The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:04 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 411 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 21  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
Interesting concepts indeed... I would consider the SPY-1F for a mast somewhat similar to the AEMSS mast, though shorter and somewhat stockier - the Mississippi CG image a few pages back comes to mind.

Daring thought - an old seaplane catapult on 52 adapted for launching the UAV'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/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Oh, my. Well, I am very familiar wtih teh SPY-1F. The super cool thing about that system is that the Israeli (the ballsy) version of LCS has it on board. I heard, I think on this site, that there was a proposal to sell some Sprucans with the SPY-1F to Taiwan for $600 million a piece (per ship---yikes!), but the Kidds were chosen instead, because the deal was better. Well, I don't know if there is any truth to that, but the concept was presented. The drawing I saw of the Aegis-equipped Sprucan ships had a pyramid-type SPY type mast arrangement. It looked like the mast structure on San Antonio with the SPY pannels on it.

It sounds to me that the economical and way effective modifications to the DD-963 was going to be more than a full NTU set up with a all the new FC computers, mast, etc within the limits we have learned in this entire thread. We learn we're looking at pretty much a DDG-51 with an 8" gun and NTU instead of Aegis.

So, the $ is the big deal. With my premiss of saving money and giving these ships the AAW capability with which to compete with Aegis, NTU would kinda be the way to go.

The ONLY justification for this upgrade is that we were trying to: maintain the 313 ship fleet, provide the DD-963s with competative AAW capability, AND fill the NSFS void in a REASONABLE budget.

Otherwise, just build more ships! These already existed, and that's how you build a fleet to keep it the same size. You keep the ships you have. You keep and "modernize" them. I think CNO Roughead realizes the Navy was foolish to get rid of the Sprucans.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Hey, guys, I have an update, and more will follow on this project this weekend.

I had a Mk71 custom made, and I cannot be any happier. It is the best, and I am so happy with it. Check it out.

Respectfully,
David


Attachments:
Mk71 pics 030.JPG
Mk71 pics 030.JPG [ 65.75 KiB | Viewed 1627 times ]
Mk71 pics 031.JPG
Mk71 pics 031.JPG [ 79.23 KiB | Viewed 1631 times ]
Mk71 pics 032.JPG
Mk71 pics 032.JPG [ 76.1 KiB | Viewed 1628 times ]
Mk71 pics 035.JPG
Mk71 pics 035.JPG [ 89.94 KiB | Viewed 1627 times ]

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Alright guys, this weekend, Friday 13 - Sunday 15th, I will do a considerablde amount of work on the Spruance-class DDG. After the icredible input from the commoners aboard the forum, and the experience and input of the experience guys, such as Captain Potter, I have a list of items I will include. This is going from forward to aft.

In addition to the standard equipment such as SRBOC, SH-60s, etc, these are the additional changes I will make to the ship:
-Mk71 MCLWG
-32-cell VLS (deep cells for TLAM)
-SPG-51E illuminator atop the bridge
-Optical and IR camera/range-finder on the mast (the same kind you find atop the bridge of Burke DDGs)
-Phalanx Block 1B and RAM (Stbd and Port atop the bridge respectively)
-Two masts wtih SPS-49 and 48 on forward and aft mounts respectively
-Mk141 Harpoon/SLAM cannisters amidships with NULKA aft of Mk141 launchers
-Two SPG-51E illuminators aft of the aft mast
-Phalanx Block 1B and RAM (Port and Stbd respectively)
-64-cell VLS aft of the helo deck (possibly short tubes for SM-2)
-Mk45 Mod4 5" 54/caliber mount aft

Mainly, this is what I will accomplish aboard the DD-963 to make her a DDG-963 equipped for NSFS. Now that I have the Mk71 MCLWG, there is nothing standing in the way of accomplishing this model. Does anyone have suggestions as to how I can better this concept?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Last edited by navydavesof on Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
Only thing I'd change is to try and get a 4th SPG-51E above the bridge somehow. Maybe side-by-side like on the Ticos? Not sure on what kind of room you have left. Also, what about the 5"/62 in lieu of the 5"/54? Again I'm not sure of the time frame you're going for.

