The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:09 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 416 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 4:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:49 am
Posts: 280
Location: Bavaria, Germany
[/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.:big_grin:[/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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 12:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:49 am
Posts: 280
Location: Bavaria, Germany
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... :smallsmile:

thanks
Uwe


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 7:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:49 am
Posts: 280
Location: Bavaria, Germany
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2014 1:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2694
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2014 7:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
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!!!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2014 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:12 pm
Posts: 392
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 :thumbs_up_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2014 8:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2694
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2014 3:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
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!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2014 9:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2694
the angled back wing bulkheads with the doors have to be a bit longer or a shim to fill the gap between those bulkheads & the side walls. send me your email address & i'll send you the 18 drawings 1 at a time as 5 to 10meg a piece even as jpegs.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:12 pm
Posts: 392
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 :thumbs_up_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:12 pm
Posts: 392
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..


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
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. :woo_hoo:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:12 pm
Posts: 392
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
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. :doh_1: :huh:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 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!


Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 416 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group