The Ship Model Forum

I like A LOT! It gives me a ridiculous amount of ideas for my Des Moines whiffs

If you're worried about the Harpoon launchers then could you possibly move them aft abreast the after SPG-55B and point them aft and a little outboard? I don't think it would interfere with the firing arcs of the after 5"/38s too much. Not sure what they'd do to the SPGs though...


FYI...you didn't add Mk-26 launchers in the overhead view. They're still Mk-10s

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

I'm with Cliff, I like it, But. I'm just left to think there's not exactly a full engagement suite in place there - two launchers, and only two SPGs, kinda limits her ability to engage threats. Unfortunately, the problem becomes, what else can be done with that, to add more engagement capacity.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Well, if you add in a SPG-60 for the 5" battery you can slave it to the missile system and use it as a 3rd illuminator. They did that with the Virginia Class CGNs. You could raise the after mast up one level and sponson it off the aft side. Its an idea.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

I was thinking about that before I posted the picture. Two illuminators can handle two launchers. Like you guys know, the missiles only receive illumination for the last few seconds at most. As soon as one target is gone, the SPG shifts to the next target very, very quickly. The illuminators move fast.
However, I would feel a lot better with three illuminators anyway. I was thinking quite a bit about the forward 5" director being replaced with a SPG-55. That's doable, but then there's nothing directing the 5" battery. However, I think a SPG-60 can go on the very back of the main mast and have nearly about 300 degrees of coverage. So, this turns the ship into at least a 3 director ship and even 4 if the SPG-60 gets in on it, too.
I put the extra generators in the ex-3"/50 magazines. That cut down on the total Tomahawk ABLs they could carry, but 4 ABLs is more realilistic than 6.
I don't think the exhaust from the Harpoons would do anything to the SPG-55s unless they were directly in line with each other. I think the Harpoons might be good where they are. I will have to keep thinking about it, and hopefully one of the engineers will chime in!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Remember though, if you have both SPQ-9 and SPG-60 then you don't need the MK-37 director. Although if you still have 4 mounts you might want another director somewhere but I don't think it's needed.

Can anyone weigh in on that? The Iowas got SPQ-9 (but not SPG-60) but still kept all FOUR of their MK-37 directors. Was that because SPG-60 wasn't installed or because they had so many mounts? I'm just trying to figure out if you need any additional directors if you have the other two radars. Thoughts?

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

I'm just betting it's Redundancy, personally - just call it a hunch.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

I think it is a fire-control computer thing. I am pretty sure that on the battleships, it was to detect sea-skimming missiles instead of operating with the ship's fire control systems. The battleships were so invovled in velocimeters mounted on top of the turrets and tracking the rounds with the SPS-49 that the SPQ-9 was probably useful, but its real value was detection of sea-skimmers. Detecting sea-skimming missiles is the advertized feature and the real advantage of the SPQ-9/9A/9B family. Fire-control is another feature.
The sucky thing is that even though Missouri has SPQ-9 on board, she did not detect a Silkworm racing in at her at 900 knots! I bet the reason she did not see it was because the missile came from the SPQ-9's massive blind caused by the structure.
When the Iowas were going to be upgraded with VLS and the Mk-160 FCS, MK-23 TAS, etc, their Mk-37 directors were going to be upgraded with the SPG-53 radars. I am willing to bet the SPG-60 was probably left out for the cost of ripping out the Mk-37 director and running everything associated with the SPG-60.

I imagine on Canberra here I will put SPG-60 on board and replace the Mk-37 with another 55B.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The funny thing about that silkworm, is the seeker wasn't active, and it had actually passed the battleship more or less when it was engaged - originally two had been launched, but one ditched in flight, most of the fleet had figured it was just Another USN bird ditching its load without looking down (again - a bad habit of theirs) and engaged solely on that premise - they had warned that it was not going to be tolerated anymore and they would engage. The fleet at the time had NO warning or idea what that was - later found out, an EA-6B had observed the launch and everything, not said a peep. No "Missile Incoming" or anything.