Just my 2 cents man, keep the progress pictures coming!

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Cliffy B wrote:
Only thing I'd change is to try and get a 4th SPG-51E above the bridge somehow. Maybe side-by-side like on the Ticos? Not sure on what kind of room you have left. Also, what about the 5"/62 in lieu of the 5"/54? Again I'm not sure of the time frame you're going for.

Just my 2 cents man, keep the progress pictures coming!


Cliffe,
Thanks for the correction, buddy. Mk45 Mod4 5"/62 caliber gun is what I meant to say. The era is right NOW, 2009-ish. As I am sure you all know by now, I believe the Navy WASTED the Spruance-class destroyers with the sea-swap program and is paying the price now with a 280 ship navy (negligent force levels) instead of a 300+ ship navy.

The pictures will be on their way all weekend :woo_hoo:

I can only wish my augments to the USS Iowa would follow as quickly. We'll see what kind of super-hero feats I can accomplish this weekend :big_grin:

Keep any comment coming! Later, guys!
:wave_1:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 483
Location: San Diego
I certainly commend NavyDaveSOF for research. The described model would represent practically a Kidd plus the Mk 71 gun plus VLS instead of Mk 26 launchers. The Kidd had a stronger hull than the DD 963s, which is described in the NEJ article I cited earlier in this thread. The difference was primarily thicker hull plating, which could not be retrofit to the DD 963 hulls. The effect was that the Kidds had a limiting displacement 900 tons greater than even a VLS DD 963, and presumably had better stability.

If the described model were a real ship, then if she took a hit on the hull, she would have a risky voyage home. A hit on the superstructure would risk instability from accumulating firefighting water. Compare the situations of USS Kearny and USS Reno in 1941 and 1944, respectively, after each took a submarine torpedo hit to port. Reno, much larger than Kearny but overloaded, nearly capsized.

Good luck with BUDS!

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
To Captain Potter, thank you for your kind words, and thank you for your priceless insight. My configuration making the ships too heavy is a concern for me. If you know as much about the Ticonderogas as you do about the Spruances, you likely know that that NAVSEA put the Tico top-side limit to accept only as much as 1/4" aluminum armor flack protection before she would begin to roll 45 degrees in heavy seas. That kind of over load sounds incredible to me.

I have a couple misunderstandings with a couple contributions you have made so far. I hope you can clear some up.

You made the case a number of times that the hulls of the Spruances is too weak to accept the heavier loads accepted by the Kidds an the Ticonderogas. The stronger hulls of the Kidds enabled them to have the DXG-type design adapted to them without much problem. If I remember right, the DD-963s were able to be converted to a two-director DDG at any point in their lives. This would involved putting either VLS or Mk26 launchers in the ASROC magazine position forward and the Mk26 Mod1 ready magazine tracks aft. From your comments about weight, it sounds like the removal the SQQ sonar suite would be necessary also. So, concerning this conversion, how much different would that two-director Spruance be than the Kidds?

I think composing the next question, I figured out what you meant. You suggested that the USS Kearny and USS Reno in 1941 and 1944, respectively that ships as close to their weight limit as they were would be dangerously close to becoming unstable if suffered flooding.

Please correct me if I am wrong. The difference in displacement and hull strength between Kidds and Spruances does not have anything to do with whether the Spruance would fair as well if damaged; it's a matter of the ship being overloaded that would determine how well the ship would fair. So, being that the Ticonderogas seem to be so over loaded and at their physical limit themselves, is the danger the same for them?

Would reducing the foward VLS arrangement from 32 to 16 tubes give the ships a more acceptable buffer, or would it be nearly inconsequential since the tubes are on the deck level and not high up on the structure with the rest of the new weight with adds greater leverage (additional mast, directors, and electronics)?


