The Ship Model Forum

Got one of the new Hobby Boss USS Lassen kits on the way. Seems the way that kit is constructed can make my planned kitbash easier in some respects. This would be a lot easier to do in 1/350...(and faster if all those summer home projects weren't in the way - paint the deck, stain the fence...etc...)

The cost concern haunts me. I just don't see this vessel as all that expensive - it is essentially a Ticonderoga with more steel and better guns. Ticonderoga was a compromise from more expensive options to get AEGIS to sea, Burke was supposed to be an even more inexpensive way to get more AEGIS to sea...

The larger hull shouldn't really increase construction costs that much (the engineering sunk costs for design would be more), the 76mm/62 was already so mass produced that it will be a inexpensive as it can be, leaving the Mk 71 construction costs - probably not all that significant, but the design and development of the weapon (just like the engineering cost of the hull design) would be the more significant cost.

Of course, for my What-ifs, the Mk 71 is all over the place, so the development and test cost of the Mk 71 would not only be shouldered by this program.

Back from London (and yes, HMS Belfast is great to go aboard...), work continuing.

Trying to decide how to fabricate the 1/700 Mk71, and what to make those gun houses look like. Emulating the prototype Mk71 makes them recognizable but demands a certain level of detail and proportion in the fabrication, where an alternative gun house leaves me freer on the fabrication. I've always thought main guns should have protection rather than a simple fiberglass shield, and a sloped Chobham gun house would provide a good look (and visually match the 'sloping' Burke style superstructure) and protection to the mount, and I am already switching from a 203mm/55 to a 203mm/60 barrel - thus not exact to the prototype. As if the Mk71 wasn't heavy enough already...

Need to ghost out a replacement deck for the donor hull and make a few changes to the hull itself, such as filling in portholes. I'll need to decide how to apply the fantail helo deck - the donor deck steps down, so either a newly fabricated piece or the deck extracted from the DDG-51 Flt IIA donor. There is still the possibility i will decide to move the helo facilities closer to amidships (Spruance/Tico style).

I'd really like to do this in 1/350, but that would be hugely more expensive - donor kits would be 3x as much, and I already have most of the 1/700 parts I need. This should also generate the parts I need for the Flight I modification mentioned in that thread (no answer yet on 1/700 Mk 38s.....)

8"/60 barrels in 1/700 arrived yesterday.

"One of the major problems the Navy faces is cost which is, in large measure, a result of the tendency to design win-the-war-single-handed vessels. A ship that is supposed to be equally capable of doing all things is bound to be hideously expensive"

In fact, there has been no vessel built intending to "win the war" at all, much less single handed. The last US surface warship that didn't compromise too much due to economy was probably Long Beach. Everything else has been a compromise for numbers.

Good, Cheap, Quick. Usually, you can have two of those items, but never all three. USN surface vessels have been cheap and quick, and good mast mostly only an after thought. For this exercise, I intend Good to be the primary driver instead.

Yep, that does mean expensive.

..

Sumi is correct to note that the 76mm was much more likely to be adapted in the time period he is looking at.

Also, for the 1980s, we would looking at the Bofors 57mm Mark 2, not the current MK 3 of MK 110. This means that both guns will be fireng VT fuse ammunition, not the much more effective modern ammunition.

I really think both guns are broadly equivalent now (and then), although the accuracy issues with the 76mm, at least for the time frame in question, a concern.

The MK 110 weighs almost as much empty as the 76mm, which puts the "can carry more ammunition" comment in question. Gun engagements times for resolving AAA or anti-swarm tactics are likely to be decided well under a minute of actual firing putting the premium on ready service capacity which is negligible in comparison to the mount weight. If the engagement runs longer, then the nod goes to the 76mm as the crew can continue loading the mount while the 57mm will be out of service for 2-minutes while the gun reloads its ammunition cassttes. Slow rate of fire is a lot better than 2-minutes of no fire... Because of the funky cassette loading system, the 57mm cannot change between ammunition types unless it was pre-loaded into the cassettes.

The 57mm gun also has a greater slant range (higher altitude) for AAA/C-RAM work than the 76mm.

The 57mm gun is much better than the 76mm in that it is much less prone to jamming and you can carry a lot more ammunition.

Thanks for the feedback so far.

It will never look as good as CSGN-138, but the design philosophy is very similar.

Why Mk 71?
The vessel is intended to fill ALL surface ship roles the BG may need - including ASuW. In fact ASuW would be the biggest BG deficiency that she would help solve. Mk 71 allows for a higher throw weight at a longer range than Mk 45, thus potentially firing into the outer layer, but is not a good tool for small surface targets, thus the 76mm. The timeframe I am projecting for this means the design is probably started in the early 90's, thus Praying Mantis and the RoboCruiser event would be in the minds of the designers. Praying Mantis, Grenada, Lebanon all included a significant amount of Naval Gun Fire Support. By the early 90's the BBs were gone again, and the Marines would have also supported improved NGFS capability. Gunfire not being needed in a battlegroup is a myth not supported by history. There is no naval weapon more used since WWII than the Naval gun.

