The Ship Model Forum

ah navydave why do i sit around, like a kid the day before christmas, waiting to see if you will post a reply to my thread?? Ive been reading your modernized Iowa post. Very interesting indeed. Six months for now, when i finish reading, im sure i willl be well educated on the BB debate.
anyway, i value your oppinion because you seem very knowledgable on a plethera of subjetcs. Then you come along and rip my ship a new A-hole haha. Oh well, it still looks cool as all heckfire. Getting down to buisness, i made my flight deck at the 02 level, so the bottom of the bottom hanger sould be main deck level. When i was on virginia, the engenering spaces were two decks below the main deck, so i should be ok. maybe i didnt draw it just right, but that was my intention. Bunker Hill and other current ships could preform the missions i suggested, BUT, they would not be capabile of truely independant operations because lurking somewhere not to far away is going to be a fleet oiler(at a minimum) with go go juice for the thirsty gas turbines. I like the seaArk because it reminds me of the old captins gig we had on virginia. How frikkin cool would it be for the caption to come boating up in on of these puppies to meet with dignitaries before a port visit?? come on now, thats a cool factor of about 12 haha. My ship also has two if the smaller ribs that the Burks have, if you zoom in and look behind the starbordside seaArk, you can see them behind. Could SEALS deploy with those? I have thought a lot about independant operations and have designed the ship for that. I was reading that AMDR eleminates SPS-9B and fire control directors and a buch of others, but i decided to leave them on. If the AMDR were damaged or worse yet, a reactor casulity, we could still run the 49 and the SPS-9b for basic defence right? The ship is also all electric. I dont know if thats necessarily advantagious, but i like the idea. I have 4 emerengcy gas turbine generators. The Exaust can be seen just aft of rear VLS, just forward of the forward VLS and the other two are side by side on the aft mast just aft of the foward rear 62. As far as my ASBM i was thinking the same thing about the timer, seawater sensor issue. As wekk as the super high mega speed passing all the way through the ship. Also on this Issue, are we not the only navy that has developed BMD? (I would imagine our allies too??) So yeah, an ASBM my be easy to intercept but if the other side cant shoot them down, isnt that all the more reason to have them?

Anyway, thats all i have for now. Ive got a stupid head cold and I feel like poopy poop.

Thank you for your reply

Joe

_________________
In God we trust all others we track

Man, i was feeling so crappy last night that i forgot to talk about the air wing. I mentioned how the hangers were layed out, thats two hangers that are about 80 feet wide by 70 feet long. I wanted the flight deck at right about 100 feet. The F-35c is really quite small. Smaller in fact than the SH-60. I discovered this by getting a picture of an f-35c with a person in the picture, i then matched the person up with the guys on my flight deck. I was quite shocked at how small it looked, so i looked up Stats. Its pretty small....

Anyway, a strike package with four f-35s would be a game changer. I think it could easily be accomplished with the size ive designed in. They would burn craploads of fuel doing pure vertical take offs and would most likely need a tanker somewhere close by. I was thinking of you only had one SH-60 you could have one more f-35 and it could be set up as a tanker, like they used to do with the Intruder? Lots a maybies i know, but within the realm of possibilty right?

Im still not really happy with the AGS, but not really sure what other system would be good. I like the MK71 BUT it doesnt really have a lot more range than the MK45. Quite a but more punch, but not alot of range. Maybe Ill design my own system? no....I want to keep it realistic...

Anyway, i have to get to work so ill type again later

Joe

_________________
In God we trust all others we track

First, I have to say I had a pretty significant response I composed during lunch, just to come back to my computer to find that a gunnery sergeant had used the reply window to search for an obscene picture to post as my background. Thanks, Gunny Laweson. You're such a sweetheart.

Second, thank you so much!
You are very kind! I am afraid I am going to give up a lot of my secrets in this response

Oh, gosh. Watch out, it gets pretty hot in there.

