The Ship Model Forum

[quote="Busto963"]Hah - I just got my Pitt Road Hayabusa in the mail! :big_grin:[/quote]
Myself as well, my dear sir!

[quote="navydavesof"]I will be doing this project in conjunction with the LCS-1 Flight II. I just received the kit I will be bashing to build up to meet the challenges of the PC Replacement.

It will embark the 76mm SR, Phalanx CIWS, RAM all centerlined with the Mk51 30mm port and starboard with the GAU-19 .50caliber three-barrel gatling gun on the bridge wings and two M240s port and starboard.

The platform is the Hayabusa PG. While expensive, these little models are fantastic! Super fun, and it will really make the project fun.

So, my question for this project:
What kind of main radar should I use? I am considering either the TRS-3D or the SPQ-9B.[/quote]
Hah - I just got my Pitt Road Hayabusa in the mail! :big_grin:

I will be doing this project in conjunction with the LCS-1 Flight II. I just received the kit I will be bashing to build up to meet the challenges of the PC Replacement.

It will embark the 76mm SR, Phalanx CIWS, RAM all centerlined with the Mk51 30mm port and starboard with the GAU-19 .50caliber three-barrel gatling gun on the bridge wings and two M240s port and starboard.

The platform is the Hayabusa PG. While expensive, these little models are fantastic! Super fun, and it will really make the project fun.

So, my question for this project:
What kind of main radar should I use? I am considering either the TRS-3D or the SPQ-9B.

The original streetfighter before it became a gold plated Rumsfeld misadventure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YvutTKW2vY

mk 51, eh?

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/TuesdayLandmarkAStevenCannon.pdf

Yep. I will take 20, please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6zDlAbnvZ3Q

Would anyone know the colors used in the splinter scheme used on the Cyclone-class patrol boat shown in the initial post?

Thanks.

[quote="SumGui"][quote="Busto963"]

2. Weapons: I would add an AMOS 120mm automatic gun-mortar turret (it has been tested on the CB90/RHBS).
[list]
- Fires all NATO 120mm mortar rounds including PGM; a M933 HE Round: ~31 lbs; (roughly comprable to a 155mm howitzer round)
- 10 km range (farther than the MK 110)
- ROF: 16/12 (Max/sustained), but it can shoot 4-rounds in < 8-seconds, and has an MRSI of up to 8-rounds simulteous impact (!)
:woo_hoo:
- 48 round magazine
- Fully automatic[/list]
[attachment=0]cv90amos.jpg[/attachment]
- Pricey, but what else are you going to spend that MFP 11 money on? :heh:
[/list]
[/quote]

I was not a fan of the AMOS for the larger platform due to lack of range, but using the Mk VI as a platform to get AMOS in close and up waterways would be a great fit.

AMOS was found to be too large for the CB90 (52'x12'6"), so the Sweeds are developing a larger vessel to carry it, measuring 79'1"x17'2" - slightly smaller than the Mk VI platform.

The other option is the Patria NEMO - a lighter single barrel version of AMOS. That might allow the Mk VI to pack a Mk 38 and a NEMO without losing too much space. Nice for close in work

The PC's can act as 'big brother' to the Mk VI when forcing a beach.[/quote]
In fairness the AMOS has roughly the same range as a 57mm, and mounting on the CB90 was just a technology demonstration.

[quote="Busto963"]

2. Weapons: I would add an AMOS 120mm automatic gun-mortar turret (it has been tested on the CB90/RHBS).
[list]
- Fires all NATO 120mm mortar rounds including PGM; a M933 HE Round: ~31 lbs; (roughly comprable to a 155mm howitzer round)
- 10 km range (farther than the MK 110)
- ROF: 16/12 (Max/sustained), but it can shoot 4-rounds in < 8-seconds, and has an MRSI of up to 8-rounds simulteous impact (!)
:woo_hoo:
- 48 round magazine
- Fully automatic[/list]
[attachment=0]cv90amos.jpg[/attachment]
- Pricey, but what else are you going to spend that MFP 11 money on? :heh:
[/list]
[/quote]

I was not a fan of the AMOS for the larger platform due to lack of range, but using the Mk VI as a platform to get AMOS in close and up waterways would be a great fit.

AMOS was found to be too large for the CB90 (52'x12'6"), so the Sweeds are developing a larger vessel to carry it, measuring 79'1"x17'2" - slightly smaller than the Mk VI platform.

The other option is the Patria NEMO - a lighter single barrel version of AMOS. That might allow the Mk VI to pack a Mk 38 and a NEMO without losing too much space. Nice for close in work

The PC's can act as 'big brother' to the Mk VI when forcing a beach.

