The Ship Model Forum

Did

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝

That's been pointed out already, and has become standardly accepted fact in the context of the modified, modernized Spruance - that full VLS forward and Mk71 are not a possible contact. The concept standing was to cut down the forward VLS ammount, ostensibly to 32 cells, to facilitate the retention of Mk71 forward - the planned role is NSFS and BBBG support, so the Mk71 is the desired gun of choice in this role. Discussion has been whether Deep VLS can be used still on the aft block, as the Spruances had ballasting set in place during the original VLS upgrade to balance the forward weight, yet they had the same aft block volume planned in Kidd and Ticonderoga, as they had the Capacity (never employed) for a Mk26 launcher aft. So ostensibly all three are similar in original designed configuration in that area - The Ticos were upgraded with aft deep VLS through rearrangement of internals, thus still retaining an upgraded ammount of cells, though not as much as a Tico. Further, the 5/62 aft could be added to shift balance aft as well. Given datalinking capacity, they could also be auxiliary missile carriers for the fleet's AEGIS ships in a heavy-engagement scenario, but that's a bit of a seriously crap-in-fan scenario if they're pulling missiles from the Spruances to engage. But, for NSFS role, TLAM, LASM and the guns would be a good combination.

_________________
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/

Captain Potter,
Could you finally clear something up for me? I'm tracking what's been said so far, but as for a direct answer, I'd like to ask a direct question.

To you knowledge, if the equipment were rearranged in the aft portion of the Spruance class ships, especially the later ones, especially the Hayler, it seems the aft Mk26 void would be able to support the deep Mk41 VLS tubes. Is this correct?

Could the bow support having both the Mk71 8" gun mount and the 64 cell Mk41 VLS tubes, or would the forward tubes have to be reduced to 32 or 48 tubes like have been suggested here?

If not, what would have to be done to the ships in order to accomodate the big gun up forward, NTU, and as many deep VLS tubes (128) as possbile?

Thanks, Captain!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Correspondent Sauragnmon has it right. None of those was possible.

I think that 64 deep VLS cells were the practical limit for a DD 963, regardless of a split between forward and aft, assuming no other additions beyond those on the actual ships that Commander Landrum describes.These limits are or were from hull strength and stability. Using the aft magazine space would displace workshops, the gym, and food storage, which would be possible to relocate but awkward. I'd call this my estimate rather than my knowledge since other real-world considerations are not known to me, such as the loads on limited services for cooling water and electrical power.

NTU cannot enter since the basic fire control systems did not exist on the DD 963s. The equipment rearrangement involved Aegis equipment inside new-construction Aegis cruisers, and like NTU were unavailable for a DD 963. The Mk 71 gun, risen from the dead, might be feasible as a mounting by a 16-cell deep VLS forward. You might have volume for 32 (or 29) VLS cells but you could not fill them owing to hull strength and stability.

The real-world USN's recent preference to replace the FFG's Standard missile system with Nulka and Sea RAM suggests to me that those are good weapons for current ships. Several DD 963s mounted RAM but without Sea RAM's on-mount radar.

_________________
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.

Alright, so assuming 64 Deep is the limit, realistically, a Mk41 Tactical could hold SM-2/3/LASM/ESSM setups in principle, or we'll settle this as "Medium" instead of Shallow vs Deep - it's big enough to support a booster-fitted Standard, but not the massive TLAM. This would give it a defensive suite, retaining/improving over the Sea Sparrow, and augmenting that with a small collection of rounds.

VLS setup was assumed around 16 TLAM carried, the rest being Standard/ESSM/NSSM/VLA. The Ticon's hull has supported more weight and still carried C3I/AEGIS/Datalink/all sorts of extra electronics. What's the average weight of these systems vs the Spruance's ASW fitting. In principle, let's look at a minor adjustment, would upgrading with SPS-48E, and a few SPG-62's be out of the question, to enhance the defensive suite?

Mk71 with 16-32 cells forward, ok, I think we can agree on that - Providing only 16 TLAM are carried so we're not driving the weight overboard on the forward arrangement. Alternately, in thought, if Mk71 were re-engaged, could ostensibly a lightweight turret have been designed to modernize some of it and bring down weight?

If we're looking at a weight problem, would it be remiss to refit with the Oto 3" aft, to alter defensive suite, since the 5" is somewhat out of running with the BFG forward? With the modified 3" magazine depth and such, could internals be shifted aft to allow Deep VLS? Would it be possible with, say, a 57mm aft instead?

_________________
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/

Very interesting and lively discussion:
Wanted to chime in here with a couple of sobering stats:
31 Spruance hulls were built
4 scrapped
25 sunk
2 afloat, the Foster and the Radford.

I wonder what condition the Radford is in after the '99 collision, maybe good, with a fairly recent repair, or a shoddy job and in bad condition.
The Foster is in use as the Self Defense Test Ship, so I would hope she is servicable.

