one but that it probably wouldn't perform as effectively as it could if it was in a larger hull.

Not trying to rain on your parade, just voicing some opinions :wave_1:

[quote="Seasick"] Your arming a frigate like its a cruiser. [/quote]

The analogy is irrelevant here. the weapon is intended to fit the role, no more, no less. A cruiser is not defined by mounting an 8" gun.

[quote="Seasick"]First the Mk71 203mm gun is very heavy and the Spruance is the smallest hull you would want to put it on. 90% of fire support missions can be accomplished by a 127mm gun.

For the Knox class the Mk42 gun is a good thing to retain. [/quote]

As stated, I would do the refit even without the Mk71. A rapid fire 5" would not be a bad option for fire support. My initial build will leave the Mk42 in place for the sake of simplicity in the conversion (thus, potential expanding the number of vessels this may have been applied too). Once I work out scratch building a Mk 71, I'll do the math. There was sufficient gross margin in the design to take the weight, but I still have to work the math on that added weight in that location.

[quote="Seasick"] Being the 1980s the USN was developing the land attack version of the Harpoon now SLAM. In the 1980s the Knox class had two cells of the ASROC modified to fire Harpoon with two Harpoons stored in the launcher and one or two reloads in the magazine behind it. Fitting SLAM in place of Harpoon would be a sinch.[/quote]

My refit is dated 1981. Prior to SLAM, and prior to modification of the cells to fire Harpoon. I say again, my modification WOULD NOT HAVE harpoon in the cells - I am placing Harpoons aft of the mack. I want all 8 rounds in the cells and 18 reload positions available for ASROC/SMARTROC/NMLRS. SLAM would not be available until the early 1990's (Gulf War), and these ships could have been some of the first to get it.

[quote="Seasick"] Also an important mission for the improved Knox would be counter battery fire. A coastal artillary unit with 150mm 130mm, or 105mm guns could force a ship in a fire support mission to withdraw. If the knox has AN/SPQ9A fit and the Mk23 TAS for NATO Sea Sparrow fit software was available then to use radar data to calculate a solution for firing at the enemy gun. aka counter battery fire.[/quote]

Natrually.

[quote="Seasick"] Finally the Knox class in the 1980s had Phalanx in place of the Mk25 BPDMS launcher. YOu could instead fit the Mk29 launcher for NATO Sea Sparrow. Besides the Mk23 TAS you'll need to add one or two Mk95 target tracking/illumination radars for the NATO Sea Sparrow. [/quote]

Year of the fit is 1981, before CIWS fits. I did indicate the Mk 29 launcher. I've already indicated a Mk95 on the hangar roof.

[quote="Seasick"]With the tanker war starting in 1981/1982 you can fit early 25mm Bushmaster mounts to the ship or twin 20mm guns of WW2 vintage carried by some ships as a stopgap after it was realized that the 0.5cal M2 machine gun didn't have the fire power to stop the light craft the revolutionary guard was using to harras/attack USN ships.[/quote]

They certainly would have picked up the Mk38, but much later than 1981. The 20mm would be a nice add. I would place them on the aft superstructure corners.

I'm leaving the Spruance class comments for the Spruance class thread.

Adding a bulwark to a [i]Sprucan[/i] would be "very expensive"?? Really now? It's just some braced sheet steel/aluminum that has had all of the design work done already and aboard some 30 odd [i]Ticos[/i]. A shipyard could pound out a bulwark for one of them in no time flat. Maybe I misread your statement or there's a clarity issue.

Your arming a frigate like its a cruiser. First the Mk71 203mm gun is very heavy and the Spruance is the smallest hull you would want to put it on. 90% of fire support missions can be accomplished by a 127mm gun. A Spruance can only take a 32 cell Mk41 VLS forward if the Mk71 gun is fit. This was discussed in another forum I frequent. The 32 cell would be a tight fit too. Also the increase in weight might require a bulwark forward like on the Ticonderoga class which would be very expensive.