You're not kidding it is cool as heckfire. I don't mean to rip it a new A-hole. As most people know posting in these threads is difficult, because it's hard to carry on a conversation. I try to put as much into a response as I can so it can answer potential questions broght up in the initial answer. Sometimes I don't write it right so it sounds bad.

Interesting! I would love to see how you plan to model that.

You are right about that for sure! That is an incredible advantage nuclear powered ships have over conventionally powered ships. Instead of decommissioning Virginia, they should have given her Aegis and replaced the Mk26s with VLS.

I like how they look for sure. I like the tactical choice of the 34' SeaArks instead of normal Captain's gigs. Captains and Admirals don't need yachts driving them around.

Not really, no. They're too small for what the SEALs need, and with only one engine, they break down way too often. In fact just today as we were performing an on-load of a CG the ship's CO got stuck about 1000 yards from the ship, because the RHIB broke down...

You just struck a cord with me. I am a huge fan of redundancy. If it's a warship, it needs to plan to be damaged and keep running. That's a huge thing about redundancy. Linking the SPS-49 and SPQ-9B into the weapon direction system that receives its input from the AMDR radars, the problem here is if you have a total failure of all of the AMDR arrays, damage is probably going to be so bad that the AMDR's weapon direction system would likely be down, too, so you won't be able to process the information that is being provided that the SPS and SPQ are providing (if they're still functioning). The biggest thing is that if you strictly have an AMDR and no illuminators (SPG-62s) then if AMDR is down then it does not matter if the SPS and SPQ are telling the weapon direction system things, there is no way to tell the missiles where to go. Phalanx CIWS is autonomous so that gives the ship a back up defense. If you want that to be able to shoot missiles then you would need a whole other weapon direction system, and hopefully that one would not go out, too. The SPS-49 and SPQ-9B could indeed send radar data to the back-up WDS and illuminators. RAM is dependent on the SPQ-9B working in that case, too. Redundancy...like I am sure you have seen in my CGN-42 thread I like it!!!

Boy, if they're LM-2500s, that's a whole CG/DDG propulsion plant! You can "limp" home at 30 knots! Sweet.

Like TimmyC said, that's one of the advantages of a ballistic missile. The only time it's hard to shoot down is when it's crossing your line of shot. If it's coming right at you, its relative motion is not very fast at all. If you're shooting right down its line of bearing (it coming right at you) then you can have skin-to-skin kills with standard SM-2MRs. Yes, we are the only ones who have been able to successfully engage extra atmosphere warheads on a crossing vector. Only the US and Japan carry SM-2 BlockIVs or SM-3s (ABMs) on a regular basis.

Well, sure, but there is an awful lot that goes into anti-ship ballistic missiles...like the entire development process and a whole new launching system, because I don’t think the Mk41 of Mk57 (only slightly larger) will really be able to handle something like that. Sure we will never have them if we never develop them, but anti-ship ballistic missiles offer no surprises. You know they're coming as soon as they rise above the horizon. A sea-skimming anti-ship missile all of a sudden shows up at really high speed and starts doing all kinds of crazy maneuvers faster than the weapon direction system can process the information. I think the ant-ship ballistic missile thing is a fad that will always have fans, but we are going to have to see in actual tests of ballistic missiles fired at ships and not the tests that SM-3s have been put up against. The SM-3 tests have been at crossing targets that are behaving more like nuclear re-entry vehicles, not ASBMs coming at you, trying to hit you.

Eeewwww! I hope you get better, man!

I really look forward to seeing you model this thing. I can't wait.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The easiest thing would to fire the 155mm LRLAP ammunition from the 8" Mk71. It's a lot easier to put a sabot around the 155mm round to fit inside a 203mm (8") barrel than design a whole new weapon system. When I asked a United Defense representative how hard it would be to make an 8" LRLAP, he said it would be a lot easier than what they had to do with the 155mm. If we were to start buying Mk71s they would be able to field an 8" LRLAP with greater range and greater payload.

