The Ship Model Forum

by **Guest** » Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:52 pm

navydavesof wrote:
MAJOR-B wrote:Any thoughts of doing a redesign using a Kongo class bridge and tyco aft helo hangar.
No, not really. I would like to build a realized DD(X)/DD-1000 that should have been instead of the DDG-1000 we wound up with.

MAJOR-B wrote:i was looking at the new squadron singal book on the 47 class they keep these going why? They said the Spruance class had maintenance problems so why don�t the cg 47 have the same issues? I think the answer is ageis..
No, Aegis had nothing to do with it; in fact Aegis is MORE of a problem than anything the Sprucans had going on. The Sprucans did not have unusual maintenance problems. They were decommissioned early because of degraded material condition. They had degraded material condition, because overhaul periods were being skipped, and maintenance was not being performed as a direct consequence of the "Sea Swap" program where crews no longer owned the ships for more than 6 months at a time. The, "Screw it, the next crew will take care of it," attitude took hold and literally ruined the entire class.

The degraded material condition was not helped by Sea Swap, but the Sea Swap program had nothing to do with the class maintenance issues (the majority of which had to do with under-funding/skipping planned SRAs, dry docking maintenance avails, etc. as you note), but the decision to do Sea Swap on the Spru-can DDs was a direct result of the decision already made to decommission the ships not the other way around.

We also did Sea Swap on Burke DDGs, first with West Coast DDGs (BENFOLD, HIGGINS, JOHN PAUL JONES), and then with East Coast DDGs (GONZALEZ, and two others I can't recall). And then for good measure, with decomm'ing LHAs.

As the Chief Engineer for Team BENFOLD -- meaning I was at various times CHENG on BENFOLD, HIGGINS (the deployed hull) and JOHN PAUL JONES -- I can tell you more than you'd probably like to know about the debacle that was Sea Swap.

And for good measure, our WEPS/CSO on Team BENFOLD helped develop the Sea Swap concept while working at SURFPAC under Admiral LaFleur -- and then got to live it. Ha, karma!

by **navydavesof** » Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:18 pm

MAJOR-B wrote:As always you have the answer in a good way.

There is a lot of research behind it. Rubbing shoulders with people who have been in the business for decades really helps.

MAJOR-B wrote:...But in my 32 years of service regardless of the branch that attitude was common let the other guy fix it or they have better personal. Will ruin anything.

Indeed. That attitude was the inevitable result of the Sea Swap program...and it killed the entire Spruance-class in record time.

MAJOR-B wrote:...do you have anything on what the ddx or the 1000 class was supposed to look like.

Yes, the original DD(X) was supposed to meet the mission sets of the Spruance-class under the cost of a DDG-51 (ASW, Strike, ASuW, and NGFS). Cosmetically, it was to be a fattened Spruance-class redesigned to meet the RCS likeness of a DDG-51. Its electronics were to be a 3D radar with medium air search, GFCR, and a self defense capability native to the VLS. The armament was to be 2 major caliber guns, 2 Mk32 SVTT, and between 64 and 128 vertical launch missiles for TLAM.

MAJOR-B wrote:You know they want more ships because they can�t do all of the missions they need to. Why has anyone just proposed we rebuild a few of this class update with what will work and keep them maintained. Instead of going for the latest bells and whistles stuff that never work out.

I can only speculate on that one, but I would suggest that no one has made a serious proposal and thus a funded study on modernizing the Spruance-class was never performed. Why don't they do it now? Again, I would speculate, but I would propose it's another result of a total lack of creativity in that part of the Navy.

Heck, they actually believe battleships are all used up, manpower-intensive, and useless in today's Navy.

by **MAJOR-B** » Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:22 pm

David
As always you have the answer in a good way. In my day Spruance class assignments where high value and considered elite but that was also in the early 80�s. I was in the amphibious side of the house overworked and not appreciated. But in my 32 years of service regardless of the branch that attitude was common let the other guy fix it or they have better personal. Will ruin anything. So chief do you have anything on what the ddx or the 1000 class was supposed to look like. You know they want more ships because they can�t do all of the missions they need to. Why has anyone just proposed we rebuild a few of this class update with what will work and keep them maintained. Instead of going for the latest bells and whistles stuff that never work out.

by **navydavesof** » Fri Jul 27, 2018 7:37 pm

MAJOR-B wrote:Any thoughts of doing a redesign using a Kongo class bridge and tyco aft helo hangar.

No, not really. I would like to build a realized DD(X)/DD-1000 that should have been instead of the DDG-1000 we wound up with.

MAJOR-B wrote:i was looking at the new squadron singal book on the 47 class they keep these going why? They said the Spruance class had maintenance problems so why don�t the cg 47 have the same issues? I think the answer is ageis..

