The Ship Model Forum

Well, this is very interesting. So far anyone I have ever spoken with who have had experience with both NTU and Aegis have said about the same thing. From what Mr. Gui has to say, NTU may very well be well suited for littoral combat operations. Neato!
A littoral ship like an NSFS would likely benefit significantly from an NTU installation. NTU has been my choice for the BBs for the last couple years.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Real-world experience is always welcome.

The comparison between alternatives is not between NTU and Aegis, but conceptually between NTU and point defenses. NTU would be an absolute non-starter for a modernizing a DD 963, if any existed in condition to be modernized, for reasons that you can read in the previous postings in this thread. Even if NTU were technically feasible for a DD 963, the question is what would you have to give up, and what are the alternatives in terms of risk. All surface warships need point defenses, including both soft-kill and hard-kill weapons. Improving the point defenses will give a ship a better probability of survival than would adding NTU, for operations along the littoral.

A model by definition depicts an abstract of achievable reality. Otherwise it is science fiction, which is OK if you make that plain to viewers, and it is a hoax if you do not.

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.

NTU in no way precludes point defenses.

Every NTU ship had SRBOC and Phalanx. Most of those ships did not have the well above average margin that was designed into the Spruance class.

The numbers put forward by my designs earlier in the thread all used some of the theoretical weight available from not mounting loaded Mk 26 launchers fore and aft to mount Phalanx. All had remiaining weight (as much as 98,000lbs on the first). This was based on the Spruance being able to support a DDG conversion which would have included a Mk 26 mod 0 forward and a Mk 26 mod 1 aft.

That 98K on the first I'd happily use to add SPS-49 (14,000) to complete the NTU fit.

So, showing the math, there is no reason NTU would preclude Point defenses.

I listed as a requirement a credible AAW capability as:

- AAW system capable of competing and integrating with Aegis CGs and DDGs.

This has nothing to do with the littoral operations. It sounds like NTU will do very, very well for the ship as it's up against the shore, but the whole idea was to make the ships AAW capable, especially in order to escort their MARG/ARGs.
Instead of being escorted by Aegis ships that cannot support forces on the ground with gunnery, one or two of these Spruance NSFS DDGs would be with the group to provide 8" gunfire.

Unfortunately, it does not look like the LASM will be coming to fruition, either. Even if you could, you would still be looking at it as a secondary weapon. You would be able to carry...20 of them(?) if you were to load the VLS proportionately.

The 8" on the other hand would be able to provide the volume of fire NSFS requires.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I would imagine LASM could still provide Some effective striking power with the NSFS Spruance concept - the INS guidance would provide good soft-target striking at range with an area effect. The flight speed would put it on target rather quickly.

_________________
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/

Alright, lads, here's a concept one of the boys over at shipbucket proposed, and I think it's quite an interesting one - I already corrected him on SPG-62, and the array is a SPY-2 Mini-Aegis set, I'm not sure where it factors in. ABLs are for TASM, under the assumption it went ahead. I'm surmising he made space for additional rounds in the old 51 magazine. I thought it might be interesting to show here, for discussion. He termed it the Mississippi Class CG, and I have to admit, I'm interested in how feasable the design is.

_________________
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/

This one is interesting, that's for sure. I see the SPS-49 was taken off the forward mast in both instances.
I would like to know why the guys behind these pictures decided to keep the mk26 launchers in stead of moving to the Mk41 VLS and stacked tomahawk ABLs in place of the forwrad 5".
I really do want to know if the SPG-51 or SPG-61 illuminators would be too heavy for the masts.
The four sets of Harpoons are cool. Especially if they are SLAMs, that modification. That would increase the ship's strike capability greatly. I'd like to know if that's feasible. From the past discussions, however, it does not sound like it is.
The design looks really fun, and it'd probably be a GREAT conversion project for the USS Kidd model. All you'd need is a pair of ABLs and sea sparrow launcher. The ABLs you can get from Veteran Models, or a converted New Jersey, and you can make a sea sparrow launcher from Evergreen plastic.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I'll take the moment to point out there's no SYS-2 antennas, so the concept was pre-NTU. SPS-48 was the only radar on the masts of the original Kidds for air search.

He kept the Mk26 because of the timeline at which they were put into place, the original ones anyways. I don't think SPG-51 would be too heavy for the masts, in principle, and even then, if you reinforce the upper forward like they did for SPS-49, you've got more than enough weight capacity on that mounting, and his already has the SPS-49 reinforcement to that platform. There's enough width, on the Spruance, if you doubled the Harpoons, but I'm not sure about the weight capacity, though they aren't exactly a heavy weapon system.