The 155mm edition of the Mk71 engineered and proposed in the 1990s would be able to fire all existing kinds of 155mm ammunition from the US Army and USMC (laser Copperhead, GPS Excalibur, extended range, standard ballistic, HC, WP, etc). If the ready service loader was made long enough, it would be able to fire LRLAP as well. I think the 8" round is the most mission effective round to chose, but there is an economy in using 155mm. For anything larger than a frigate, 5" is a waste.

I feel you! It's time for me to work on the CGN-42!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

This is the exact thought that led me to have the VLS on the 01 level, room for bigger missles that could be ballistic capable

_________________
In God we trust all others we track

In your initial posting you listed having a very large number of Mk57 VLS. I believe those can accommodate the ATCAM type missiles. If the Navy were to ever navalize and VLS-ize them they might afford you the ballistic missile capability. They won't be like land-launched that achieve the super high speeds advantagous to land launched ballistic missiles, but they would give you a ballistic missile capability. Have you decided on an arrangement yet? Keep in mind the Mk57 take up more than twice as much space per tube as a Mk41 so you must have twice as much space dedicated to them.

She's going to be a big ship! Awesome!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

need to figure out how to grab quotes.... i can get the whole post but not individual sentances.

Yes, my rough (very rough) calculations put her at somewhere between 700 to 800 feet. im thinking 80 feet wide. I did not know the mk41 were smaller, just thought the MK57 was what you need for BMD...but the design has lots of room. the missle decks look to be somewhere between 60 to 75 feet, and there should be about three deck of space for them. I need to figure the dimensions out so when i build I'll have plenty of room, without a 1000 foot ship. like i said, i realise its a WIF but id like to stay as realistic as possible.

I dont know if you have downloaded the picture in order to take a closer look, but feel free if you want. she is a big girl. Ive put guys here and there so you can kinda see scale. Dont zoom in too far though because she starts falling apart at a certain point.

So far I feel Ive been pretty realistic. I like the big boat deck. I had to stretch her right there to accomidate it, so the masts are farther apart then Virginia, which is better for battle damage, Correct?

anyway, im going to start with the hull and it going to be waterline for now because im sure i will need A LOT more modeling skills to attempt a sonor dome and all the rest. If i can just decide on a lenght, Ill start drawing the plans

Again, thanks for replying, I really appreciate your views and advice

Joe

_________________
In God we trust all others we track

Well, only the Mk41 fires any BMD missiles (SM-3 and SM-2 BlockIV). There are no Mk57 launchers yet, and only DDG-1000 are going to have them. No future warship designs have the Mk57 in them. They revert back to the Mk41. When DDG-1000 comes out it won't be a BMD ship, because as a land attack ship it's only going to have a self defense suite on board and not an anti-air warfare package. That system I believe will be called TSCS (Total Ship Computing System) weapons system, TSCS is only a self defense system; it's not meant to protect anything by itself. However, they are playing around with the possibility of turning it into an area AAW system by putting some serious additional money and development into it. Then it would be AMB capable, but right now, all it does is what a CVN/LHD/LHA self defense suite does with static radars instead of rotating radars.

I would just keep in mind what you saw on Virginia: each weapon system was allocated a block of real estate in the hull. If you build it with that in mind, you should be able to proceed with a good, realistic representation.

For the most part, yes, you are correct. An anti-ship missile air burst is going to get everything within a line of sight anyway, so if you awnt to protect something you have to hide it behind a mast. That also means that whatever it is, a radar or sensor, will have a blind spot where that mast is. Also, you can protect against a detonation inside one side of the super structure from influencing the other too badly. Your drawing represents that pretty well.

