Seasick wrote:
I was considering this as a theoretical build. The non-VLS ships would be refit @1999 as fire support assets. First go to an upgraded version Mk86 fire gontrol system. Rebuild the the ship with a new foremast and mainmast. Both would be patterned after the Arleigh Burke class's mast. Stick the AN/SPQ-9B at the same elevation as the lower surface search on the Burke like foremast. On the mainmast place the AN/SPS-49(V) near the top. The AN/SPS-49 is much lighter than a AN/SPS-48 and can go up fairly high. Keep the Mk23 target acquisition radar about a third of the way up the mast. The Mk23 TAS radar has been used to find surface targets as well as air targets. Take the Sea Sparrow launcher and put it in your spares box, fit a Mk49 RAM launcher in its place. Take the Phalanx guns and build platforms to situate them like they are on the Ticonderoga class. Build extentions to the platforms with the launches on them. Replace the boats with rigid hull inflatable boats. On the extensions build bipod mounting points for M2 0.50cal machine guns. The Harpoon launchers should be moved forward and mounted like they were on the Virginia class CGN. The former location of the bow Phalanx should become the location of the forward Mk49 RAM launcher. A platform for a Mk38 mod2 gun between the Harpoon and the forward Mk45 mod4 gun. Be sure the Mk38 mod2 is able to turn 360 without hitting anything. The magazine for the forward Mk45 mod4 127mm/62 is going to be expanded forward to increase the amount of ammunition. On the stern replace the 127mm/54 with the Mk110 57mm gun. The location of the gun there will give it a wide arc of fire and reduce the weight on the quarterdeck so that you could increase the size of the hanger and flight deck if you want to do that. The quarter deck could have a launch and recovery for SEAL team zodiac boats (or whatever they call them today.
I’ve spent several days thinking about this, taking all of this into consideration, and I am kind of confused. Why do you want to introduce a bunch of single-point failures into a design that does not have any? As the Spruances are they are about 100% reliable. Instead you seem to want to make them unreliable.
If you want to have a NSFS ship, why do you want to reduce its fire support capability by ½, reduce its available magazine capacity, and reduce it to a single gun which can fail and terminate the entire capability simply to add a single Mk110 to the ship?
The only way 5" is good for fire support is to have a very high volume of fire, and in order for the 5" to cross the line of effectiveness you have to be delivering at least 40-50 rounds per minute. By reducing the 5" mounts from 2 to 1 you no longer even approach adequate volume of fire.
So by sacrificing 1/2 of your fire support capability just so you can add single Mk110 57mm gun you reduce your fire support capability and add a single point of failure anti-small boat capability. So, you have taken one reliable capability and turned it into two unreliable capabilities. Instead I suggest you can retain your near 100% reliability with the two 5” guns and accomplish nearly the exact same mission of the Mk110 with two 30mm Mk38 Mod2s per side. So, even if you are going to reduce the ship to a single point of failure NGFS system why would you want to keep it as the ineffectual 5" and not upgrade it to the Mk71 8"? The Spruance-class was
specifically designed to mount the Mk71.
By reducing the Phalanx from 2 to 1 you are again reducing your Phalanx CIWS system from a reliable system to a single point of failure system. Phalanx is known for going down, so instead of having 100% reliability with 2 mounts you are turning it into a 50% reliability.
Since the ship's structure is remaining as it is, surfaces perpendicular to the water, there is not really much of a reason to try to reduce the radar cross section of the masts. In fact you’re increasing the vulnerability of the ship by changing masts. As the Spruances were, you're going to see the ship on radar no matter what. As we have seen in real ASM tests, by retaining lattice masts, you are producing a radar decoy for ASMs to go after instead of the main hull or structure. This also enables one of the two masts and its radars a chance of survivability if the ship were actually hit. While the structure will be peppered by shrapnel, it saves the structure and crew from a catastrophic detonation of an ASM inside the ship.
So, in a realilistic design, other than just making the ship look neat with low radar cross section masts and trying to pile as many new weapon systems on the ship as possible, why would you want to pursue your design over a more modest/effective proposal like the ones proposed in this thread?
Login
Register
FAQ
