The Ship Model Forum

if i may make a suggestion , why dont the germans build a sewerage missile and launch it to the u.n , they always give the world a bad taste so why not return a favour : thumbs_up : well she sounds solid , looks solid and if you "by accident" wasted or dropped some of your jam or food on the plan and sip it up i guess the plan would taste solid . Now if this ship had a few escorts it would make a few nations panicky . But overall brilliant job mr.dave

[quote="Diederick44"]i did check out the pic that was posted , the side view really does look good but how about a top view ? ?[/quote]Sorry, man. No top view. You will just have to imagine :D

[quote="Diederick44"]And how much do you estimate your ships current weight if it was built to life size ? ? Stability does play a huge role in a mission since the weather these days isnt as calm...[/quote] I don't think it would be over 40,500 tons fully loaded. A lot of weight would be traded. Especially considering the greater length, I still don't think the additional weight would affect the ship's stability much if at all.

[quote="Diederick44"]and i think 96 missile tubes on a ship would surely get the U.N council to wear diapers for a long time : woo-hoo :[/quote]It depends on what is in the tubes, but what would the UN do? That's right...they would write an angry letter...and that's it.

This ship would not have Tomahawks. I don't imagine the Germans are interested in shooting over 1,000 miles into other countries like the US. They might make some sort of land attack cruise missile (KEPD-150?) or maybe a BrahMos for anti-ship work, but I imagine the ship would mostly embark SM-2s and maybe VLAs. Modern 11" or 15" guns firing long range guided munitions I imagine would be more of a concern to other nations, their coasts, and their shipping.

i did check out the pic that was posted , the side view really does look good but how about a top view ? ? And how much do you estimate your ships current weight if it was built to life size ? ? . Stability does play a huge role in a mission since the weather these days isnt as calm and i think 96 missile tubes on a ship would surely get the U.N council to wear diapers for a long time : woo-hoo :

Hi, Diederick44!

[quote="Diederick44"]...where are the missile bay or bays situated now on the ship ? ?[/quote] I have them centerline between the bridge and Turret 2 and between the helo deck and Turret 3. The ship would be equiped with a pproximately 96 Mk41 VLS tubes.

[quote="Diederick44"] I think that this ship has so much potential to be a good all round ship , taking into account that she could handle the weight .[/quote]I think it can. They were some beefy ships with Bismarck-like stability. I don't think the modifications would endanger its stability.

[quote="Diederick44"]The main thing is that i have been thinking is that you guys want a retro ship , but how modern can the super structures be made to give her a sleek but deadly look[/quote]It's not a retro ship, it's a gun ship. Take a look earlier in the thread, and you will see a picture I drew up with shipbucket. It's practically a Scharnhorst hull with a Sachen's super structure. :D

hello mr.dave you are blooming with ideas about this one , quick question again from my side , where are the missile bay or bays situated now on the ship ? ? I think that this ship has so much potential to be a good all round ship , taking into account that she could handle the weight . The main thing is that i have been thinking is that you guys want a retro ship , but how modern can the super structures be made to give her a sleek but deadly look

We realize that the main battery would have to be at least 11" and maybe even upgunned to 15". However, with the modern European and American guns that are available, what kind of secondary battery would you prefer? What guns should be used?

Should there be armor on the ship? If so, how much and why? If not, why the hell not? :D

With the German mission in mind, what kind of VLS tubes? Mk41 deep? Mk41 Self Defense? How many?

What kind of CIWS? Phalanx, Goalkeeper, Millennium Gun, RAM, SeaRAM? I don't think the Germans would use a Russian variant, but what about a Russian type?

How many helos should a ship like this carry? Cargo-type (1-2), ASW-type (2-4), amphibious assault-type (4-6)?

I am interested what people think about this one. It might make a good model someday! :D

[quote="Diederick44"]ahoy mr.dave ! [/quote]Ahoy, Mr. Diederick!

[quote="Diederick44"]I hope everything has been going well , i wanted to ask you , would you consider the D.R.E.A.D gun system for a secondary armament ? ? It uses centrifugal force to sling a round , i have read that a .50 caliber D.R.E.A.D gun can fire up to a 120 000 rpm , would it be a good choice or a bad one ? ?[/quote]It's a pretty interesting system! A secondary battery, no; a CIWS system, absolutely! It sounds like the type of system a close in weapon system would really take advantage of.

ahoy mr.dave ! I hope everything has been going well , i wanted to ask you , would you consider the D.R.E.A.D gun system for a secondary armament ? ? It uses centrifugal force to sling a round , i have read that a .50 caliber D.R.E.A.D gun can fire up to a 120 000 rpm , would it be a good choice or a bad one ? ?