I feel you there. Lengthening a DDG-51 hull is not very difficult at all so if you want to use that hull you certainly can with a fair amount of confidence that you will be able to get it right.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

So, first I'd like to say that the fact that the Virginia was decommissioned at it's 1/2 life mark is absolutely...dishonorable. If the Navy had a single brain cell they would have made the Aegis conversion. They spend so much money doing new construction, and they wind up squandering what could be a comparatively cheap modernization. Virginia and her sisters could have been cut down to their hull and had an Aegis super structure built on it, and the Mk26 launchers could have been replaced with Mk41 VLS. Then we would have had autonomous nuclear powered cruisers. Just like the battleships...what wasted potential.

So with a new build ship, we can look at a large number of things. It seems that you are going with a conventional arrangement which is gun forward, VLS between super structure and gun, helo hanger, VLS, and then gun before the stern. If you want to do Mk57 VLS there is really only enough space for eight 4-cell modules. Like I said, the Mk57 take up about twice as much room as the normal Mk57. The space it takes to put 128 cells of Mk41 you can only put in 64-cells of Mk57. This is not to say that you cannot use Mk57, it's just to say that you can't carry as many Mk57 as you can Mk41. The advantage to using Mk57 is that you have available space for future missile systems that we aren't working on today. So, there's a big question about if we will actually make any missiles that will take advantage of the little more space the Mk57 accommodates. What we do know is that any and all missiles in the US Navy fit inside the Mk41 VLS, and there are NO missiles planned specifically for the Mk57. So, it's up to you: do you want to have 1/2 the missile capacity by using Mk57 with the potential to use bigger missiles some day, or do you want to have twice as many missiles with the Mk41 by using missiles we already know work and have in the inventory?

The gun system is another issue. Please, no matter what happens, please don't even consider 5". Five-inch gunnery is a total waste. The 155mm is the baseline for you to consider. The best for a single gun system would be the 8". The 8" provides such potential that there is no reason not to pursue it. The 8" has the greatest potential to deliver credible and effective gunnery munitions.

With the model making, I have already lengthened a DDG-51 hull to match a 620' hull of the CGBL. It's not tough to lengthen a DDG-51 hull if not use a Spruance/Ticonderoga hull.

Keep up the good work. I look forward to what you think.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Dave, thank you again for all the useful information. Your input is very apreciated.

Ive been going over any studies i can find about this subject, and the conclusion i come to is that the whole mess reeks of Pearl Harbor....How many studies Ive seen warning that we need real cruisers, and Nucler power. Study after study by different people saying exactly the same thing. Were going to get caught with our respecive ding dong hanging out..... One author (i shpuld have gotten his name sorry) with a study on the naval hereitage site made a bone chilling conclusion. He said that no matter how capable or technoligicaly advanced a ship is, its completly usless with out logistical support. And honestly, and astute enemy is going straight for the support ships with an outbreak of war. Makes sence...why attack cruisers and aircraft carriers when you can kill the fuel supply and shut the whole system down? scarry :censored_2:, pardon my english
Also i was interested in the fact that the last real cruiser we made was the long beach, and that was considered a light cruiser? Hummm... maybe my CSGN could be a little bigger?? I have drawn two different versions of my ship, one is a small carrier the other is the same as this version except i have runways oon both sides extending from the rear of the flightdeck to the start of the hanger. Ill post those pics tomorrow because they are on my work computer and i need to get them home.

Anyway, on to a more enjoyable subject....

Im thinking i will probably go with MK41 with an eye toward the MK57. Maybe in the future you could remove some of the MK41 to install the 57 if a viable missle system is developed? That sounds practical. As far as guns go, how deployable is the 8in system right now? Is MK71 the only system? Have the been continuosly testing or improving the system, or did they just :censored_2: can the whole thing when they decided not to use it? My buddy that works at Dahlgren says they still fire it every now and then. Are they improving it? Speaking of Dahlgren I got to thinking about 16" barrles laying on the ground over by the gun line. Why not make a automated mount for a single 16" barrel. How bad ass would that be? How much muzzle velocity would a ten inch sabboted round have in a setup like that? Something to think about. I wanna stay as real as possible, but......it is WIF haha.

Ok, im goin to go read more about this stuff....

