The Ship Model Forum

by **Seasick** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:45 am

596 Feet in scale:
1/7500 = 0.953 inchs (Real Big scale)
1/5000 = 1.430 inchs (SCI-FI big scale)
1/1250 = 5.721 inchs (Miniscale more popular)
1/1200 = 5.960 inchs (Miniscale less popular)
1/800 = _8.940 inchs (Sub-waterline)
1/720 = _9.933 inchs (Other Waterline Scale)
1/700 = 10.217 inchs (Waterline Scale)
1/600 = 11.920 inchs (Airfix scale)
1/570 = 12.547 inchs ("Toy" Scale)
1/550 = 13.003 inchs
1/535 = 13.368 inchs (box scale of the old Revell USS Missouri kit)
1/500 = 14.304 inchs
1/450 = 15.893 inchs
1/400 = 17.880 inchs (Heller Scale)
1/350 = 20.434 inchs (Double scale)
1/200 = 35.760 inchs (Nichimo Scale)
1/144 = 49.666 inchs (Bomber/Airliner scale)
1/100 = 71.520 inchs
1/96_ = 74.500 inchs
1/72_ = 99.333 inchs Airplane small scale
1/48 = 149.000 inchs Airplane Medium scale
1/35 = 204.342 inchs Big armor scale
1/32 = 223.500 inchs Airplane large scale
1/25 = 286.080 inchs Armor scale
1/24 = 298.000 inchs Other Armor scale

by **HvyCgn9** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:14 am

you will need 2 figure out another scale 2 build in 2 come closer 2 a California class 596' hull length.

by **Timmy C** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:36 pm

76cm*350 = 26600cm = ~872.7feet.

by **ex-navy** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:10 pm

Thanks

Since this is a what-if.. am going forward with my thoughts.. Stay tuned.. the hull arrived the other day.. the nichimo kit is old and maybe a little big...
Does anyone know the formula for feet in 1/350 the kit is 76cm in length, I think it comes about to 800 feet.. I maybe wrong...

by **Seasick** » Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:34 am

When a nuke is decomissioned and deactivated the entire reactor housing is cut out of the ship as well as the pipeing from the reactors to the heat exchanger. Its quite brutal. The hull of the Long Beach is being used for equipment storage, and is well beyond returning to service. The Bainbridge had a large hole cut in the side during the reactor removal. The USN has been preparing for the Enterprise's deactivation for some time. The eight reactors will be removed and the housing and shielding around them too. The heat exchangers, and the steam pipes between the reactors and the heat exchangers will go too. Don't expect her to become a museum. I suspect the Island might be sold to a private foundation and some steel saved to be built into the next Enterprise the rest will cut up.

by **HvyCgn9** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:00 pm

Sorry Ex-navy I think you will find both CGN-36 & -37 were scrapped in approximately 2000/2001 only the hull of CGN-9 remains in one piece. All thats left of South Carolina is a section of her Bow at a Park!!

Bruce

by **ex-navy** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:56 am

Thanks,
I am going to build this for real.. the reason as stated I have a hull coming about 76cm in length it is the 1/200 Nichimo DDA-164 Takatsuki class I feel the hull lines are close enough... So therefore, I am starting this build from what is left of the real ship.. during research of the Cali showed her just the hull and main deck in storage... HMMM so we have a clean slate... let go with that... so someone at D.O.D.. said hey we can save her... let's do this..
So with that in mind lets build a new and improved Cali....

by **HvyCgn9** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:12 pm

I would keep most of California's existing Superstructure if I was going to do a radical rebuild the reason being that unless a modification program (in real world) had an unlimited budget, a Superstructure rebuild wouldn't be high on the priority list. It would be Weapons, Sensors, propulsion, etc.
I would (For a radical rebuild) have fwd Mk71 in the 5"Mk45 position, Keep the Fwd Mk13 upgraded to SM2 BlockIV (if Possible), Fit a TAC length VLS in the ASROC reload house (so it doesn't stick into the reactor space) would the wt of the old ASROC reloads+magazine be equal to a VLS??loaded with VL ASROC, ESSM's, etc. And have 4 Harpoon mk141's (16 missiles) between Bridge and VLS housing.
Aft end I would cut back the superstructure and build in a Burke style hanger with Strike VLS (with SM6, and Tomahawks) between the Helo bays. Delete the aft Mk13 and move the aft mk71 to the mk13 position.
Mast's and such don't need changing as they are already designed 2 support heavy radar's.

Cheers Bruce

by **ex-navy** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:17 am

Thanks,
As I said still new to this electronic drawing...

So what are the thoughts about just having a rear VLS and keeping the Hangar from the spruance/TYCO design...
and go with something like the CGN-42 design that Dave purposed for the forward Deck houses...

by **Seasick** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:25 am

The Kidd class had several uncomfortable compromises in its design. The large deck houses below the Kidd class AN/SPG-51 radars wouldn't be necessary if they hadn't just been literally stuck on to the design. If your going to rebuild the California's superstructure much of the heavy equipment could be located lower to reduce top weight. The mainmast on the Kidd class was a Spruance class mainmast strengthened to hold an AN/SPS-48C radar. The original design was for a AN/SPS-40 radar which is much lighter. The AN/SPS-48G on your California should be on top of a pyramid type mast. It should appear like the upper half of the mast on the later Nimitz class CVN for the AN/SPS-49 radars.

by **ex-navy** » Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:09 pm

as promised here is a rough sketch of my thoughts..