I happen to have the ABLs on hand (oh... four of them) from a Missouri in my stash, and should be coming into a dozen more of them from a couple more Iowas. I also happen to have a spare sea chicken or two.

I also questioned him on the aft placement of a phalanx, because it's unnecessary as they have the two-corners layout for protection anyways. I suggested he lift the RAM up into the superstructure somewhere as well, providing a nice even coverage with RAM at the other corners in theory.

_________________
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, honestly, man, just about no one knows about the NTU antennas. I think we are very fortunate to have had them pointed out to us. I have been studying NTU for the last 3 years and this forum was the first time I ever heard about it. The noticable features that identify the likelihood of NTU being aboard a ship is the radar arrangement (the use of SPS-49 and SPS-48 combination) and the illuminators. This is limited to escort ships, because carriers and big-deck amphibs are not cool enough to have NTU aboard. Those little bars are easy to over-look and really hard to find when you are looking for them!
I will be including those bars on the Spruance DDG, Kentucky, and 2006 Iowa. Placement on the battleships will be a little challenge, because of over-pressure concerns.

As for NTU and its effectiveness, let's keep in mind that China crapped their pants when we sold the Kidds to Taiwan. They went ape-poo and stomped their feet saying it wasn't fair.

So, a question for the tech experts watching this thread, here is one for you to ponder if you would. Because NTU was so remarkably effective, I am very interested in what equipment you think would be included in a modern, 2005-2009, addition of an NTU electronic and weapons direction suite focusing on AAW capability. The key is not going Aegis, because Aegis is such a financial drain, and NTU gave non Aegis ships such a remarkable AAW advantage.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Cool, man. Hey, there's something I wanted to include on the Kentucky, but I can't because there's not enough space, but on the Virginia CGs and a few other ships had these awesome warning markings for the tomahawk ABLs. If you can mask that off and make those markings, that's be really cool, man. I just wish I could have included it on Kentucky.

[/quote]I also questioned him on the aft placement of a phalanx, because it's unnecessary as they have the two-corners layout for protection anyways. I suggested he lift the RAM up into the superstructure somewhere as well, providing a nice even coverage with RAM at the other corners in theory.[/quote]

I agree. My DDG-963 will reflect that as well.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

That's a hell of an idea, Dave. I like that. I saw the shot of Virginia, and I thought "you know, ABLs on the fantail of the Mississippi would look Wicked!" Which is quite an interesting thought. A couple of outboard-angled ABLs on the fantail would be quite interesting indeed.

_________________
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, yes, that will look cool, but we have to keep in mind this thread is modernization of the Spruance-class. There is nothing modern about putting tomahawk ABLs on anything. You Captain Potter will likely pop a vein with cosmetic propositions. It's all VLS nowadays for tomahawks anyway, and putting them on the aft gun deack of a Spruance in place of the aft 5" is not up the alley of modernization. Now we getting into what Captain Potter was talking about with the hoax business. The exploration of the practical upgrade the Navy should have done instead of destroying an entire class of modern ships is the purpose here.
My only point with the picture was the red warning lines around the ABLs, not necesarrily their arrangement.

Another thread about making a Spurance look cool, on the other hand, would be good. I hope you link that thread to here, though!

The SPY-2 or SPY-3 upgrade you had posted is one I heard of as a lucrative proposal for sale to Taiwan. With a purchase price of $600 million (I believe) per ship, it was way, way more economical option for Taiwan to buy the Kidds.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Yes, this is true, this is simply a wandering down a different path on a Spruance/Ticon/Kidd variant - the Mississippis he conceptualized were to replace nuclear CG's on a cost basis, and are essentially a Pre-Aegis pure missile CG concept. So they are a what if, and for a 78-80 era proposal, ABLs are a possibility. Yes, this digresses from the concept that we should probably call Spruance II, as it'd likely be a new-build Spruance with some of these alterations in concept.

SPY-3 would likely be a Very expensive upgrade, though one would wonder how much it would benefit the design, as it would not only upgrade the tracking suite, but the engagement suite as well - you don't have to worry about where to put illuminators, the SPY-3 incorporates illumination in the suite, at least from what I've heard. SPY-2 being a lightweight SPY system which would change it.

I still think a rocket artillery battery on 52 would be a rather interesting option for tactical fire support, mostly for the heavy firepower, range, and barrage fire rate, in theory at least. Or at least, it would look pretty wicked in theory.

_________________
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/

What I thought of immediately when you recommended this was the RUM-139 launcher. This thing was the ASROC launcher. I think that would look pretty cool, man. I know they launch Harpoons as well, and I bet the rockets you're talking about COULD be fitted with a guidance system and adapted for the launcher. So, the RUM launcher would work wonderfully.