No, Aegis had nothing to do with it; in fact Aegis is MORE of a problem than anything the Sprucans had going on. The Sprucans did not have unusual maintenance problems. They were decommissioned early because of degraded material condition. They had degraded material condition, because overhaul periods were being skipped, and maintenance was not being performed as a direct consequence of the "Sea Swap" program where crews no longer owned the ships for more than 6 months at a time. The, "Screw it, the next crew will take care of it," attitude took hold and literally ruined the entire class.

Even with that said, the ships could have been reactivated, SLEPed, modernized, and served for another 20-25 years. For instance, they could have been armed with a modern NTU (SPS-48, SPS-49, SPQ-9B, 2 Phalanx Block 1B and 2 21-cell RAM driven by either the Tartar-D WDS upgraded with a Mk99 Aegis coordination deck or SSDS Mod2+), 96 Mk41 VLS, a Mk71 8"/60caliber gun forward, and a Mk45 Mod4 aft. If they were even smarter, they would have armored the hull from the forward super structure to the aft super structure with 2.5" HY-80 and built a 5' blister of 1/2" HY80 blister on either side from the forward super structure to the aft and carried the wider beam all the way to the fantail.

MAJOR-B wrote:I have a couple of Spruance kits in stash with a jmsdf Burke thinking of kit bashing something new..

As do I, and I would like to build the original DD-1000 idea and a representation of the ship I described above with a far greater deal of detail.

by **MAJOR-B** » Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:38 pm

Any thoughts of doing a redesign using a Kongo class bridge and tyco aft helo hangar.i was looking at the new squadron singal book on the 47 class they keep these going why? They said the Spruance class had maintenance problems so why don�t the cg 47 have the same issues? I think the answer is ageis.. I have a couple of Spruance kits in stash with a jmsdf Burke thinking of kit bashing something new..

by **SumGui** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:15 pm

the Spruance class is a great platform for what-if - large design margin, excellent space for weapons and sensors...

There will always be another version of a modified Spruance to do

by **MAJOR-B** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:29 pm

Any thoughts of bring-up this topic again. With the pending re-release of the USS Crushing, USS Mobile BAY and USS KIDD as well as the VLS version of the Spruance... or is this subject done and stick a fork in it and calll it a day?
Thanks
Major-B

by **navydavesof** » Mon May 19, 2014 3:51 am

DavidP wrote:MAJOR-B, already got the hull & superstructure mostly built. i think i still have to make the 2 exhaust modules for forward left & rear right.

navydavesof, i'm talking about the front port/starboard side walls under the bridge wings if that is what they are. the side walls are supposed to be parallel to the hull sides not parallel to the centerline of the ship otherwords the front of the side walls are closer to each other distance wise then the back of the side walls. the dragon kits of the spruance class has those side walls parallel to the centerline of the ship instead of along the hull edge giving a gap between the hull edge & the back corners of the side walls.

AH!!! I understand now. So, the difference is subtle, but still there enough to be noticed, I suppose?

What kind of changes would you make to correct it? Is it something like angling in the port and starboard bulkheads toward the bow?

Thanks for the observation, man!

by **MAJOR-B** » Sun May 18, 2014 11:18 am

As david replied are asking on how to convert a TYCHO into a Kidd ?

As far as the three basic kits (Spruance, Kidd and Tycho) The only common elements in all three are the hull, helo's and 5 inch guns, harpoons and CIWS.
I have copies of all three instructions if you are intrested. I can make copies and scan a PDF copy to your email address.
Please send me a PM with your information and I will see what I can do.
Major-B

by **navydavesof** » Sun May 18, 2014 7:27 am

DavidP wrote:converting a tico cruiser that has the twin arm missile launchers into a kidd class destroyer. new deck & above are scratch built except for launchers & 5" guns. when gluing the side walls of the forward superstructure that they are right on the edge of the hull not parallel with the centerline as that is wrong.

My man....I super duper did not understand what you said. Could you proof read your last post and rewrite it for us, please? Thanks, mate!!!

by **anj4de** » Sat May 10, 2014 7:16 am

Sometime unexpected things happen...