These are smaller than what you propose, but I believe may be relevant to understanding that the basic security and some other roles currently filled by the Cyclones can be done simpler:

http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2012/may/24/safe-boats-goes-to-tacoma-to-build-big-patrol/

These look like shedloads of fun!

Edit to add more:

http://cimsec.org/an-influence-squadron-in-the-making/

Love the concept. Not to hijack your thread - but an LSD-41 packing 8 of these dudes acting as mother ship and packing attack/spotting Helo support would be a great swarm/anti-swarm solution.

8 Mark VI, 600nm range each....

Great. Now I'm working on a permanent conversion of the LSD-41 class to Mk VI support ship.....

No wait - the conversion packs 6 Mk VI in the welldeck, a heavy repair facility in the forward end of the welldeck, with the vehicle storage turned into parts and munition storage to support your new modified Ambassador class PCs. The cranes can easily lift Harpoon reloads onboard, the PCs tie up to mexeflotes carried by the mother ship who is stationed near the threat area and the inner layer of defense is provided by her own Mk VI boats.

hmm...a mobile FOB for the Mk VI AND new PC...excellent...excellent....(Mr. Burns voice, naturally...)

Dave,
The term "Mission Module" immediately brings to mind the LNS class. Yes, the Literal Non-combat Ship and no I did not mis-spell because it is literally a non-combatant.
Therefore, I would suggest that the term "Mission Package" be used when speaking about portable integrated weapon and sensor packages that might be added to or removed from a vessal. :big_grin:

So, how about this craft having a 200' length and a beam of 25.5', the ship will be able to accommodate the 76mm rapidfire gun forward, a GAU-19 .50caliber gatling gun port and starboard, a mission module accommodating 4-8 Harpoon anti-ship missiles amidships, a Mk38 Mod 2 25/30mm gun or Millennium gun and a 21-cell RAM launcher aft of the super structure. The stern will be able to accommodate a 9m RHIB or an ASuW module of another RAM/Phalanx Block 1B mount or an ASW module with a TACTAS towed sonar array.

So modeled will have the Harpoons and boat ramp. :big_grin:

[quote="SumGui"]when we modified the PCs to have the stern ramp, we were limited by existing internal structure moving forward (specifically, the aft engine room bulkhead) as to what angle the ramp would have.

New construction should be able to avoid this, and I don't think adding a few very light feet (roller path) to the length of the vessel aft would change the engineering of the design much. Width is probably the biggest challenge to fitting two 9m RHIBs. You may end up with a 'beaver tail' to fit both.[/quote]Fascinating! I meant to emply in my last post that the stern ramp would still accommodate one boat, and if I decide it is necessary to have a second boat on board, the aft super structure would need to be shifted to the left to make room for the boat to be stored level on the deck. If there is a second boat, it might just be the much smaller 7m RHIB if the 9m is too big. When up on deck, the boat would have to be craned into the water...a challenging accommodation for a ship this size.

when we modified the PCs to have the stern ramp, we were limited by existing internal structure moving forward (specifically, the aft engine room bulkhead) as to what angle the ramp would have.

New construction should be able to avoid this, and I don't think adding a few very light feet (roller path) to the length of the vessel aft would change the engineering of the design much. Width is probably the biggest challenge to fitting two 9m RHIBs. You may end up with a 'beaver tail' to fit both.

And such a big fan of this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrUXDAhP3Fg&feature=player_detailpage#t=26s

Earlier, while I was working on CGN-42, something hit me about the PC replacement and the 11m RHIBs. The RHIBs on board USN ships are the standard USN 7m type. Then I realized there was a pretty big difference between the standard RHIBs and the 11m SWCC RHIBs. At 11m the SWCC RHIBs are about 1/5 the entire length of the PC. This struck a problem.

This is a standard USN 7m RHIB most US ships use:
[img]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/pc-4-DNST9401317.JPG[/img]

After the PCs received their stern ramps, this is what they received:
[img]http://www.warboats.org/images/jpg/StonerPics/stonerpc9.jpg[/img]
They are the 30'/9meter RHIBs.

here is a picture of the sterns of the PCs
[attachment=0]12031403.jpg[/attachment]

[quote="oldnavyguy"]For the Specops mission the rhib capability would be a must, but for interdiction and coastal patrol it could be desirable as well. Having the ability to board another vessel and still maintain stand off seems important to me. The ability to carry at least two rhibs would seem a minimum. (One to recover the other once it breaks.) [/quote]

This explains my confusion. When I was aboard [i]Sirocco[/i], their RHIB was configured just like an 11m SWCC RHIB, but it wasn't as big as a SWCC boat. It turns out that the Cyclone PCs are fitted for the 30' (9m) RHIBs. Standard, when SOF embark, they have to use what the ship has: 9m RHIBs instead of 11m. No big deal. These RHIBs are very useful. VBSS Teams and SEALs use these RHIBs all the time. Eleven meter RHIBs are 6+ feet longer and about 3'+ wider. A ship as small as the PC replacement probably could not accommodate 2 of those. Even having two 7m or 9m RHIBs will take the aft super structure to be shifted to one side so there is enough room. The 9m RHIBs will work beautifully while allowing good margins aboard the ship.