[quote="Diederick44"]i have a odd question , what sort of power plant would this modern scharnhorst have ? ? Why i am asking this is because a lot of ships are restrained by fuel capacity and as you all know . Generators tend to eat fuel to keep a ship powerd and lighted up , radar systems are also heavy on juice . What it comes down to is that a crew cant operate in pitch black darkness . And you might be asking . Okay this is a silly question because it wont really effect the model . Wrong guys it would because a diesel power plant has a whole different exhaust out lay than a fuel oil one , a nuclear powerd ship wont even have a exhaust i think . So it would effect the look and super structures . Just my opinion[/quote]
I was thinking a combined diesel and gas turbine plant. That's why I chose the stacks I depict in the picture :D

i have a odd question , what sort of power plant would this modern scharnhorst have ? ? Why i am asking this is because a lot of ships are restrained by fuel capacity and as you all know . Generators tend to eat fuel to keep a ship powerd and lighted up , radar systems are also heavy on juice . What it comes down to is that a crew cant operate in pitch black darkness . And you might be asking . Okay this is a silly question because it wont really effect the model . Wrong guys it would because a diesel power plant has a whole different exhaust out lay than a fuel oil one , a nuclear powerd ship wont even have a exhaust i think . So it would effect the look and super structures . Just my opinion

[quote="navydavesof"]Dahlgren developed a 12" automatic loader based on the Mk16 8" gun in the late 1990s. I am sure the Germans would be happy to buy/lease that design or develop their own for large and major caliber guns. I really don't think that the Mk45/Mk71 design would work for anything over 8". Instead they would step it up...or down...to the Mk16 design. The Mk16 gun provides for either 11" or 15" guns. Naval gunfire, especially 15" would be able to accomplish all of the Scharnhorst land attack mission without relying on super expensive missiles...
The only information I have on that came from 3 e-mails I sent to a retired engineer at Dahlgren. He's from whom I have gotten a lot of my Mk71 and AGS information.

What he said is that it was made from an existing 12"/50 caliber gun, yoke, and breach they had from WWII. They designed a two-hoist loading system very similar to that used by the Des Moines-class Mk16 8" gun. These hoists would be behind and on opposite sides of the gun. The projectile would be on one side and the propellant charge on the other. The two hoists would come together and ram both into the gun. He also said that depending on how detailed design would go, either they could use a single ram where both projectile and propellant were loaded at the same time or a double ram where the casing did not have to be nearly as reinforced to absorb the forces of ramming a 900+lb projectile.

He said that if they had received funding to fully develop a prototype mount and loading system, they expected 6-8 rounds per minute out of a single 12" gun.

This came about after the Navy ordered a study from Dahlgren to assess what caliber gun would satisfy all of the Navy's anti-surface warfare and naval surface fire support needs in range, lethality, and accuracy. Dahlgren stated a gun with a minimum diameter of 10" capable of firing rocket assisted guided projectiles was needed. They took what they had, a 12"/50caliber gun, and made a sub-prototype test. No further work was ordered. Instead the 155mm caliber was selected for further study.[/quote]
This would have been a very potent weapon.

[quote="navydavesof"]So, while it needs a lot of real-world (and WIF) development, I have chosen this weapon to mount as the primary battery aboard my future large cruiser (the Alaska-plus class). As opposed to three-gun turrets, I have these weapons mounted two to a turret with a magazine arranged similarly to the Mk45 and Mk71 magazines in the Spruance-class utilizing the Mk71's overhead mono-rail-style crane to move projectiles and propellant from the storage cages to the hoists. The magazine design requires more thought, but I have been thinking about using the clip-type ready service loader arranged in a lateral instead of a circular arrangement for each gun in the turret.[/quote]

I am thinking along somewhat similar lines: a 24cm/60 weapon, smooth bore barrel (all rounds woud be very long finned sabots with extremely high ballistic coefficients), and the gun would operate at extremely high muzzle velocities (1,200m/s +). The weapon will probably have to employ a double ram loading cycle given the projectile lengths I am envisioning. The gun would probably have a RoF of 5-6 rounds per minute at best, but those rounds would fly even w/o rockets or base bleed!