As you can see I borrowed a lot from a KIDD class DDG.. Why not use what works..

I left space aft of the flight deck.. several options could go their...

1. a large VLS module with a load equal to a burkes forward and rear cells combined..

2. Another 5" gun mount

3. Extend the Flight deck, for UAV's with a UAV housing....

But I left Space open above the O-3 level... Don't know what could go there,, maybe some more electronics... NUKLA Launchers

If the VLS option is the way to go on the stern.. Then I would replace the additional Harpoons in that space..

As I said I still a novice at this drawing thing...
One last thing is I plan on building this beast... I have the old Nichimo 1/200 DDA-164 takatsuki coming for the hull.. it measures out to be approx 76 cm which would be a little longer but more important the shape of the hull seems close enough for the cali.. as I said I have heart failure thinking of cutting up an ISW kit just to use the main deck and below..

by **ex-navy** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:01 pm

thanks, I still need help with the shipbucket program.. I can't seem to cut and past objects to hull once I make the necessary changes.. any suggestion???

by **Cliffy B** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 9:52 pm

Weird...it works for me... Here's the page it was from. Right click he photo and click "view image" for a larger version.

http://www.armybase.us/2010/02/northrop ... -u-s-navy/

Here's another shot a Bravo on a Tico.

by **ex-navy** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 9:51 pm

ok,
Then how about adding a hangar with some VLS in between ... Since the reactors are up front, add a larger platform like they did on the SoCal, and add something plug and shoot like Four Sets of Harpoons.. I am still working on some drawings of this beast.. The trouble is I hate to do surgery on my ISW kit.. currently looking into a 1/200 hull from Nichimo JMSDF kit it about 29 inches/76cm in length which would scale about the right size and shape for the Cali...

Here is my game plan to date..
1. increase the harpoons to four sets of launcher vs two...
2. Add helo storage and handling...
3. update the electronics
4. Add a TACTCAL VLS...

Still considering the guns upgrade to the Current config on the burkes or replace the forward with a MK-71 and relocate the stern mount to a config similiar to the tycho config.. your thoughts...

by **HvyCgn9** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 9:35 pm

Cliffy B all I see in that link is a smiley face in a Helmet?? no pic!!

Bruce

by **Cliffy B** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 9:23 pm

SPQ-9B doesn't use a radome though, only the Alpha model used the spherical dome.

http://www.armybase.us/wp-content/uploa ... .-Navy.jpg

Bravo doesn't take up much more space then Alpha did in its radome. You can see a Bravo model on the Sprucan (in the same spot as the Alpha) in that photo and then a close up of the antennae.

by **Seasick** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:57 pm

The AN/SPQ-9B looks just like the AN/SPQ-9A on the surface of its randome. Looks the same. Different antenna under the randome though.

----------------

The main value of the South Carolina and California is as AAW vessels. If the ship is being refit around 1995 the Mk13 launchers were and still are a highly reliable system for launching Standard missiles. Adding the AN/SPQ-9B in place of the A is fairly easy and the AN/SPG-60 might as well be landed. The Mk190 gunfire control system should be able to use one of the AN/SPG-51D to track surface targets and the utility of the AN/SPG-60 as a back up missile tracking/illumination radar has been eroded away to practically nothing. Besides adding the AN/SPQ-9B you'll probably want to add some more IR detectors to the ship. (you can see pictures of the current devices in USNI Naval Weapons Systems by Norman Friedman). While the AN/SPQ-9B will tighten up the defense against very low altitude missile threats, you don't run your radars 24/7 so passive detection can't hurt. Two Mk49 RAM launchers should be fit, with the best possible firing arcs. Place the two Phalanx Block 1B in the weak spots of the firing arcs of the RAM launchers.

by **HvyCgn9** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:27 pm

It came 2 my attention on another site that remodelling fwd weapons fit would be problematic in real life as beneath the ASROC launcher and reload house is one of her reactor's!! A strike length VLS would be 2 long for the available space, I would keep the mk13 and fit a later missile if possible.
Seasick made a good point in the Mod. Sprucan thread on fitting SPQ-9b in place of SPG-60 I will have 2 on my Cali. One on the fwd mast below the SPS-48 and a 9b in place of the 9a on the Aft mast, with a FLiR/TV imager like the Burkes have in place of the SPG-60.

Anyone have any solid dimensions for the SPQ-9B ??

Cheers Bruce

by **HvyCgn9** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:50 pm

You could probably make it RC'd as well mate!!

Hey I had considered doing the Truxtun but went for the bigger California instead.

Cheers N Merry Xmas

Bruce

by **SumGui** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:38 am

Ah, ya lost me there. No Albany for me.

I thought maybe Truxtun was next!

I really should look into doing a PC in 1/72...

The Ship Model Forum

What-If CGN-36 upgrades...

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: What-If CGN-36 upgrades...

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..

Re: cgn-36 Upgrades..