Here is the stern open while performing operations:
[img]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a227/eTraxx/Ships/pu_3.jpg[/img]

Since the 9m RHIB works so well for SOF and other small boat operations, I really don't see the need to try to expand the ship's capacity to accommodate an 11m RHIB. I will try to accommodate a second 9m RHIB on the starboard side of the aft super structure. This will require the aft super structure to be staggered to port.

Here's a fun gif from the fas guys.
[img]http://www.fas.org/man//dod-101/sys/ship/pc_14_ri.gif[/img]

The Harpoons will have to be approximately 5/32" tube cut 35mm long. Should be great fun when I get to her. Here are some thin wall Harpoons:
[img]http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/7164110.jpg[/img]

and thick wall:
[img]http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3198/3075738597_98012b3301_z.jpg[/img]

Here are fleetscale's 1/72 scale thick wall Harpoons:
[img]http://store.fleetscale.com/images/cache/72HARP2.600.JPG[/img]
I think I will wind up going with thick wall Harpoons for simplicity.

Now...back to the aft SPY-3 deckhouse on CGN-42!
:wave_1:

[quote="oldnavyguy"]I like your ideas...I have heard the Navy is looking at a replacement for the aging Harpoon system. The down side of the new missile as far as this idea goes is that it will probably be designed for virticle launch which puts it out of the reach of a PC.[/quote]While that's true there are still hundreds of Harpoons left in the inventory, so there would be over a decade of Harpoons left for PCs like these. If a manitenance program were restarted on the Harpoons, they could be preserved indefinately.

[quote]I believe any weapons mounted ought to either be set up as mission modules or be multi mission usefull. The 75mm Gun is a good example of a multi-role weapon. The Harpoon Slam variant is too.[/quote]I agree, but the PC is really, really small. The modules would be very limited in scope. While it was tested, the canistered SLAM was never procured by the USN. However, Block III Harpoons were produced, and they're nearly the same as a SLAM.

[quote]Anothert idea, would it be possible to operate a UAV with a laser designator and fire MLRS style rockets using laser terminal guidance? If so that may also be a good force multiplyer to consider.[/quote]UAV, heck yeah!!! The Scan Eagle is a standard fit out for these ships. MLRS...I don't thinks so. Those missiles are a little too big for this kind of ship. The Harpoons, however can strike land targets, and they don't need a laser designator. On top of the 76mm super rapidfire gun, the Harpoons are a huge force multiplier.

I like your ideas. I have always liked the lines and concept of the PC's but thought them woefully underarmed.
For the Specops mission the rhib capability would be a must, but for interdiction and coastal patrol it could be desirable as well. Having the ability to board another vessel and still maintain stand off seems important to me. The ability to carry at least two rhibs would seem a minimum. (One to recover the other once it breaks.)

I have heard the Navy is looking at a replacement for the aging Harpoon system. The down side of the new missile as far as this idea goes is that it will probably be designed for virticle launch which puts it out of the reach of a PC.
I believe any weapons mounted ought to either be set up as mission modules or be multi mission usefull. The 75mm Gun is a good example of a multi-role weapon. The Harpoon Slam variant is too.

Anothert idea, would it be possible to operate a UAV with a laser designator and fire MLRS style rockets using laser terminal guidance? If so that may also be a good force multiplyer to consider.

[quote="Russ2146"]So basically its a weight consideration. Don't want to overload that mount.[/quote]
I think it's a cost and effectiveness thing, too. The "on paper" rule for Phalanx is that it takes 200 rounds to take out a target within 3000 yards of the ship. That means that the mount can take out a maximum of 8 targets as they eat up that range very, very fast. RAM has had an extremely good kill rate at its range of 9000 meters, and its accuracy is supposedly increased even more with the radar and EO/IR addition. Unlike Phalanx that requires all kinds of maintenance on its gatling gun, there is almost no maintenance on the SeaRAM. That makes me think that SeaRAM is a an overall better choice than Phalanx...but who knows how well it really works.

I find it more attractive to go with the extra 10 rounds in the 21-cell RAM mount with the/an EO/IR (perhaps the Mk46 EO/IR on CGs and DDGs) mounted somewhere else on the ship.

So basically its a weight consideration. Don't want to overload that mount.