[quote="Busto963"][quote="navydavesof"]Dahlgren developed a 12" automatic loader based on the Mk16 8" gun in the late 1990s. I am sure the Germans would be happy to buy/lease that design or develop their own for large and major caliber guns. I really don't think that the Mk45/Mk71 design would work for anything over 8". Instead they would step it up...or down...to the Mk16 design. The Mk16 gun provides for either 11" or 15" guns. Naval gunfire, especially 15" would be able to accomplish all of the Scharnhorst land attack mission without relying on super expensive missiles.[/quote]

Do you have any details of the 12" automatic loader? I am curious as to RoF, did it use powder bags, did it do a "double ram" cycle: inquiring minds want to know![/quote]
The only information I have on that came from 3 e-mails I sent to a retired engineer at Dahlgren. He's from whom I have gotten a lot of my Mk71 and AGS information.

What he said is that it was made from an existing 12"/50 caliber gun, yoke, and breach they had from WWII. They designed a two-hoist loading system very similar to that used by the Des Moines-class Mk16 8" gun. These hoists would be behind and on opposite sides of the gun. The projectile would be on one side and the propellant charge on the other. The two hoists would come together and ram both into the gun. He also said that depending on how detailed design would go, either they could use a single ram where both projectile and propellant were loaded at the same time or a double ram where the casing did not have to be nearly as reinforced to absorb the forces of ramming a 900+lb projectile.

He said that if they had received funding to fully develop a prototype mount and loading system, they expected 6-8 rounds per minute out of a single 12" gun.

This came about after the Navy ordered a study from Dahlgren to assess what caliber gun would satisfy all of the Navy's anti-surface warfare and naval surface fire support needs in range, lethality, and accuracy. Dahlgren stated a gun with a minimum diameter of 10" capable of firing rocket assisted guided projectiles was needed. They took what they had, a 12"/50caliber gun, and made a sub-prototype test. No further work was ordered. Instead the 155mm caliber was selected for further study.

So, while it needs a lot of real-world (and WIF) development, I have chosen this weapon to mount as the primary battery aboard my future large cruiser (the Alaska-plus class). As opposed to three-gun turrets, I have these weapons mounted two to a turret with a magazine arranged similarly to the Mk45 and Mk71 magazines in the Spruance-class utilizing the Mk71's overhead mono-rail-style crane to move projectiles and propellant from the storage cages to the hoists. The magazine design requires more thought, but I have been thinking about using the clip-type ready service loader arranged in a lateral instead of a circular arrangement for each gun in the turret.

[quote="navydavesof"]Dahlgren developed a 12" automatic loader based on the Mk16 8" gun in the late 1990s. I am sure the Germans would be happy to buy/lease that design or develop their own for large and major caliber guns. I really don't think that the Mk45/Mk71 design would work for anything over 8". Instead they would step it up...or down...to the Mk16 design. The Mk16 gun provides for either 11" or 15" guns. Naval gunfire, especially 15" would be able to accomplish all of the Scharnhorst land attack mission without relying on super expensive missiles.[/quote]

Do you have any details of the 12" automatic loader? I am curious as to RoF, did it use powder bags, did it do a "double ram" cycle: inquiring minds want to know!

Oh, goodness, you're dragging me back into the WIF world of Scharnhorst!
[quote="proditor"]What are envisioning for the main battery in terms of modernization? Without some dramatic changes, aren't the MONARC's going to almost out range the 11"?[/quote]It would be petty dumb not to modernize the 11" the same way they modernized the 155mm for the MONARC, wouldn't it?

Of course the 11" and larger would be modernized with much the same technology as the 155mm of the United States. The secondary battery would be 155mm and would employ the technology from the US's GPS guided Excaliber and LRLAP projectiles.

[quote="proditor"]Or were you thinking something like the discarding SABOT DARPA cooked up for the Iowas back in the day?[/quote]No, just a modern version of such a projectile. The only reason you know about the DARPA stuff is because that was back when the US took naval gunfire seriously. The larger the projectile, the easier it is to fit it with guidance and extended range technology. If this ship were to be built, I have 100% faith that the Germans would indeed build upon their own extended range munitions technology and maximize the projectiles for the guns. By all means, projectiles provide the best cost/benefit ratio for effect on range from 5" to 18".

[quote="proditor"]Neat pic btw! I wish someone would make a few of the neater gun installations (30mm Mk44, Millennium Gun, MONARC, etc.) in resin, and preferably for me, in 1/700 scale. ;)[/quote]If you want to make a 1/350, PM me, and we can talk.