So the Mo might have detected it, but didn't engage under the same premise, that it was an aircraft not a missile.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

The missiles approached and were detected by the RN Type 42 destroyer [Type 42] and a Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate [OHP]. The OHP was unable to acquire a lock on the missile with the STIR or "Egg" antennas. The Type 42 fired a pair of Sea Darts at the Silkworm and hit it after it passed the Missouri. The Perry frigate didn't get a shot off with its standard missiles or 76mm gun but did fire chaff, the Missouri fired chaff. One of the Missouri's Phalanx guns fired at the chaff launched by the Missouri rather than locking on the Silkworm. The Silkworm incident was the final nail in the coffin for the remaining Iowas. Had the Iraqi operators properly preset the Silkworms before launch the Missouri would have most likely have been hit.


Now to the Canberra reactivation scenario:

I wouldn't use SPG-55 radars. They are big and heavy, for New Threat Upgrade the SPG-51D has all the features you need. The SPG-51D was available and larger numbers could be fit on the available displacement. Only one missile launcher needs to be fit for SAMs. While both Mk4 launchers held 64 missiles each, the reliability of the early Terriers was miserable. A single Mk26 mod2 launcher could be fit. The Mk26 mod2 is the 64 round version of the Mk26 that was originally designed for the canceled "Strike Cruiser" from the 1970s. Three of the model 2 were built and are available.


Misc:
Mk26 launchers
mod 0 --> 24 rounds: Virginia class bow launcher
mod 1 --> 44 rounds: Virginia class aft launcher
mod 2 --> 64 rounds: Not fit a warship
mod 3 --> 24 rounds: later version of mod 0, Kidd class bow launcher
mod 4 --> 44 rounds: later version of mod 1, Kidd class aft launcher
mod 5 --> 44 rounds: Super fast version of mod 1 for Aegis, Ticonderoga class blocks 0 and 1.

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

Those are very interesting points, SeaSick. I think you could say any negative point was a nail in the coffin of the battleships. There were too many people who either intentionally lie about them or simply refuse to accept accurate information about them. The surface fleet has been subserviant to the air side since WWII, because the air fleet dominated capital ships. The battleships stepped all over the air-side's toes by offering the surface fleet real-life capital ships, and the air-side hated that idea. They still hate that idea with passion.
So, Iowa's Turret 2, boilers, propellant, lack of SAM capability, manning, gun range, Mk-143 ABLs instead of VLS, all these things were held against the battleships. Anything they could use as ammo against the battleships was. I see the Silkworm missiles as one more thing. If the missile had hit Missouri, what would have happened? If it had hit the Bunker Hill what would have happened? If it had hit the Salem, what would have happened?
The battleship would have sustained damage but would have still been mission capable. NO other ship in the Navy could have said any such thing. A mine took out an Aegis cruiser! WTF?!

But anyway.....
Your points about the SPGs are interesting. I have been wondering about the SPG-51 and 55 relationship for a while. I wonder why the SPG-55 was ever chosen when the SPG-51 was around. I can only figure that the earlier SPG-51s were not that good, and the SPG-55 did a whole lot to fix those problems. As technology goes, I can unerstand that when the SPG-51s saw better versions, such as the D model, they obviously got better.

I am going with the SPG-55B because their upgrade proposal was to receive SPG-55s and both of their launchers modified to fire the SM-1. This can be found on page 380 in US Crusiers by Norman Firedman. I wonder what fire-control system they were going to get. It's also quoted in there that there was supposedly a need to automate the propulsoin system which required a vertual 100% replacement, which is apparently "impossible". I really wonder why that would have been "necessary" and why in the 1980s that could not have been accomplished.

One way or the other, I hope to have really covered most of my bases with this suggested modernization.
2x Mk-26
3-4x Phalanx CIWS
2x Mk-141 Harpoon quad launchers
4x Mk-143 Tomahawk ABL
2-3x SGP-55B
SRBOC
SLQ-32 ECM
SPS-48E
SPS-49E
SPS-55
NTU anteannas
SPQ-9
Removal of Mk 51 in way for flag facilities or accommodations for spec forces.
SATCOM
Possibly SPG-60...I am inclined to see a modernization of the Mk37 forward instead

The other changes to the ship accomodate 1500kW generators inside the aft 3"/50 magazine spaces and ECM/flag facilities in place of the forward 3" mags, a larger stern flight deck, etc.