Was shopping with the wife this morning, food and stuff for the weekend. Walked by a toy shop and thought I hopp in real quick to get some putty...and saw a slightly beaten up USS Kidd kit in the shelf. It now found a good home;-) Interesting to compare the two classes...quite differnet once you look closer.

cheers
Uwe

by **anj4de** » Wed May 07, 2014 12:08 pm

My Hewitt arrived this morning! Quite worn down box but all parts still in bags. No instructions but decals for Hewitt, Elliott, Ingersol and Peterson, both in white (now yellow) and subdued. Now starting to dig into the Spruance subject more...trying to find out what were the various build up levels...and maybe how they could look today or in ten years if there were any left.
I started the hull in the afternoon...and this brought back memories of the 70ties when kit parts almost never fitted at all (apart from those fabulous Monogram bombers). Worst fitting kit in decades this is. This will be an interesting subject...

thanks
Uwe

by **anj4de** » Thu May 01, 2014 4:07 am

[/quote]Fantastic offer, my dear sir! I was able to get my hands on a Spruance and Hewitt recently, and I feel pretty lucky for that!!! They seem to be super out of production. I think Dragon would be in a VERY good way to do a few re-toolings and then reissue them.

[/quote]

Hi...

I am not sure if a simple re-tooling would do? I would prefere a new tool set that is up to the level of the Gearing class Dragon recently released. On the Hewitt...Wiki mentions this "girl upgrade package" that was installed in 1997. Was Hewitt really the first ship to accept girls as crew? I understood it that way...

I now have my eyes on a USS Ingersoll that popped up on E-Bay...

cheers
Uwe

by **navydavesof** » Thu May 01, 2014 3:02 am

Mayor B,

MAJOR-B wrote:As someone whom has been in the service of this great country for nearly 28 years and has served with Army, Air force, Navy and Marines. It still amazes me how something that make sense and should be maintained end up being replaced by some new idea that never works. Sorry for that soap-box moment, I have several these kits I am planning on building into either a What-If and/or Real design over the next few years.

I agree with you 100%, sir. As a veteran who has served with your time and experience, I would like to thank you for watching my threads. I really appreciate it...especially with my lack of continued progress!

MAJOR-B wrote: David your what-if ideas and designs are amazing. To anyone else thinking of doing a project like this is to simply go for it.
Is not the idea to have fun and not worry about what the "nut& bolts freaks" say...

Thank you, sir. I really appreciate it. It's very nice to hear such confirmation.. I appreciate it. Thanks so much.

MAJOR-B wrote: I love the What-if ideas and always have...

Whoa!!! Only more to come!!! I am in the midst of building some PC replacements right now. That should be good fun as well!!!

MAJOR-B wrote:For my What-if project/ idea is taking one of my favorite Spruance class ships the USS John Hancock DD981 and making her into a DDH with some updates that would make her more serviceable.

I am right there with you, sir! I know that Cliffy B is going to do something similar with a DDG-51 model he has. These should be some pretty excellent WHIF models!

MAJOR-B wrote:Let me look at what I have in storage, and will let anyone know who has and/or any interest in a similar project know if I still have some extra Spruance class kits and when they may become available
thanks
Major-B

Fantastic offer, my dear sir! I was able to get my hands on a Spruance and Hewitt recently, and I feel pretty lucky for that!!! They seem to be super out of production. I think Dragon would be in a VERY good way to do a few re-toolings and then reissue them.

by **anj4de** » Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:32 pm

navydavesof wrote:
anj4de wrote:...Did a quick swep through German online model shops, found a Cushing and ordered it.

Very good, man!

The Cushing was sold out, the shop just did not update the inventory

But I found the "girly" boat on E-Bay...USS Hewitt

. So I bought that one. It seems to be the same kit...at least from the sprue pics in the auction.

Dave, the guy who did your Mk71, do you know if he made a master and cast it or was this a one off?

cheers
Uwe

by **MAJOR-B** » Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:47 am

As someone whom has been in the service of this great country for nearly 28 years and has served with Army, Air force, Navy and Marines. It still amazes me how something that make sense and should be maintained end up being replaced by some new idea that never works. Sorry for that soap-box moment, I have several these kits I am planning on building into either a What-If and/or Real design over the next few years. David your what-if ideas and designs are amazing. To anyone else thinking of doing a project like this is to simply go for it.
Is not the idea to have fun and not worry about what the "nut& bolts freaks" say...
I love the What-if ideas and always have...
For my What-if project/ idea is taking one of my favorite Spruance class ships the USS John Hancock DD981 and making her into a DDH with some updates that would make her more serviceable.
Let me look at what I have in storage, and will let anyone know who has and/or any interest in a similar project know if I still have some extra Spruance class kits and when they may become available
thanks
Major-B

by **navydavesof** » Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:00 am

anj4de wrote:...Did a quick swep through German online model shops, found a Cushing and ordered it.

Very good, man!

anj4de wrote:A question on your model, the Mk71 gun, is that scratch build?

I commissioned it to be made by a professional model builder.

anj4de wrote:How badly was your ship damaged by the Post?