Attachments:
smallModels%20005.jpg
smallModels%20005.jpg [ 73.2 KiB | Viewed 1629 times ]

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Here is the aft mast. It's really complex, and I don't think the detail came across very well in the pictures. I tried to include what is on the Kidds' aft masts and additional conduit supporting either the SPQ-9B or the AN/TPQ-37 artillery firefinder. It's a counter battery system that would be modified for a moving platform such as a ship.

Because the SPQ-9B tracks out-going artillery and is good enough to track high super sonic missiles, I wonder if it would would double as a firefinder anyway.

- Any input?

Thanks, guys!


Attachments:
small350BBG 012.jpg
small350BBG 012.jpg [ 67.38 KiB | Viewed 1623 times ]
small350BBG 013.jpg
small350BBG 013.jpg [ 69.75 KiB | Viewed 1623 times ]
small350BBG 016.jpg
small350BBG 016.jpg [ 73.88 KiB | Viewed 1623 times ]
small350BBG 015.jpg
small350BBG 015.jpg [ 63.55 KiB | Viewed 1623 times ]

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 483
Location: San Diego
NAVSEA put the Tico top-side limit to accept only as much as 1/4" aluminum armor flack protection before she would begin to roll 45 degrees in heavy seas. That kind of over load sounds incredible to me.

NavSea prepared the DDG 47 design as a conversion from the DD 963 design, not as a new design, so did not provide the margins typical of a completely new design. I don’t know whether NavSea actually had a particular limit to rolling, as long as the rolling characteristics could be known so that the ship’s crew could act on them. This was an issue with the bulging of USS Midway (CV 41) in the 1980s. Before the bulging Midway rolled more than any other PacFlt CV. With the bulges added, some in the crew complained that the ship rolled too much. There was no definition of “too much”; no reasoning about why Midway’s combat capability should be compromised to reduce rolling, which might not end the complaining anyway; and potentially no knowledge by the complainers of whether her rolling characteristics had even changed.

If I remember right, the DD-963s were able to be converted to a two-director DDG at any point in their lives. This would involved putting either VLS or Mk26 launchers in the ASROC magazine position forward and the Mk26 Mod1 ready magazine tracks aft.

Close, but not "at any point in their lives" if using the weapons considered at the time of the design, 1968. A DD 963 as built could be converted to a 2-director DDG, with Mk 26 launchers. The DDG conversion was an alternative to the ASW modernization including the towed array sonar. The original design did not provide for both conversions to be installed on one ship. VLS came about a decade behind the DD 963 design. VLS was designed for compatibility with a ship design that supported Mk 26 launchers.

You suggested that the USS Kearny and USS Reno in 1941 and 1944, respectively that ships as close to their weight limit as they were would be dangerously close to becoming unstable if suffered flooding.

Reno was so heavily loaded that with some internal flooding she had negative stability. One torpedo hit did not so endanger the much smaller Kearny. Although the official USN report does not discuss it, IMO the main reason that Reno did not capsize was that her damage was from a torpedo whose large hole reduced her righting moment on the port side and she rolled to starboard. The effects counter-acted each other but with the ocean lapping along her starboard superstructure a strafing run could have done her in. Reno at that point had zero combat capability.

Please correct me if I am wrong. The difference in displacement and hull strength between Kidds and Spruances does not have anything to do with whether the Spruance would fair as well if damaged; it's a matter of the ship being overloaded that would determine how well the ship would fair. So, being that the Ticonderogas seem to be so over loaded and at their physical limit themselves, is the danger the same for them?

The right verb is “fare” not “fair” in this meaning. With the thicker hull plating, the DDG 993s would have better resistance to some explosive shock effects. Load affects reserve buoyancy and the strength of the hull girder after shock, and usually affects stability by moving the center of gravity. I think the designers of the Tico accepted risks of aluminum and of accumulation of water topside that would be severely destabilizing. The design was for a destroyer and was cosmetically re-titled a cruiser years later.

