The Ship Model Forum

\\\\\\

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

I think as CAPT Potter would agree the draw to the DDH is not the ability to ferry a bunch of stuff via helo or the ability to rapidly launch two helos at a time but instead to be a platform that can have two, three, or four ASW helos operating at the same time prosecuting multiple target areas. This need does not require an enormous flight deck, just one big enough to get a helo on and off one at a time, and A RAST system would do all the really heavy work of moving the craft around getting the next bird onto the flight deck. While foreign countries may have dabbled in their own CGHs and such, were any of the Spruance DDH configuration? I have not deeply studied it but it seems none were. They seemed to be assault helo carriers on big hulls that would lead to a Keiv- type investment instead of a DD that could handle 4 ASW helos for significantly less cost than a Keive or LHD type ship.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

////

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

SeaSick, that is very interesting.. So if you want to add more SH-60 to the CV what do you give up???

I Think for this forum a Spruance with the Capability to handle 3 or 4 helo would cool.. heck.. lets see what happens..

I certainly find your points fascinating, Seasick. I think I am starting to see where you are coming from concerning all of the comments you make in my threads. Please correct me if I am wrong. It seems that you are operating off the presumption that there will always be an aircraft carrier around to support/conduct operations, because everyone is working in a carrier battle/strike group. Most of my comments and ideas, however are based on the fact that there is not always a carrier around, and in the coming years with the draw down of the carrier force there will not be a carrier around a lot more often. There will, however be as many and more escort ships, in the fleet, and they will be forced to operate in independent groups entirely without carrier support.

The shift in thinking is drastic, and the situation of large carrier numbers to smaller carrier numbers requires an outside look at how we use the ships on hand, hence the economic choice of battleships operating in strike groups in place of the carriers we are losing and about to lose (only costing 58million/year vs 398/year) and the situation of small surface strike groups consisting of DDGs and a CG. So, the priority in thinking now is: groups acting independently of carriers, so they are going to need to be able to survive without carrier support, and that means means they have to do significantly more on their own.

AAW is taken care of with Aegis; no carrier or major improvement in shipboard systems needed there. ASW, on the other hand, needs a significantly more capable ASW capability. While our ships are receiving significant upgrades in their sonar capability, upgrades that makes even diesels vulnerable, the failure point has always been crew proficiency, and proficiency comes with mission focus. Rotating ASW duties around the ships in the group does not build proficiency. Developing skill proficiency is just like developing your body. If you want to be proficient and developed in your body and strength, you have to practice your skills and improve upon them in the gym, on the track, or on the pull-up bar. We practice AAW skills all the time so our multi mission ships are very good AAW ships, but they are horrible ASW and ASuW ships.

The first solution to having refined and effective ships skilled in ASW is having ASW focused ships, such as the Spruance-class again. However, since the entire Spruance-class has been destroyed, we need to start over. We would have to construct new ASW ships. Thankfully, building a non-Aegis Burke is pretty cheap and very, very easy. This is particularly one of the projects I have been working on for the CNO, and my final proposal is about to go up the chain to the CNO for official consideration and hopefully a funded feasibility study by NAVSEA.

You also make an interesting point of counting all of the helos in the entire group instead of counting the helos on a single ship. When a ship is conducting ASW operations, not all of the helo equipped ships are participating, and some of them physically cannot. Only "X" number of ships are hunting and using their helos at a time, and the other ships not on duty are using that time to conduct maintenance on their helicopters. So, those helos are not available for ASW work. As official as the statement that 8 helos in a 4 escort ship group "should" be enough may be, it is not practical, effective, or safe. In this situation adding a the larger capacity to an ASW focused DD, making it a "DDH" becomes not just practical or preferable but essential.

Because the thought process is in the realm of "carriers are not and will not be around when we need them" I suggest that there is indeed a role for (in this thread's case a Spruance and in the case of my proposal non-Aegis Burkes with modified electronics and weapon systems) multiple helo destroyers, and those ships could greatly benefit the groups they operate in and the fleet as a whole.

In addition to the expanded ASW capability of having 4 helos on board it would enable SOF elements to conduct a lot more missions they cannot otherwise conduct...which then leads to consideration of an expansion the ship's armament itself.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The next consideration to take into account is that the original design was set up for the USS Hayler. In that case, the Hayler was supposed to be a normal Spruance equipped with a hanger that extended over the standard flight deck and a flight deck that extended over the Sea Sparrow deck but still left the 5" deck untouched.

So, as an updated/expanded design, as some of the shipbucket drawings have depicted, do you guys think that the helo landing area should be extended all the way aft deleting the stern 5" gun for a longer landing area? While a larger landing area would be accommodated it would not be large enough to land two HH-60s at a time. Is it worth just having a little extra room to operate one HH-60 or having the standard landing deck with the extra capability of the stern 5" gun?

Remember in the upgrade proposed in the later posts in this thread the stern gun would be a Mk 45 Mod 4 5"/62caliber gun capable of providing NSFS/NGFS to existing troops ashore or troops the ship put ashore.

Also, keep in mind that by "troops" I mean special operations forces (SOF) such as NAVY SEALs and such, not Marine landings.

The extended stern version would look a little like this:

...fantastic.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I think the gun needs to stay put, in the case of the DDH. But something else that could be mentioned would be that it might not be of benefit as a fire support ship, to have Just 60's on board, but Cobras as well - the extra hangar space could be used not just as an ASW escort, but to give capacity for light air support. Could even be given targetting package to deliver PGM from NSFS weaponry on target for SOF teams on site.