I do ask for any critiques you guys have with the proposed upgrades. I have chosen these as a practical modernization based on what 1) the Iowa-class battleships received by 1988 and 2) what other non-Aegis AAW cruisers received during their 1980s upgrades (NTU).

Are there suggestions for accomplishing the mission requirements stated above?

Does anyone have additional missions a ship equippped like this might fulfill?

Do you think a Canberra CABG would have been practical?

Would you guys agree that this might be a command/NSFS/Flag element of an amphibious group?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

"Well, let me tell you, Dave. Frigates do a lot, but they do a lot poorly." - The quote I have heard from Aegis to battleship sailors alike.

Now to the Canberra reactivation scenario:



On my USS Kentucky project, I have 2 Mk26 Mod 2 mounts aft, because there is so much available space. They are incredible.

A co-worker and friend of mine was one of the last Mk26 GMs to go through the C-school before they closed it down, and he was on the Thomas S. Gates, aka "The Gates of Hell", for 3 years. He said they had a terrible time shooting missiles. They were performing some exercise where they were to fire six missiles per launcher, and they could not fire both at once, and the forward launcher got off 5 missiles and the aft 2 before they jammed.
This sounds to me like the launchers were not well maintained and the ship was underpowered. There is no way the other Ticos were built to operate this way. The Gates must have been suffering from some affliction.
But, if she were not and there was a problem with the Mk26s, I think the guys in charge might go for 2 launchers for extra capability and redudancy


Where do they store this stuff? A full Mk26 Mod2 must be quite large!

Oh, by "super-fast", what kinds of speeds are you talking? Ticonderoga's 2 seconds per launch is already pretty fast, or is that speed wrong?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Missions for the Guided Missile Heavy Cruiser Battle Groups:

- Operate within response range of ground forces to provide NSFS.
- Strategic missile strikes with Tomahawk cruise missiles
- Operate in conjunction with amphibious forces
- Perform intermediate range gunnery strikes in preparation for amphibious landings
- Perform sea-controlling operations
- Fly the Flag in areas of influence - specifically third-world countries.
- Embark and support special operations forces and human elements abroad
- Operate as a flag-capable ship
- Operate in place of a CVBG in low to high air-threat areas

Composition of CAGBG/CABG

1 x CAG
1 x CG-47
1 x DD-963
1 x FFG-7

What do you think, guys? Are there any more missions you would add or do you think these are a stretch of the proposed modernized ships' capabilities?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I don't see the problem with that layout and concept, really. It's a step-down from a CVBG option, when committing that much power is either too much, or not possible. They'd make rather effective anti-piracy groups and such.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

The only effective future of NSFS. Man, isn't that sexy?

Does anyone else have suggestions about a modernization of the Boston and Canberra that would follow an economic and Iowa-class like modernization in the 1980s?

I would very much like to hear any and all suggestions.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Well, I got my Canberra model from Commander Series today. It's...interesting. The sculpture is pretty good. I wonder how up to par the scaling is, but other than that, it's pretty cool. There are lots and lots of things I am going to be doing to it.

Now that I have a tangible model in my hands, things will go a little better, and I will have something to actually work with (the emoticons are...interesting.)

Are there any more suggestions as far as increasing the ship's armament beyond what I have listed in my illustration posted above? We will stay away from VLS and modern systems like Nulka and RAM, too. 1980s is the era we're looking at, 1988 specifically.

Such as, are there any extra places you can figure you would put ABLs (while retaining the large helo deck aft)?

I really, look foward to your responses, guys!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

...and what do you guys think about the battle group configuration?

So, now to the technical aspect guys....