For the Knox class the Mk42 gun is a good thing to retain. Being the 1980s the USN was developing the land attack version of the Harpoon now SLAM. In the 1980s the Knox class had two cells of the ASROC modified to fire Harpoon with two Harpoons stored in the launcher and one or two reloads in the magazine behind it. Fitting SLAM in place of Harpoon would be a sinch. Also an important mission for the improved Knox would be counter battery fire. A coastal artillary unit with 150mm 130mm, or 105mm guns could force a ship in a fire support mission to withdraw. If the knox has AN/SPQ9A fit and the Mk23 TAS for NATO Sea Sparrow fit software was available then to use radar data to calculate a solution for firing at the enemy gun. aka counter battery fire. Finally the Knox class in the 1980s had Phalanx in place of the Mk25 BPDMS launcher. YOu could instead fit the Mk29 launcher for NATO Sea Sparrow. Besides the Mk23 TAS you'll need to add one or two Mk95 target tracking/illumination radars for the NATO Sea Sparrow. With the tanker war starting in 1981/1982 you can fit early 25mm Bushmaster mounts to the ship or twin 20mm guns of WW2 vintage carried by some ships as a stopgap after it was realized that the 0.5cal M2 machine gun didn't have the fire power to stop the light craft the revolutionary guard was using to harras/attack USN ships.

Mk 41 VLS didn't go to sea until Bunker Hill in 1985, and I'm timing the mod for 1981, so VLS is initially out of scope. I do not believe there is space below the ASROC box to drop in the VLS, so a later refit would have to move items from below the box it the vacated reload space in the base of the upperworks. That may be too much work for a 1988-ish refit of a vessel which would only have about 10 years of life after the refit.

SMARTROC and NMLRS would require a slewing/elevating launcher until more development was done - and one of the motivators of using these weapons was increasing the utility of already extant launchers and units.

Moving into the future (the Hill group and DDG-51 flt mod1) VLS is certaily the way to go - and I think 1995 (in service for the Hill group) is probably a realistic time to expect VLNMLRS. I don't see SMARTROC making the VL transition in its old form, but maybe a new version using a VLASROC motor to throw a JDAM...
(I had posted a quote with the stats from the one reference I have for SMARTROC in another thread)

I do not intend for my mod Knox to carry Harpoon in the Box, they have it aft of the mack, and I want the magazine space for ASROC/SMARTROC/NMLRS pods.

Excellent point on the Helos - I'll leave SH-60 out of it.

64(61) cells + Mk 71 seems extreme to me, due to weight. I also posted this with weight numbers in the Spru thread.

First off, great ideas! Please continue fleshing these out :thumbs_up_1:

SMARTROC initially only had a range equal to ASROC. Later on they made a second version that had range equal to a 5"/54. The only problem with it is it takes up space that ASROC can occupy, same if you carry Harpoons like some of the FFs did. A balanced load would need to be carried and would wind undermining the effectiveness of both roles. IF you can in your designs, sub VLS for the pepper box as you'll greatly increase the mag capacity and make carrying SMARTROC viable. But as you said, having an 8" might nullify SMARTROC. An 8" round is roughly equivalent to the power of a Harpoon. I'm not sure of the correlation between that a 500lb bomb. An 8" shell weighs around 260lb but its bursting charge is less than 30lb. How much actual explosive it carries I don't know; Dave?!

I believe a full 64 cell VLS will still fit aboard a [i]Spruance[/i] even with a Mk-71 installed but don't quote me on that. Dave and I discussed that awhile back and I'm pretty sure we came to that conclusion.

If you want the ship to use Mk-29 Sea Sparrow then you need TAS, they go hand in hand and are on all ships (US anyway) that carry it. I wouldn't worry too much about the helo, SH-2 should be fine for your time frame. Add a FFG-7 to your ARG for aerial defense and have it supply the SH-60s (and their dipping sonars), you're FF can always control them if need be.

For updating the GFCS on the [i]Knox[/i] look at how it was done on final few DDG-2s. It was originally planned to upgrade the whole class but money forced it cutback to half and then just four or so.

A Mk-71 Mod 0 mount weighs 172,895 lbs with 75 ready service rounds in the drum.
A Mk-42 Mod 9 mount weighs 145,930 lbs with a a full drum.

So swapping the guns you wind up adding 26,965 lbs to the front of the ship; 13.48 tons. You might to need to add some weight compensation aft to keep it from getting even wetter forward and from possibly being nose heavy. No idea if swapping the pepper box for a small VLS section would help with the forward weight or not, anyone know? Remember they had a re-load magazine under the bridge so if VLS was installed all of that would be gutted and would become usable space.

Hope that helps
-Mike

I have been working this through for awhile, and I intend to use this timeline as a basis for some Whif modeling when I get the time:

Goal: 1- To get full utilization of extant hulls
2- To replace fire support capability lost with retirement of WWII ships
3- Increase the capabilities of the fleet on the whole
Start of Timeframe: 1981

The Spruance class was showing itself to be master of ASW early on, so the Navy did not want to ‘sacrifice’ any of them to fire support. However, that did lead to other older ASW assets being displaced – specifically the FFs. Units of the Knox class were selected for conversion for increased fire support – they were relatively new, and had good margins and room available. The Bronsteins and Garcias were too small to take the Mk 71 and a full complement of the systems desired, as well as being older.

Knox’s have a speed which makes battlegroup operations challenging, but not ARG operations. These vessels would primarily work with LPDs, providing ASW escort to and from the target area, and fire support and ASW within the target area. These modified Knox Class would serve until the late 90’s (decommed 1995-98), where the great purge of boilers from the USN finally caught up with them.

Their Mk71s were refurbished and refit to the Spruance Class Destroyers which had originally been fit with the Mk 44 ABLs. DD 974, 976, 979, 983, 984, 989, 990 had their ABLs replaced with a 48 (32?) cell VLS and the forward Mk 45 5”/54 with the refurbished Mk71s from the mod Knox class. VLS ESSM was not ready at the time of conversion, so they all retained the Mk29 Sea Sparrow system. DD 986 was also modified as the first of the group (even though she never carried the Mk 44 ABL) – leading to these eight vessels sometimes being referred to as the Harry W. Hill group. (note – this has USS Deyo becoming part of this group instead of being modified from ABL to VLS)

Others of the Spruance class were refit with some of the NTU equipment from the decommissioning Leahy and Belknap class in the early 90’s (instead of the 61 cell VLS refit actually performed). The first ship modified was the David R Ray – so this became the Ray group, and included 10 vessels: DDs 966, 971, 973, 975, 977, 978, 980, 981, 982, and 987. All became DDGs.

Three additional vessels of the Spruance class were completed as DDH – DDH 997-999 (commissioned 1983-85). They were the intended DDH Hayler design with the Mk 71 forward, SMARTROC, and, after commissioning, NMLRS capability.

USS Salem and USS Des Moines were also modified and recommissioned in the 1980’s Regan build-up, the Hayler DDH’s work with them, with LPDs broken off of an ARG, or independently.

Thus:
Mod Knox – 1981-1998. (see below, probably 8-12 vessels)

Hill Group Spruance: 1995-2013. 8 ships. Mk 71 Fwd, 48 cell VLS fwd.
Ray Group Spruance: 1993-2014. 10 ships (14 if you count the Kidds). NTU sensors (SPS-48E, SPS-49) and computers from decommed Leahy/Belknap cruisers, two directors (OY-88) plus SPG-60 already aboard, VLS forward replacing the ASROC, VLS aft replacing the Mk 29. Very similar to the Kidd Class once they received 48 cell VLS fore and aft in place of the Mk 26 launchers. Replaced by DDG-51 Flt IIA
Hayler DDH: 1983-2018. 3 ships. Hayler as intended to be a DDH, with the Mk 71 fwd.
Spru mod reference thread: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=43658