Tell next time....

Good day....

Joe

_________________
In God we trust all others we track

Just for fun......

First BMD Test shot




BTW....the test was a success

_________________
In God we trust all others we track

..

I was thinking about mentioning this. The peripheral arrangement method is dependent on having a tumblehome hull. The angle of the hull has to expand wider the further down it goes. If it did not, the hull would cut into the missile tubes. From looking at the internal structure and layout of the Mk57 launchers, I don't see why the Mk57 could not be clustered at or near the ship's center-line like the Mk41. Depending on how much real estate you wanted to devote to them, you could line them up in two rows of 32 cells and have a passageway between them like Broadway between Turrets 2 and 3 on the battleships. This would keep the systems separated to some degree and maintain the redundancy afforded in the nature of the Mk57...

...I might have to keep this in mind for a USS Long Beach strike cruiser conversion...

...afterall, I do have the hull...

Anyway, back to work!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

You are kind. I am happy I can contribute to your creative process.

Every time I pull alongside one of our modern ships it pains me to see how fragile they are. You can see where the strength members in the hull are through the thin skin of the hull. It's like looking at an anorexic person. Our ships are like anorexic people holding guns. Sure, they can fire lethal ammunition, but if you hit them once, they break.

I think most of us are on board with you there.

Well, no you don't have to make your ship bigger. In fact your ship might be too big as she is. The size should be based on the systems in the ship, as opposed to trying to out-do another ship's classification. The terms "destroyer escort", "destroyer", "destroyer leader", "light cruiser", "heavy cruiser", "battleship", etc are all based on certain criteria, and if one were to start using the classifications of "light" or "heavy" cruisers again, it might be good to know what those terms mean and follow their criteria. I would like a WWII buff (maybe even Rick E. Davis or Tracy White if they would be so kind) to clarify if my definitions are inaccurate.

The term "light cruiser" was chosen for Long Beach, because she only met those criteria. My recollection is that the criteria are based on a few things, for instance, Armament, Armor protection, and Speed. For instance, a "battleship" has the heaviest armor, the biggest guns, and the greatest size. The Iowa-class have been called "super-battleships" because they had the largest of US Naval guns, the heaviest armor, and were the fastest. A "heavy cruiser" was a type of cruiser, designed for long range, high speed, had armored decks, an armor belt, and an armament of naval guns roughly 8 inches. A "light cruiser" was a type of cruiser of medium size mounting naval guns of 6 inches, had armored decks, an armor belt and was smaller than a heavy cruiser. I think this is why all of the "cruisers" designed after the Long Beach (including the Ticonderoga-class) were originally designated as "guided missile destroyers" of one kind or another, and even some were "nuclear powered frigates". When the Navy realized they were not building any more real cruisers, they had to frock a bunch of ships up to the status of "cruiser".

So, while the length of the Long Beach is comparable to a heavy cruiser, she was strictly a defensive ship. She only had two 5"/38 caliber self-defense guns, and an area air warfare system that fired defensive armament. Reports say she had a hull 4" thick, and she had very high speed. So in relative comparison of armament, SM-2s are viewed by the Navy has having little offensive value in a surface engagement but could be of value if fired in large numbers. This could equate to having a battery of extremely slow firing 6" guns (it takes a LONG time to run out SM-2ER missiles the Long Beach carried in comparison to an auto loading 6" mount carried on CL's). She was fast, and she had a thicker than normal hull, kind of like an armor belt. It sounds to me like she met all of the "light cruiser" requirements and only exceeded one by how long she is.

So, just to keep this in perspective, even the largest, heaviest cruiser of the "modern era" only rose to the criteria of a "light cruiser".

This sounds more like a nuclear powered LHA like the USS America with a couple guns and some missiles.

Yes, the Mk71 is the only one. United Defense has the system design, and the weapon is indeed stored at Dahlgren.