Would reducing the foward VLS arrangement from 32 to 16 tubes give the ships a more acceptable buffer, or would it be nearly inconsequential since the tubes are on the deck level and not high up on the structure with the rest of the new weight with adds greater leverage (additional mast, directors, and electronics)?

That reduction would help because it would marginally lower the CG but I have no idea about how much. A consideration in warship design is combat effectiveness after damage. If you have an 8-inch gun, you are getting close to shore where the other side too may fire with effect. TLAM approaches uselessness (closer to useless than it is already) if the ship is damaged and cannot get to a launch point.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Thank you to Captain Potter for his answers. His expertice helps clarify some of the details, minute to most but heavy to us engineer types, that go into fitting out a ship.

Something that has always been cooking in the back of my mind about the differnce between a DDG conversion of the Spruances to make them Kidds/Kid-ish and the Kidds is that the Kidds had 24 SM-2s forward and 44 aft, totaling 66 missiles. My arrangement on the weaker Spruances has 32 cells forward and 64 aft, totaling 96 rounds. I have to go back in the thread and compare the reference numbers some of you guys were so good to post, but while the Mk26s weighed a lot more than the VLS, is there a concern with the 30 rounds difference between the two? Would it be equal difference in weight, or is that 30 SM-2 load pushing over the weight difference between the loaded Mk26 and VLS?

Thus would it be better to have a 48 cell arrangement aft, or keeping the 64 desireable? Until I find more information for a change from a 32 and 64 arrangement, I am inclinded to keep 64 aft and possibly reduce forwad down to 16.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
That is an outstanding looking MK71. Where did you get it and are there more?

Check page 6 for the referenced numbers.

Available weight:
Forward we have 367,995lbs (Mk 71 + Mk 26 mod 0 + 24 SM-1), or 195,100 leaving Mk 71 in place.
Aft, we have 269,005 (Mk 26 mod 1 + 44 SM-1)

Used:
Forward: Mk71 (172,895lbs), 32 cell Mk41 with 32 SM-2 (145,200lbs) for a total of 318,095lbs fwd.
Aft: 64 cell Mk41 with 64 SM-2 for a total of 290,400lbs

Forward you still have approx 49,900lbs remaining.
Aft, you are over by 21,395lbs, and that assuming only SM-2 is in the MK41
This does not consider any CIWS or electronics overages, nor does it include LAMPS III or Harpoon.
The aft numbers are only weight for the missile deck – so you could still lose the Mk45 to get margin.
MK41 weights really depend on what you put into them, saying no to Tomahawk can save a considerable amount. (I’ll always be curious as to how much weight might be saved by a short version of Mk41…but that would limit it to SM-2MR and ESSM).

Note: Love what you are doing.

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. (In the 'real world' I'd not give the ship Tomahawk - that would prevent it being subserviant 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.
64 ESSM and 32 (or 40) SM-2 will probably do just fine in dealing with the threats this mission profile might encounter, and the redution in cells saves the weight of the cells and weapons to add to stability. Any additional margin I'd add in a non-visable space - the 8" magazine. The bigger, the better - after all, that's the primary weapon for the specific mission at hand.

If you haven't read it yet - get ahold 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..


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
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. :thumbs_up_1:

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 :big_grin:

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.


Attachments:
File comment: The file of Mk71 Destiny!!!!
WNUS_8-55_mk71_datasheet_pic.jpg
WNUS_8-55_mk71_datasheet_pic.jpg [ 71.02 KiB | Viewed 1652 times ]

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Here's a concept for you guys. I understand that the Mk-141 canister launchers is the only way to shoot Harpoons and SLAMs off a ship today. VLS is out of the question. What do you guys think about using the RUM-139 ASROC launcher and magazine for massive Harpoon and SLAM capabilities aboard ships where the canisters cannot fit and VLS is not affordable/undesirable? It was often loaded out with Harpoons to grease Soviet ships (a totally super cool idea).