Mod Burke flight I: 2011- on. Functionally replaces the Hill group Spruance, which would be end of life at about 2011-2013. Mid-life upgrade to the Flt I Burkes, adding a new Mk 71 gun (or AGS-L) fwd, Mk38 p/s, VL MRLS.
Ref thread: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=64665

Leaving:
Mod Knox, 1981:
1 x Mk 71 fwd (replaces Mk 42)
1 X Mk116mod ASROC launcher (8cells) w/SMARTROC capability (NMLRS added beginning approx 1985)
SPG-60 above the bridge (replaces Mk 68) yes, the Mk 86 GFCS.
SPQ-9A immediately aft of the SPG-60 on a short mast similar to the mounting of the Mk 92 on the OHPs
2x TV/IR search and designator: one fwd on the mack, on aft on the mack (basically, the MMS from the OH-58D)
SPS-40 stays in place
Mk23 TAS takes the masthead position away from the SPS-10/67
SLQ-32(v)3 either side of the mack. Active jamming to allow close to shore operations.
8x Harpoon immediately aft of the mack
Mk95 director for Sea Sparrow on the Hangar roof
1x Mk 29 Sea Sparrow aft (8 Cells)

Systems needed:
Tested, not deployed:
Mk 71 mod 0 – Production baseline 203mm/55. Essentially, a de-bugged version of the prototype weapon. 12-15 rpm, laser guided rounds available. Estimated YIS 1981
SMARTROC - The developed version tested in 1978 – Booster on a Mk82 LGB fired from the ASROC launcher. Estimated YIS 1981

Theoretical:
NMLRS – Mk26A1/2 in sealed 4 round packs. Some cells (4?) of the Mk 116 ASROC launcher modified to take the weapon. The dimensions of the M26 rockets with an estimate of the size of each cell of the ASROC box makes this probable. YIS – probably about 1985.
NTACMS – ATACMS in a maritime canister. Uses same modified ASROC cells as the Mk26 packs. Would a 24” rocket fit in an ASROC cell? Not sure.

This makes the ASROC pepperbox a multi-use launcher, capable of using ASROC, SMARTROC, and NMLRS.

Concerns/considerations:

Helo: I am contemplating altering the Helo hangar to lengthen it to handle one SH-60 in a fixed hangar. My eyeball says it looks like this could be done by extending the hangar structure forward to about where the boat davits are. But, we did hang on to the SH-2 for quite a while, and SH-60 capability didn’t even get to the Spruance’s until later. This tells me it probably wouldn’t have been done until the 90’s, and by then, do you put that effort into these vessels with only 8-ish years of service left?

Mk 71. I know I am going to get grief for this one. Knox is a larger platform than Hull (20ft longer, 2 ft more beam). Knox’s had a reputation for being wet forward and were modified, but this came from a shear bow form, not because they were heavy by the bow. The timeline I have for modifying these vessels is the same timeline the class added the strakes and bulwarks. I would have any needed reinforcing done to the bow at this time as well.

If the Mk71 is aboard – is NMLRS needed? Yes, I say. The initial version of MLRS is submunition only, so there are targets which need to be serviced where a massive amount of submunitions are not the answer. Even if a unitary warhead (not developed until much later) generated a similar impact to an 8” round, there would be no way to carry enough unitary rounds in addition to ARSOC, M26 four pack, and/or SMARTROC rounds.

That being said, I would perform this mod even without the Mk 71, as the rate of fire of the Mk 42 had been mostly worked out by the early 1980s, even though those mods/habits/training would take time to work through the fleet (a large part of that was the move to an all volunteer force).

I have also considered a simpler modification only adding SMARTROC, Mk23 TAS, Mk95 and Sea Sparrow. In Shipbucket, there seems to be a similar concept posted there, with the same timeline (1981), but without Mk23 TAS or SMARTROC.
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Never%20Built%20Designs/United%20States%20of%20America/FF-1083%20Cook%20LFS.png

I'm just not sure that Sea Sparrow would have a target without Mk23 TAS.