Try to view things from the unconventional aspect with the mission profile >:D What do you guys have in mind for a 1980s versions of these ships? For instance, while the ships hve TLAMs and Harpoons, the ship have 8" Paveway guided 8" round and ERGM rounds. Since the ship have these long range gunnery capabilities, the guns are the primary armament of the ship (while the missile guys think it's the other way around with missiles being the focus, the guns are the main armament). SAM capabilities, NTU or STIR guidance. Which would you choose and why?

Such as how would these ships been used during Operation Praying Mantis, anti-Iran force operations, escort matters, etc.

How would these ships be used in Somalia?

I look forward to your responses, guys.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I generally like that upgrade proposal image you posted back on page 2 - it's got a bit of everything really. I still think you should RnR the twin 5/35's with mk42 or mk45 - Parts commonality with the fleet, better range and rate of fire. Toss the original 5" director, give it SPG-60. Keep the 4-corners CIWS positions. I'd vote for NTU, just for the capability of engagement.

I liked your CAGBG layout, it makes sense for a lower-force option to deploy to an area with some punch, some defense, and without having to drag a Carrier out. Somalia, they probably would have gotten close enough to use the guns, since the 8's can reach out a moderate distance and hit the target, and with paveway and ERGM you've got precision destruction capacity without risking aircraft in heavy areas. Against Iranian assets, they've got the edge because they can fire munitions that CIWS can't intercept very well, and that hit like a bag of hammers. I would suspect a Tarantul doesn't last after one 8" round punches through it and detonates somewhere soft and squishy. Hitting enemy shore batteries would similarly be a relatively easy task as the only thing they can send at you is Silkworms when you're in range to use the guns. I say the guns, because Tommies don't exactly haul arse, and at max range there's time to break it down and bug out before it arrives, if you know it's coming.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Hey Dave check out this model of the Canberra just posted!

http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=18906&start=3195

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

WOW!!! That is incredible! I can only wish mine would come out so well That PE is incredible! Well, I hope mine will cut it now.

Well, I am going to break out the project and get back to it. Man, how cool is that model? Great. I wish there were more close-up pictures of it.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Some good points have been made. Certainly concerning a CA confronting other threats is an issue. A CA can respond with 8" gunfire for sure. The Des Moines-class could pretty much carpet-bomb with 8" rounds. The Boston/Canberra here would have to make ever shot count in any kind of heavy engagement. SALG rounds need to be designated, however, with a laser equipped Pioneer, they can have a one-shot one-kill with the Paveway SALG rounds. Those have been quoted at 30nm range. That's nice. After that, however, RAP rounds or base-bleed could easily, easily provide a longer range. (The only 8" rounds that should retain their maximum punch are the AP rounds. Theoretically a base-bleed cap could be put on the ends of all the 8" rounds in storage and significantly extend their range.)

Here are some issues I have been thinking about. Maybe you guys would have some suggestions.

Tomahawks:
The tomahawks are an issue. Unless we chose to go VLS, 16 rounds (4 ABLs) really is not much a punch. Even the 32 rounds the Iowas had were a real cheat of the available space.

SPG-55:
There is a SPG-55B at NNSY, where I work, and it's really cool. It's no bigger than the Mk37 on Wisconsin (the battleship I volunteer on). I am sure it weighs more, though. I would still go with them because the upgrade in the 60s was going to equip the ships with SPG-55s. Thus when NTU came along, they would have been brought up from SPG-55 to SPG-55B.

Harpoon:
I think the Harpoon numbers are up in the air. The only ships to receive more than 8 Harpoons were the battleships. All cruisers received only two quad canisters. So, unless we are going to put the CAGs on the same plain as the BBs, I believe they would only receive 8 Harpoons.

Missile Threats:
Well, active protection aside (NTU directing SM-2s), the ships have armore belts at the water-line and armored decks. While the battleships would repel most missiles with ease, the heavy crusiers have significantly less armor on the decks, etc.

RPVs:
The RPVs would likely be stored just like on the battleships. I know Iowa had them stored in Connex boxes underneath the barrels of the 16" guns of Turret 3. I think with the CAGs, they would likely be in a similar box but the box would be elsewhere like beside the missile decks but before the helo deck.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance