Quote:
That is an outstanding looking MK71. Where did you get it and are there more?
A good friend of mine was nice enough to accept a commission from me to build the mount. He's too busy right now to take any kinds of orders. I am just really, really lucky he was nice enough to help me out.
Here's what I DO know. I looked into a few manufacturers, and I got an estimate from Paper Labs. They said they would be more than happy to make a master and 6 copies for about $100. To be honest, that's an awfully good deal. If you get in touch with them, they will likely be able to help you out.
If you need the specific dimensions of the Mk71,
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk71_pics.htm will help you out the best. The posted picture will be the best resource in addition to the pictures you'd want to send to Paper Labs.
Quote:
Note: Love what you are doing.
Thanks, man. I really appreciate it. I am taking every precaution to make the ship I want while preserving the integrity of the hull involved. Holy f#$k it's hard to do that, but very, very rewarding. Thanks for the kind words.
Quote:
I'd probably consider 16 cells fwd (32 ESSM and 8 SM-2)and 48 cells (32 ESSM, 32 SM-2 and 8 Tomahawk) aft. The Tomahawk is not a driver or critical tool for a close fire support ship, but having the capability MAY be worth the cost, so I preserve the option.
Well, I agree to a point. The Tomahawk is an awfully important tool for a MARG escort/consort ship (which is what I want these ships to be). I would imagine that 16-32 targets would be priority candidates for TLAM. So, I would want to keep the TALM candidates (plus they have to be competitive with the DDG-51s. NTU alone makes them competitive, but TLAM with the Mk71akes it official.
Quote:
(In the 'real world' I'd not give the ship Tomahawk - that would prevent it being subservient to command as a national level asset - it needs to be free to get in close and fight dirty...). Yes, I split the ESSM for both coverage and DC concerns.
Use after a hit (DC) makes perfect sense. Nice thinking.
Quote:
If you haven't read it yet - get a hold of Norman Friedman's US Amphibious Ships and Craft. Chapter 14, Fire Support Revisited, gives an account of some design and mission issues when a specific fire support ship was attempted to replace the outgoing WWII cruisers, including an LFS version of the Spruance class.
I have been looking at that on Google Books and went ahead and placed an order for the book on Amazon. I really look forward to the book in 3-5 business days
The material is very interesting. I have thought about one of their options, taking a Charles F. Adams-class DD and turning it into a DDG NSFS ship. What a great idea. Mk71 and 5"/62 caliber guns would be a really considerable platform. a 32-cell or two 16-vell VLS pads would give the ships some pretty involved AAW capabilities and an addition of the SPY-1X/W system would give it some serious capability.
...only more inspiration for a new model concept.
SumGui, (if I remember right) you served aboard a Kidd and an Aegis ship. What were some of the biggest advantages you saw in the Kidds over the Aegis ships you served aboard? Thank so much for your expert input.