The thought here is to be able to equip a ship with a whole lot of SLAMs without having to develop, purchase, and install new VLS that can accommodate the Harpoon/SLAM or do the same mods to a missile so you can jam it into the tubes.

How large is that magazine actually?

In addition to the eight in the launcher, how many missiles do you think we could put in there?

Thanks, guys! I am eager to hear the solution to this.


Attachments:
internethobbies_2067_220939208.jpg
internethobbies_2067_220939208.jpg [ 13.46 KiB | Viewed 1886 times ]
File comment: Here's the actual launcher I am talking about. This guy could be situated in all kinds of places aboared a NSFS ship, providing the ship with an assumingly heavy SLAM armament aboard...
USS_Badger_(FF-1071)_Launching_Harpoon small.jpg
USS_Badger_(FF-1071)_Launching_Harpoon small.jpg [ 57.1 KiB | Viewed 1639 times ]

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12138
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Does the -139 actually take up less space than the regular canister launchers? I find it hard to believe that they would use a launcher that has a larger footprint as a replacement for something that took up less space.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Timmy C wrote:
Does the -139 actually take up less space than the regular canister launchers? I find it hard to believe that they would use a launcher that has a larger footprint as a replacement for something that took up less space.

I would say from the picutre included above that the 139 takes the foot print of two quad cannister launchers. The cool part is where the launcher would go vertical and receive reloads from below.

Now, I am assuming the ASOC launcher goes vertical and new Harpoons would be sent up into the launcher like SM-2s on to a MK-26. I have not been able to find much about how the 139s are loaded, except for a picture with a bunch of circles on the structure adjacent to the launcher deck. All of the conversations and descriptions make it sound like the missiles are loaded vertically, being that the ASROC magazine is where the Mk41 arrangement went on the DD-963s when the Spruances were upgraded with VLS. However, even if that is the case and the launcher does not reload vertically, why not fit it to load verically? The mag would seem to be pretty small. On the other hand, something like that might actually be huge.

So, what do you guys know?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
The Mk16 launcher for the RUM-139 et al was only reloaded vertically on the Spruances, primarily owing to their design to accomodate upgrades with Mk26. IIRC, Mk26, Mk13, and a few other launchers could double up with Harpoons as well. Most of the ships fitted with the Mk16 launcher were reloaded from abaft the launcher positions - look at the Knox, among other sources - the hatches sat at a slight slant from vertical, and the launcher was reloaded from these eight hatches.

As to footprint, one could reason it's approximately the size of the two sets of Harpoon Canisters, but I would hazard a guess that the weight is significantly higher owing to all the extra mechanical systems that are included in the launcher mounting, which might make its mountings somewhat more restricted in truth. So in this instance, potentially, retaining the forward Mk16 launcher on the NSFS Spruance might allow it further capacity, owing to SLAM/Harpoon stacked in the magazine, which would have more rounds on hand. Then we have the aft VLS for assorted other weapons of weekend-ruining. Spruances were set up for the Mk16 and Mk71 forward, so it would go to reason that it would potentially still be possible.

_________________
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/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
I agree that the deck space taken by a ‘Roc box is about the same as the deck space for two clusters of Mk 141. And no invention is needed to put Harpoon though the Mk 16 – two cells of each pepperbox was modified on the Knox class to fire harpoon (believe they called these launchers Mk 112, I may have the two backwards, conflicting info from different references - the 'Beach had ASROC only Mk 16 - so that's what I'm going with).

RUM-139 is the designation for VLASROC, legacy ASROC was RUR-5. Mk 112 and Mk 16 are the designations for the box launchers you are talking about, both launchers are pretty much the same externally.

The Mk 16 ASROC box weighs 47,782lbs loaded (not accounting for any reloads or automatic reload handling system), each Mk 141 13,000lbs loaded. So two Mk 141 weigh 21,782 less and require no below deck space or weight (SWG-1 is not really an issue, as it is certainly lighter than any control systems for the Mk 16).