That's interesting. It would make sense that they fire the guns on the gun-line periodically to keep the mechanics from freezing. To my knowledge, no more work has been done on it after the procurement contract was summarily cancelled a second time in the early 1980s by Senator Proxmire.

Oh, I think it would be fantastically badass. I think it could be feasible using the Mk16 8" mechanics of the Des Moines-class CAs. They made a 12" auto loader that did the same thing. There are two hoists, one for the propellant and one for the projectile, and between them is the ramming space that leads into the barrel. When both projectile and propellant come up, they are put into arms. Those arms come in line with each other over the ramming space, and they are both rammed into the open breach. Then the breach closes, and it's ready to fire.

Back to CGN-42 for me!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

16" single barrel autoloader....drool drool...

just visited a few craft stores to see if i could find any models....HAHA....ppffttt! these damn kids these days.....too busy with video games to build models so the stores barely stock anything. Guess ill have to look online.

I have built semi-trucks there was a big community on E-bay selling stuff for them. Couldnt find much there for warships. Any Ideas anyone?

_________________
In God we trust all others we track

www.pacificfront.com is a great one and a sponsor of this site. amazon.com sellers have lots of kits, you just need to know which one to ask for. Are you looking for a good Burke kit to work with?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I was checking that out last night. I cant believe nobody has built the 1/350 Virginia from Iron shipwrights. I've been looking for pictures of that kit for years! I'm kind of hesitent to spend that kind of money for a kit without seeing some pictures first. Judging from their other kits Im sure its good, but.... Also I wasnt thrilled with their radars, the SPS-40 looks WAY off.

When I was buying stuff for my model semi's on Ebay, people would sell what was called "truck junkyards" Which was just spare parts from all different kits. I'd ;ike to come accross something like that from morden ship. Like vls's and guns and such like that. Hulls would be nice too. I was thinking about maybe seeing if i could find a heavy cruiser hull of about 700-800 scale feet. Do you think that would work, or are the shapes going to be way off for a morden hull? I will probably end up using a tyco or spru can hull, the length and with will be close and will have the details like praire masker and that kind of stuff. Ill have to reshape the forward part of the hull to reflect the lines of the virgina lines, which i love the looks of. But i am also going to have to get a Burk so I can use parts from it. The foward superstructure is Highly modeled off the Burks, and the yard arms are a direct rip off, not to mention that i need two sets of them. Also I may need the newest TYCO model that has all the COMSAT domes, cant remember what hull it is but I do remember seeing it for sale on the net somewhere....scheesch...my wife is really going to love me when i start getting all the stuff for this ship hahahahaha!

So I think my final numbers are going to be 750 feet long by 80 feet wide. does that sound reasonable?

Im typed out for now, so back to research!

I thank everybody who has replied, and welcome anyone who has suggestions

Joe

_________________
In God we trust all others we track

Just a quick pic of the TYCO that I built. It was about 12 or 13 years ago, i think.




I didnt like the colors i bought so i did a lot if mixing and made my own. I went with the MK26 cause i thought i was "funner" to look at than the VLS. Also did the masts in the old style. wish i had some better pictures, but the technoligy just wasnt there. Wish i still had the model, but if i remember right, I tried to turn it into a 600 foot long yatch or something hahaha

_________________
In God we trust all others we track

You mean "Judging from their other kits I'm sure it's mediocre". Unless it was made in the last couple of years, ISW's old stuff tend to have lots of problems, mainly in the realm of unusable small parts.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

No actually it is about numbers. USN ships are deployed widely. Many of the ships in low threat areas are OHPerry FF. THe USN has contigencies for bringing large concentrations of ships together on short notice. Within the space of about 2 weeks the USN can have four CVN, 20 CG/DDG, several SSN, LHA/LHD if needed. Also if its China being provacitive the USN can count on contributions of vessels from Australia, Japan, and South Korea. India has no love for the PRC and neither does Malaysia, or Indonesia. Vietnam is also getting cold vibrations from their long alienated former ally.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