So, generally,
This ship is predicated on the Germans thinking that is was an okay idea to build a modern Scharnhorst to fit their fleet. If they were to do that, they would build one with modern large guns, like her original 11" weapons. My idea is that she would start off with 11" automatic guns to stay within the treaty limits of "no major caliber guns!!!" Of course, "major caliber guns" means 12" or greater. So, she would start off with 11" automatic guns but would be able to be fitted for larger is the Germans wanted. Later, the Germans would want to, and they would step it up to another caliber they knew already, the 15", and fit her accordingly.

Dahlgren developed a 12" automatic loader based on the Mk16 8" gun in the late 1990s. I am sure the Germans would be happy to buy/lease that design or develop their own for large and major caliber guns. I really don't think that the Mk45/Mk71 design would work for anything over 8". Instead they would step it up...or down...to the Mk16 design. The Mk16 gun provides for either 11" or 15" guns. Naval gunfire, especially 15" would be able to accomplish all of the Scharnhorst land attack mission without relying on super expensive missiles.

So, yes, I would continue to use large/major caliber guns for this ship. The secondary battery would be at least a Monarc if not a multiple gun turret or larger gun.

What are envisioning for the main battery in terms of modernization? Without some dramatic changes, aren't the MONARC's going to almost out range the 11"?

Or were you thinking something like the discarding SABOT DARPA cooked up for the Iowas back in the day?

Neat pic btw! I wish someone would make a few of the neater gun installations (30mm Mk44, Millennium Gun, MONARC, etc.) in resin, and preferably for me, in 1/700 scale. ;)

[quote="richtea"]Interesting concept Dave,
if the bows of the ship want redesigning, why not go for the ultra modern X bow concept. This would give you the space for the guns and vertical launchers.
Regards
Richard[/quote]
Interesting. Seasick posted something about this type of bow before.

I think this is the type of bow you're talking about.
[img]http://www.ulstein.com/kunder/ulstein/mm.nsf/lupGraphics/X-Bow%20explanation5.jpg/$file/X-Bow%20explanation5.jpg[/img]
[img]http://vigorindustrial.com/img/site/opc-graysea.jpg[/img]
There is already plenty of room for the guns, because they are already there, and the missile launchers fit. I don't think the Germans would fit more than 64 VLS tubes in a ship like this anyway.

However, while I see what you mean of allowing more hull volume for missile launchers, that hull volume would all be accommodated way up front near the bow. Unfortunately, you typically don't want mechanically involved weapons systems like those, or CIWS, etc where sea water is going to be crashing over them. Gun turrets are okay, because they have few moving parts that need to be sealed against sea water in comparison to a VLS system so the VLS needs to be further into the ship and/or totally surrounded by a shroud like the Type 45 DDGs have.

[quote="Busto963"]Dave,
This is an awesome design!
The Germans designed these ships to fight in the North Sea where weather would largely tend to limit engagement ranges (before the profusion of radar). The armor protection schemes reflected this, as well as a much lessened emphasis in defending against high-altitude bombers.[/quote]
Thank you. A modern equipped Scharnhorst is on my long list of to-do models. I think it would be fun if it were an element, or the center piece, of a story involving the Germans sometime in the mot too distant future. :D

Interesting concept Dave,
if the bows of the ship want redesigning, why not go for the ultra modern X bow concept. This would give you the space for the guns and vertical launchers.
Regards
Richard

[quote="navydavesof"]They are pretty cool ships. I have been learning a lot about them lately. I have come to learn how the Germans arranged their armor on these ships, and boy, if we were going to do it today, like this design, the arrangement would have to be altered quite a bit to emphasize deck armor. Apparently the Germans were all about side armor but not so much on the decks. I hear they planned on getting in close and having knife fights with main guns so a lot more emphasis was placed on the side belts.[/quote]
Dave,
This is an awesome design!
The Germans designed these ships to fight in the North Sea where weather would largely tend to limit engagement ranges (before the profusion of radar). The armor protection schemes reflected this, as well as a much lessened emphasis in defending against high-altitude bombers.

i want to scratchbuild it ! But with a few other parts , any guys willing to draw up the super structure ? ? And i really enjoy german engineering because they build unique guns and they usually have beautiful ships balanced with purpose :shipcaptain:

Hey Russ, thanks for posting theses pics it really illustrates what I'm talking about. The Tamiya kit is good, great for when it was released but really needs an update.The 1/350 Revell isn't a very good kit but captures the shape of the bow much better. I've built 2 Tamiya kits but for this WIF I'm going to do a kitbash. I've dry fitted my Tamiya deck to the Revell hull, and I think I can make it work. Sorry for hi jacking this thread. :big_grin: Now back to the Scharnhorst!