Why 76mm?
Reference above - needed to handle small surface targets and also to add a CIWS capability farther out than Phalanx (really looking to the Italian philosophy here). That increased 'Not-so Close In Weapons System' may allow better support to a vessel being escorted/supported by this platform. Why not 57mm? for the timeframe I am starting from 76mm was in inventory, 57mm was not. I am trying to minimize the theoretical (really, the only theoretical system here so far is Mk 71). For a later build date or a refit, 57mm would certainly be a possibility. If my timeframe creeps forward, she may get 57mm instead.

Hangar -
The vessel will not always be along side a CV, and in order to be able to fill any holes generated by damaged BG assets, it needs to have its own organic helo capability. While in concert with a CV, this could allow this vessel to take the inner layer ASW (read - SH-60F) mission off the CV flight deck - freeing space for other operations. If this platform has to move further out in the defensive layers, reaction time and time on station for helos is much better if the flight deck is close by. With her own hangar, she is not dependent on CV deck cycles for availability of that asset. Another option is to allow her to help prosecute an ASW contact while the CV moves away from the threat area - again, where the closer deck means better reaction times. The hangar not only allows carriage of her own assets for independent operations, but I have always seen the hangar as a rather versatile space aboard any combatant, and this is born out repeatedly - operations in the Arabian Gulf, Grenada, etc.

Hull -
The guiding principle of this build is to not compromise to available hulls, but build the hull around the systems needed to accomplish missions. Thus I am not seeking to reduce systems to fit into a Spruance hull - Ticos are great at ASW and AAW, but are insufficient ASuW and are packed to the gills - they lack a reasonable measure of reserve stability and have insufficient passive protection. This hull is 611x68, not a conversion of CG-47's 567x55. 50' more length and 13' more beam from Tico, roughly 100' more length than a Burke. This vessel is not intended to 'be escorted' by any other vessel - it is intended to be able to perform all primary surface combatant missions itself. This means high cost, thus it would not be an outer layer vessel.



The real "What-if" here is "What-if we actually built a Surface Combatant, not just a minimum task force escort", or, essentially, a modern cruiser.

A dedicated close escort for the CVN. As far a converting a CG-47 class I'd remove the forward 127mm/54 Mk45 and convert the space inside the hull other purposes. See which departments need more space up there. The CG-47 class had the bulwark added on the bow because of the hull being over loaded forward so lightening the bow should help. On the quarter deck I'd replace the 127mm/54 Mk45 with the new 57mm gun. The 57mm that is being used on the LCS has been around as long as the OTO Martella Super-Rapid 76mm used on the Perry class, it is much less prone to jamming, and has good performance. (57mm = 2.25")

I think 76mm guns are sufficient for this ship given that it will likely be glued to a carrier, or escorted by other surface ships. While Mk 71s are nice, this ship by doctrine should never be alone, and never in Mk 71 range. I would prioritize VLS cells, RAM, and FC radars over the guns.

I would also consider deleting the helicopter hangers, but not the flight deck. Flight quarters tends to dominate the focus of a ship, which I find unacceptable given the number of hangers and flight decks in the fleet, both now and in the time period you are looking at. Apart from the magic of VTOL, a helicopter has inferior flight performance to many 1930's combat aircraft, and also comes with an inferior operational availability rate, greater O&M cost, and worse, a Class A mishap rate and maintenance cost almost an order of magnitude greater than fixed wing aircraft. Just saying...

that's exactly how I designed my CSGN-138. well minus the 76's. my hull is a stretched out burke hull and I used different parts of the burke for my ship. stole the helo hanger only I'm about 80 feet wide. took the bridge, ciws mounts, rib, masts and changed them to better fit the bigger hull. went with two deck houses splitting the spy panels between them. sound like were are thinking along the same lines. the difference is I cant build mine yet. I do want to do some more pictures from different angles and I am working on that. Sound like your Intrepid would be pretty cool

here's the most up-to-date image

So we have done great work theorizing modifications to existing hulls, and as an offshoot of modified Spruance’s and MLU Burke Flt I, the dangerous distraction of ‘what should the ship be, if NOT constrained by the existing hull?’ crept in.

Role: Battle Group ‘lead’ vessel – something able to master AW, AX, AS, even though those roles may actually be held at any given time by another vessel in the BG. This will most likely be AW in a CVBG.

I’m talking about a high-end vessel with the ASW, AAW, and ASuW the battlegroup will need. In chess, frigates (or the LCS, as it is disposable) would be the pawns, Burkes/Spruance’s would be the bishops/rooks (maybe Flt IIA is a knight…), and this vessel would be the queen. The intent would be for the vessel to be the lord and master of the inner layer, and reach from the inner layer into the outer layer– against all types of targets. This has the net effect of generating a vessel also capable of independent operations.