Now, I am sounding quite hypocritical, because I have been talking and watching the discussion unfold instead of building and posting pictures of the model, but I would very much love to see you go ahead and finalize a design and go with it, man. This thing would look great. I think if I were not building 3 models at once while training for BUD/s and preparing an outfit for a deployment I would be able to crank these ships out!

Are you planning to use Veteran Models producs? I really, really hope you do, man. They are so super cool. I just finished working on my Harpoons, and my Phalanx sets are almost done. I hope to go ahead and fabricate my RAM mounts tomorrow.

Anyway, here's the Veteran Models launcher that would be a WONDERFUL suite for the rockets you're talking about.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The problem is, I'm essentially finalizing like... Ten designs, not one. The Spruances in my skull keep multiplying, all sorts of variant models in practice. Spruance with Mk26 Aft, Spruance with step-deck forward and ASROC on 52 with reload hatches, both guns forward. NSFS "Spruance II" with Rocket Battery aft and 8" forward. I've got concept to do a VLS Kidd, because I think it might look interesting with that setup, and I might do Mississippi, a Modified Tico with step deck forward, gun superfiring the VLS... I'm kinda stuck with a breeding pit full of ideas more than anything else.

Yeah, I was actually thinking a modified Mk16 Matchbox launcher might make a good rocket battery suite, though I think a few extra tubes might be well and handy for a better barrage fire. I would quite imagine you could lower the bore to 16" straight, and the length of the round would provide a good long drive rocket, without a guidance package, and using a 16" round for the warhead package. Alternately, adapt the round for a Copperhead-style guidance package, laser precision on target for fire support. I was figuring I'll use the base for a Mk16 launcher, and then fit tubes made from 20ga wire in place.

_________________
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/

Those all sound great. I think it'd be great if you picked one and ran with it. I have thoguht about a couple ways you can do the stair-step forward with the two Mk71 guns and the either Mk26 launcher aft or a 61 cell pad aft. The architecture is easily researched with the period in which they would have been build/modified. I think the period you're talking about fits into the period where you can look at the Bainbridge, Leahy, and Virginia-class CGs. NTU or prior, the electronics would not be too bad to do. You will likely have to sculpt if not modify something else to produce the Mk71 mounts. I am thinking about using Sculpy. Hopefully I can make a master and then produce a mould so I can produce more for future products and for fellow modelers such as yourself!
Well, man, pick one and go! Let's get something going!

Dave

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I've actually got plans to build the All, Dave. I'll probably do them after I wrap up the build I'm on, and a couple of others that are otherwise decorating my shelf.

Stair-step twin-turret Spruance will be two 5" mounts, I'm thinking, as I don't think two forward Mk71's would be a reasonable concept - that and the sheer size of the mount, it would likely obstruct the bridge on the step-deck. I'll be setting the angles of the step similar to the bulkhead forward of 52 so as to provide maximized field of fire for 51.

With regards to Mk71's, the Oto 5" Compact is a rather sizable turret, and I cleaned off the external details and reshaped it to have a flatter top profile and other general modifications, I figure it should do nicely for a Mk71 Mod 2 gun turret or similar. The only other thought could be to scale-o-rama a Mk45 from 1/350 down to 1/700 as a theory, as they share a similar architecture, and likely a service Mk71 might have a modified bustle.

I'll actually take this moment to point out the irony that I actually loathe the Spruance, primarily for its aesthetic, just the massive flat-faced look, they look a lot like an oversized tanker in some ways to me, and the Ticos just look even worse, in truth. So I guess it just makes me really want to modify them and see if I can make them more beautiful.

Oh yeah, I just remembered something else I want to do to a Spruance - the DDH proposal. So yeah, I have a fistful of Spruance concepts to build.... Eventually.

_________________
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/

Awesome. Let's post some up, man.



Cool. I must say on a practicality basis, the VLS forward is awefully appealing.



They are some ugly ships. That's why I really don't subscribe to the whole enclosed mast thing. The sides of the ship are going to be reflecting so much radar back toward the radars anyway, there's no real reason to go to all the effort and cost to reduce the signature down if one way or the other the sides of the superstructure are going to be radar mirrors.



Well, I cannot wait to see some! Don't let me beat you to the punch! I already have both masts constructed and the RAM launchers on their way from scratch build.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Well I already have the one down that I started a while ago, I'll post the pics here of the finished product so you're on track.







I figured ROKN, Pre-KDX upgrade to help relieve some of their all Gearing/Fletcher fleet around the 80's or so, and to supplement the JMSDF for local area coverage. Standards are fitted as enemy air threats are equally a risk to the ROKN in this context, so reach is favoured.

_________________
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/

Dear posters, this thread will be moved to the CASF Destroyers section and renamed Calling All What-if DD-963 Fans soon.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?