So the Mk 141 gives you 16 ready rounds at about half the weight and no below decks space.
I’d go for the Mk 141, but that assumes in the time you are building for they were available. Of course, the Mk 16 has a cool modeling factor of a different weapons system visually.

The Mk 16 pepperbox might be a good basis to modify for a naval device to fire MLRS rocket packs….. MLRS/ATACMS capability right aft of Mount 81 might make for a deadly fire-support front end.

hmm…a Spru with mount 51 replaced with Mk71 and the ACROC box modified for MLRS, then VLS aft instead..might not be the biggest departure visually, and you need to ‘invent’ the MK16/MLRS mod, but that seems pretty simple conceptually…then maybe the MLRS packs could use a modified version of the vertical reload system already aboard…from a budget angle you may have been able to sell this once the DDG-51s came along – keep it simple to Tomahawk and ESSM aft, (ESSM would be a stretch for a 90’s refit), stay with the Mk 23 TAS, Replace SPS-40 with SPS-49…but I digress…

Now I’ve talked myself into the ‘Roc box AND Mk141, since you can put MK141 almost anywhere you have deck space…
If you do decide to use the ‘Roc box, be aware that there were MANY options on reloads – vertical on the Spru (I believe 24 reloads – CAPT Potter can confirm- Kinkaid already had VLS when I was aboard), the slanted superstructure face on the Knox, and a deckhouse forward of the launcher as on the California, in addition to the always-popular-with-crews manual reload.

My opinion on the Tomahawk is based on the idea that there is probably somebody else nearby with TLAM, and given the range of TLAM, many missions could be filled from a platform farther out. No TLAM would also prevent her from being taken off the gun line to perform a national-level TLAM strike mission. If your concept is a completely independent platform, I’d leave 16 TLAM aboard in the 16/48 fit. In designing the vessel, I’d probably ensure 24 cells had TLAM capability for flexibility for emerging mission requirements.

The Freidman Amphibs book also mentions the Forrest Sherman class as a candidate for LFS mods, but says in passing they were considered too lightly built for it. No specific mention of the Adams class, probably due to the fact that they were new and the only DDGs coming online in the ‘60s (too valuable as DDGs to sacrifice for LFS).

CDR DeCavage ran one of the best crews I have ever had the pleasure of serving with while I was on Kidd, so I may be highly prejudiced there. I saw outstanding actions performed as a normal part of daily operations. Is that the ship, or the crew, or both? Hard to separate. I saw Kidd operated by an outstanding crew, so comparison will probably not be fair.

In spite of being a fan-room add-on to the Kidd, as a whole asset, we had more capability than the Tico I was on. Ship? Crew? Certainly both.

(now that you have me thinking 'Roc box/MLRS, I am thining about a Knox class LFS mod - they were in excess in the late 80's/early 90's, were built pretty tough, but would need to replace those boilers with LM-2500s...no room for Mk 71, but small enough to get close with the Mk 42 which has a higher RoF than Mk 45...'Roc/MLRS behind that, Point defense aft...hmmm...)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
The Mk112 could probably be adapted to the M270 rocket - there isn't much of a difference in the diameter of the rounds, and favours the 'Roc, IIRC. I forget if the 270 rocket is longer, but I don't think it is. SLAM, Harpoon and the 270 rocket containers, it'd be pretty interesting. I've actually got a Spruance partially started for a modified plan with both guns forward in a stepped layout, and the ASROC fed from the bulkhead forward of the launcher in a reversed Knox layout.

_________________
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/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
NOTE: I have added to this post. I wanted to report that (an onoffical rep of) NAVSEA agrees with the general frame-work we have here of Mk71, UP TO but not beyond Mk71, 96VLS tubes, NTU, possibly 16 SLAMs and aft Mk45 Mod4, and the conversation especially reinforced Captain Potter's possition on damage control and weight.
__________________________

I had a conversation with one of my NAVSEA contacts yesterday, and that conversation only reinforced the depth of Captain Potter's knowledge. What I think is cool is how much he retains. I have spoken with a couple other authors of reference books, and it seems like they sometimes just compile information when writing a book; they don't really sort and assimilate it. Being that Captain Potter's book came out so long ago, and the ships are all now dead, I am really impressed how much accurate input on a wide range of the ships' aspects he has.