Just a few other ideas in the field. That and Cobras are smaller than 60's so there could be a couple and still a decent amount of space for multiple 60's.

_________________
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/

Thanks for chiming in, Saura. You know, lots of people suggest attack helos in this role. the HH60 carries nearly as much the armament as an AH-1 Cobra. I do not see the tactical advantage of having AH-1s in missions other than specific SOF operations. Most of the time the ship is going to be fitted for general operations from ASW to boarding to attack, because you don't usually know what's going to happen. As a result the flexibility of the HH60 by arming it with Hellfires can make it an attack helo in stead of an ASW helo. I would suggest the HH-60 is more practical than the AH1.

I would suggest that if the DDH is deployed with the specific mission of deploying only 12 men at a time it would deploy with 2 HH-60s and 2 AH-1s (but it would be maxed out at 12 men). If you wanted to employ more than 12 men at a time (which is the usual case) the Cobars would have to stay home.

1 x Mk71 Mod2 8"/60caliber gun + 1 x Mk45 Mod2 5"/62caliber gun
vs.
2 x Mk45 Mod4 5"/62caliber guns

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The extra 5" gun offers a potential increase in volume of fire as well as redundancy against mechanical or combat damage to the forward gun. A larger flight deck is useless until you reach the size required to operate two helos simultaneously and I seriously doubt that can be achieved in this design. Thus, the larger landing area is pointless. Keep the gun.

I love it when people are on the same page

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

With an 8-inch gun forward, I think we have a winner. However, I think the 7 non VLS Spruances shoud get the Mk71. The Spruances equipped with the 61-cell VLS will likely have to retain that and be limited to the 5-inch gun. At the very least we can upgrade to the Mk45 Mod4 to provide reasonable fire support. The lighter mast aft is a possibility, but retaining the original mast is a possibility as well for the Spruance-class DDH.

This final piece of weaponry [based on the originally modified (61-cell VLS) ships will have only a Mk45 Mod 4 forward and the same aft] will be focused on NSFS/NGFS. It will possibly be adequate for mass saturation of personnel targets while able to engage small craft and perhaps other vessels.

I think we have an ASW Spruace-class DD that would make CAPT Potter proud.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Looking good!

Does the stern RAM create a blind zone for the gun?

Do the two folded helos really fit in the hangar nose to tail (cause they don't look like they do) or are they going to be angled a bit to fit?

Thanks,
Bob

I think the 7 ABL ships modified to this is a great fit.

yes the RAM mount creates a blind spot for the aft gun, but that's the name of the game it seems. The Sprucans had RAM back there, and the Ticos have Harpoon back there. So... Why not?

For the helos, however they would fit. Angling both sides inward would draw them in closer together.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

David,

I have no problem with the RAM-caused blind spot. That's what maneuvering is for.

On your drawing a few posts ago, I think I see one SPG-60 and maybe two Mk95 Bugeyes? If so, that gives you 3 guidance channels? Am I interpreting this correctly? Again, if so, why the mix of directors as opposed to all of one kind?

Will you mount a couple of Mk38s?

Looking good!

Regards,
Bob

Fo' shizzle.


There is no being lazy around you, Bob! I had not finished modifying that shipbucket drawing. I propose 2 Mk95 Bugeyes and no SPG-60. The original Bugeyes aft will stay where they are instead of moving them like I did for that picture, and the second will go up front just under the mast or on the mast.

Yes, sir I will. I foresee two, one per side, it's just a question of where.

Thank you, Bob. I wish I could spend more time on this, but the North Koreans have us busy in Japan

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I noticed the drawing ha the SPG-60 aft and wondered which re-arrangement would allow it to move forward so it could match the Mk 71. SPS-49 would be a good candidate to move is the room is needed. Of course, now you have said you intend to remove the SPG-60…

A candidate for the Mk 38s might be the top of the hangar, which should give a little extra distance to spot targets, and that distance may allow for earlier engagement.

So the difference between the ABL ships and those fit with 61(64) cells is only mount 51/81? How many cells do the former ABL ships pack forward?

The weights we used earlier show approximately 195k lbs available forward after the Mk 71. Deduct Phalanx, and we are at 183k.
16 cells with ESSM quadpack = 75.8k,
16 cells with Tomahawk = 98.2k
Meaning we’ve eaten up the estimated margin with 32 cells: 16 Tomahawk and 16(64) ESSM. The weight estimates do potentially allow for 8 of those ESSM cells to be Tomahawk - but IMO, ESSM would be more valuable to a ship at the pointy end. Additional Tomahawk could be lobbed by an asset farther out, if needed.

I have no weight data for a Mk46, but there may be deckspace for it in a few locations.

We don’t have data for the electronics, and then there is potential weight savings to be had in refit, so this is a SWAG you may or may not want to use in any case.

I’m still a fan of a gun mount with a faster RoF to support the Mk 71 against small boats – such as a Mk75 or Mk 110. Those 8” ships will get the first call to go close in, where the smallboat threat is highest. Not critical, just where I lean. Matching the Mk 45s fwd and aft on the VLS ships is perfectly logical and probably the right way to go.

That's right. And furthermore, there will be no modelling for you, young man, until you've straightened out your radars, cleaned your room, and eaten all your vegetables!

*Sigh* Okay.

I am still keeping two Phalanx mounts and two RAMs. Both versions of these babies would be getting close enough to the shore to have 360 degree covergage by both systems.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

////

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