So badly I picked a few parts off it and literally threw the rest in the trash. I was pretty upset.

anj4de wrote:Anyway, I really enjoy especially those "what if" subjects since I first believe things get thrown away much to quickly for political reasons and also since not always newer means better. Prime examples would be the A-10 and the B-52.

Indeed. Capability reductions based on unnecessary budget reductions is falls 100% into the "wrong" category. They gave the reason to deactivate the A-10 wings that they need money to pursues the F-35, and that the F-35 will be able to replace the A-10. The F-35 cannot replace the A-10, in any way, ever.

by **anj4de** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:57 am

navydavesof wrote:
anj4de wrote:You modernized Spruance Class looks excellent!
Thanks, mate. I appreciate that. Unfortunatley, the US Post Office destroyed it in shipment. There is another Spruance project I am looking forward to doing, but I don't know if I will recreate this one.

anj4de wrote:So if I wanted to get a Spruance kit in 350...which of the Dragon ones is the most up 2 date one or would be best suited to be beefed up to sail with Iowa and Wisconsin into the 21st century?
Well, first the USS Cushing represents the last iteration of the Sprucans. However, the Any of the 1/350 Spruance models are getting to be very, very rare. The 1/700s are plentiful! I was able to get my hands on 2 S1/350 Spruances recently, and I feel very lucky. Second, there are no Spruances left in the mothball fleet. When I first opened this thread, we still had 12-17 on hand. Now, there is none. The only surviving Sprucan is the ex-USS Paul F Foster, and she is the Navy's Self Defense Test Ship. She gets shot at a lot, and it's her responsibility to test new non-Aegis defensive capabilities.

So, long story short, there are no Spruances left to sail with an Iowa in the 21st century.

However, if you would like to discuss the "what-if" as if some were available for reactivation, we can! On-line or off-line, let me know.

Hello Dave

Thanks again for your quick and detailed response! Did a quick swep through German online model shops, found a Cushing and ordered it.

Also googeled the Paul F Foster and now watching their 90/91 online cruise video on youtube.
A question on your model, the Mk71 gun, is that scratch build? How badly was your ship damaged by the Post? Is it really beyond repair? Wouldn't a good "yard oberhaul" be able to fix her up? I hardly ever throw plastic away, have ceratin models, like anm F4B Phantom that I first build while at NCO academy in 1985, that have been rebuild/repaired 4-5 times so far. Last time the cat wipped it of the shelf

Anyway, I really enjoy especially those "what if" subjects since I first believe things get thrown away much to quickly for political reasons and also since not always newer means better. Prime examples would be the A-10 and the B-52. The German Air Force only last year gave up their Phantoms...and they served very well all the way to the end.

cheers
Uwe

by **navydavesof** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:56 am

anj4de wrote:You modernized Spruance Class looks excellent!

Thanks, mate. I appreciate that. Unfortunatley, the US Post Office destroyed it in shipment. There is another Spruance project I am looking forward to doing, but I don't know if I will recreate this one.

anj4de wrote:So if I wanted to get a Spruance kit in 350...which of the Dragon ones is the most up 2 date one or would be best suited to be beefed up to sail with Iowa and Wisconsin into the 21st century?

Well, first the USS Cushing represents the last iteration of the Sprucans. However, the Any of the 1/350 Spruance models are getting to be very, very rare. The 1/700s are plentiful! I was able to get my hands on 2 S1/350 Spruances recently, and I feel very lucky. Second, there are no Spruances left in the mothball fleet. When I first opened this thread, we still had 12-17 on hand. Now, there is none. The only surviving Sprucan is the ex-USS Paul F Foster, and she is the Navy's Self Defense Test Ship. She gets shot at a lot, and it's her responsibility to test new non-Aegis defensive capabilities.

So, long story short, there are no Spruances left to sail with an Iowa in the 21st century.

However, if you would like to discuss the "what-if" as if some were available for reactivation, we can! On-line or off-line, let me know.

by **anj4de** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 5:22 pm

Hello Dave

You modernized Spruance Class looks excellent! Reading and locking more at modern USN ships recently I have to say that the Spruance Class in general are very good looking ships. I like them better then the Ticonderoga class ships. This of course is only the opinion of a model builder and not based on technical or historical fact. Hey...even the WASA which I have seen a couple of times life looks fantastic but actually was a crapy ship

So if I wanted to get a Spruance kit in 350...which of the Dragon ones is the most up 2 date one or would be best suited to be beefed up to sail with Iowa and Wisconsin into the 21st century?

thanks
Uwe

PS: One thing that is ugly is that covered up mast on some of them...just does not look right IMHO...

The Ship Model Forum

What-If modernized Spruance-class DDG

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: What-If modernized Spruance-class DDG

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

Re: Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class