I never knew how much a model-building forum would help me out with professional knowledge.

Thanks for the input guys.

I read parts of Norman Friedman's Amphibious book on google books, and like his other books, is very informative. It's interesting the Mk71 installation also called for a 29-cell arrangement to be installed forward aboard the Spruances.

I thought it was an interesting exercise to consider the ASROC launcher. In practicality, for the real estate involved, VLS is a better investment in space than the vertical reloads for the ASROC launcher. SLAM can be installed elsewhere on the ship. I am interested how valuable SLAMs would be in practical application. It seems to me that the SLAM is a potentially versatile weapon, and assuming the weight allows, fitting 16 on board would be a good idea.

I spoke a little more in depth with NAVSEA contact #2 today, mainly about SHIPALTs to the Iowas in accordance with a few things they had planned for the Warfighting Improvement Program, but I did touch on the Sprucans. I asked if the Mk71 and 29-cell arrangement forward described in Norman Friedman's book was feasible. He kind of scoffed at me and said not only but "we could have made 8-inch Kidds out of them".

Awesome. So totally awesome.

So, I asked what he meant, Mk26 or VLS. He said VLS was the idea and the removal of 50% of the ASW hardware and additional structure on top of the superstructure similar to that on the Kidds would yield a two-director ship. I asked him about an updated gunfire-control system, such as the Mk-160, that does not require a SPG-60 and could use SPG-51 take its place on the mast (like the Burkes do with the SPG-62). He didn't know, because those ALTs were proposed and filed when the Mk86 GFCS was still the best thing around, and that required a dedicated illumiator, the SPG-60.

I asked about the weight margins in the DD-963 design, and if the ships were riding close to their physical limit. He suggested that the actual weight-limitations were very much over-engineered and had a large enough margin to support the 32-cell VLS arrangement forward and 64-cell aft but only with "a marginal mix of missiles". I suggested tomahawks forward and SM-2s aft, and he said, no problem with a Mk71 forward.

I asked him to clarify concerning damage control and stability after damage. I presented what Captain Potter suggested about the consideration once a ship is hit. It sounded to me like even though the hulls were over engineered and the weight margines were higher than publically published, this modification with hull damage by "few missile hits" was all you could expect. The stability gets dangerously cheesy.

On the note of the Mk71, I read that the production version of the gun would have had a 400 round magazine and greater stabilization of the gun for greater accuracy. Also, from Friedman's Aphibious Ships:

"Reportedly the tests on board Hull showed what seemed to be excessive dispersion, due in part to the ship's light weight and flexible construction. The ship had retained her Mk68 fire-control system, which did not fully incorporate the 8-in parameters. She was already due for disposal, and she had already cracked her hull while firing her 5-in guns; the 8-in gun tests worsened the problem. Plans called for solving the accuracy problem by using laser-guided shells, but they would be expensive..."

The proto-type magazine had 336 rounds, it was expanded to 400 rounds, and it was also stated that there would be as large as a 1000 round magazine for the Mk71 forward aboard a Spruance.

I wonder if because the Mk160 GFCS uses one of the missile illuminators instead of the SPG-60, would we replace it with a SPG-51?

Would the ship need 3 AAW illuminators and just divert one to gunfire direction when engaging in NSFS, or would we want to keep an illuminator dedicated to GFC, if so should it be a SPG-60?
N.P. Amphibious ships and craft suggested that it was still undetermined if the ship would keep or retain its aft 5" mount. It did not say one way or the other.

There is so much to write and share! That's got to be all for now!

Keep it going contributors!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 411 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 21  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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