The initial timeframe I am working with is the late ‘90s/early 00’s for commissioning, essentially a follow-on to the Ticonderoga class.

The Tico’s are overloaded, with no real margin for refit, and what are, in truth, unacceptable load characteristics in the event of damage. They were the fastest way to get Aegis into the fleet and did that job well. They have the majority of the systems needed to be queens of the battlegroup, but are far too tight and lack some needed traits.

What will be used?

AAW – Aegis, as fit onboard the Ticonderoga class. Four screens instead of two, separated deckhouses and processors to increase survivability, four FC channels (the FC layout would be improved, to allow more than three of the four FC channels on any given bearing).SPQ-9 and SPS-49 will be included.

ASW – SQQ-89 is the cream of the crop for the time in question

Essentially, we start with the combat systems of a late Tico and make some changes.

Mk 71s replace the Mk 45s, mounts are forward/aft as Tico.

Mk 75 76mm will also be mounted forward/aft superfiring the Mk 71s, but aft/fwd of the Mk41 VLS. A layout of three in a similar configuration to the De La Penne class is a possibility.

Mk41 VLS – numbers of available cells will increase, to what final number I am not clear on yet, but will be at least 192.

Hangar for two SH-60 sized aircraft. One or both of these might be SH-60F until the R becomes available.

This will all require a larger hull than either the Spruance (needs more beam) class or Burke (needs more length) class.

So while I consider Tico the baseline for combat systems, I consider the Burke hull the baseline for what would probably be used for a hull in the late 1990s.
Overall appearance will be very Burke-like, but a 505/509’ length will be insufficient to ship the required systems and include passive protection (yes, armor) and improve survivability. Further, the basic Burke has insufficient range (42-4500nm, this vessel will require at least 6000nm to keep wit the carrier during operations and/or conduct independent steaming).

Increasing hull length will have a side effect of allowing for more bunkerage to increase range. Increased hull size should also allow for improved communications (more and better separated SATCOM antenna mounting points) and provide space for flag facilities.

After considering the Cleveland class (plusses: armor, length - minuses: a little too narrow beam, expensive kit), Virginia (same beam as Cleveland, 20’ shorter length), Long Beach (probably oversized – I need more length but probably not 200’ of it…and an expensive kit), and Baltimore (again, probably too big), I finally found a relatively inexpensive kit with a 611’x68’ hull with a modern shape to base all of this on. I have one other candidate inbound, but that kit has not arrived yet (558’x69). I’ll probably stay with the longer hull.

She’ll run 12,500 tons or more, and need 120,000shp. With the consistent improvement they have displayed over their lifetime, this could be achieved using 4 LM-2500s. I’ll stick with COGAG for this design – more likely to have been built. Nuclear for this vessel would be great – but there is no reactor design past the D2G that would fit (or be quiet enough for anything other than active search in ASW), and I am trying to keep manning and acquisition costs down, which is what I believe would have been a focus in the climate of the ‘90s. My target is to keep the crew to Tico levels in spite of adding a few more systems (really, just the 76mm) but immensely improving durability.

I’ll probably work the Hangar from a DDG-51 Flt IIA into the donor hull on the fantail – meaning the aft weapons will be above and forward of the hangar as on a Flt IIA. The fantail is not the ideal location for the helo deck, so I’m not sold here – but it will be easy to model using existing parts. I imagine I’ll waffle on this one until I like what I see during the build.

The Forward Superstructure will be extracted from a donor DDG-51 and fixed to the subject hull (without the aft SPY-1 panels), while the after superstructure supporting the aft SPY-1 arrays may require some scratchbuild.

I’ll need to scare up some 8” barrels and come up with a way to fabricate a Mk71 gunhouse I’m happy with. I might emulate the Mk45 mod 4 gunhouse in spirit, but the timeframe may be a little early.

I’ll either need to sand down the existing deck or fabricate a replacement.

While I haven’t ghosted out all out yet, I’ll find real estate for harpoon amidships (Probably 16 weapons), and I expect to find locations for RAM to have been added. I will be trying to retain Phalanx in their Burke-like positions, but may need to use some of that real estate on the centerline for the 76mm.

Designation for this vessel will be CG-74, CCG-1, or CBG-1. Certainly this would be a 'Cruiser' in any modern definition. Intrepid is a strong and available name for the time in question. A State name would probably be best politically, but many are used during this timeframe and have since been re-used, so I am avoiding them to prevent confusion.

I have not scratchbuilt anything in the last 20 years, nor completed a model in that time. This will doubtless be a slow process of trial and error, being fit in around work travel and summer camping. I do not intend to hurry, as I hope to develop modeling skills I have long wanted as a side effect to this build.

Gentlemen, throw your stones…..