I think is might be a good use to have a Spruance used as a forward HQ, maybe leading a squadron of an FFG or 2, and 3 or four of the PC class (Cyclones I think) to patrol and escort through the pirate area off the Somali coast.

Fun to think through all the scenarios, I don't think it would be as much to be in now as it was when I was in '90-96. Even as I was leaving things were getting busy for the surface fleet as the number of ships started going down, I imagine that just continued after I separated.

Finally Radford is slated to become an artificial reef off New Jersey or Delaware and because of the water depth I have read some of the superstructure might get shaved off, so Radford might be so mangled even if in good material shape she wouldn't useful. I guess it might be nice to start with a clean hull since we're playing the what would I do game that might bring some very creative ideas out.

Again great thread.

USS Hewitt DD-966 CSE 1991-1994
USS Ingraham FFG-61 1994-1996

As for the point of the thread how about a RAM Launcher aft, latest Phalanx, strip the Sea Sparrow launcher. You could then install some kind of artillery rockets like the Army's MLRS for Aphim assault support, two problems, with the sonar dome can the ship get in close enough to shore, (I think the MLRS have lot's of range potential, but I think it varies by warfare) and using the Sea Sparrow magazine, and any other space possible will the ship be carrying enough rounds to make a difference?

Might be a neat looking model.

Rocket artillery on the aft deck.... now That's not a bad idea at all... set the launcher aft a little more, have a vertical lift for the reload racks if you're going with an army-styled crane lift, or have the reload rounds stored vertical and reload the rocket battery similar to the ASROC on the original Spruance fitting. Ostensibly, you could also have it set up to launch a few other types of weapons if you do a multirole fitting like that.

Note - this is in place of Mount 52 as my idea, not the Missile deck.

_________________
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/

Yeah if you take the aft mount off, lot's of room down in that magazine.
I had to do an ammo offload in Yokosuka (all E-5 and below muster on the fantail or forecastle for ammo offload) and it seemed like those 5 inchers were never going to stop coming out of that elevator, damn gunnersmates!

McL,

Yeah, you're right. It sucks. The Navy continues to bend itself over and just ram a massive meat stick up its own butt. I'm starting to think the homo-comments made about the Navy are actually pointed toward the upper chain.

The object of these mental gymnastics and such are to help me figure out what kind of a platform I can refer to in a book I am writing. Even though hindsight is 20/20, the case really makes one think that the Navy has really f-ed itself trying to support the DDX program from bow to stern.

Like I told CNO Roughhead, we already fixed the NSFS problem, and it wasn't even with the battleships. We foresaw the problem of the 5" gun winding up being the heaviest piece of naval ordnance out there. Those who have had the interest have discovered that we have understood for nearly 60 years now that the 5" gun is useless for NSFS. As a result, the practical problem solvers of the Navy began solving this problem and produced a solution. This solution was the Mk71 Mod0 MCLWG. Then, it was time to begin working out the bugs. The weapon tested and passed nearly everything including landing 19 of 20 Army Copperhead rounds on a test hulk. What it did not pass was AAW.
When this occurred, and it was clear the Mk71 was ready to be tried on another platform with a proper and corresponding GFC system, Big Navy said, "uhh, oh, hey, whoa, whoa, whoa. No, no, no, no, no. Let's stop right there. You guys are actually serious about producing a gun for all destroyers and cruisers that can actually deliver heavy ordnance aren’t you? Now you're shooting Army laser guided rounds? No way, man. Stop that. In fact, clean out your desks."
However, all 31 Spruance-class DDs were equipped with a reinforced forward gun mount in the case that the Navy would finally confront the NSFS problem. We all know that even though the battleships are the best NSFS platforms out there, even if we got Iowa and Wisconsin reactivated, they would only be novelty pieces that would help the situation IF they happened to be close to the conflict so they could run as fast as they could to the area. The capability would be there, however.
What some people seem to forget is that what matters is what lands down range, not what you have in the stock system or what kind of off-the-shelf parts you get. People spent so much time trying to make the 5" gun worth a poop, and even if it got all the way out to 100nm+ like they were trying, only three Coke cans with 5lbs of explosive would arrive. The ERGM project manager, a Captain who had spent a very large amount of time on the project, agreed with me that the Navy had started at the wrong point. They started at the gun mount instead of starting at the point of impact. We agreed that the smallest projectile worth anything was the 8-inch, and you go from there.
The Mk71 gives us the flexibility for every DDG and CG to go ahead and have a credible and actual NSFS capability. I am glad everyone's so hard over the 57mm gun. It looks super cool on YouTube and FutureWeapons. It really blows a recreational boat out of the water, and I am sure if there were some Toyota Tochomas rading across the surface of the water at you with RPGs in them, you could really tear some terrorist up, but everyone was all over the 76mm too, and that one turned out to be very mediocre in practical application.
I work at NNSY, and I was on the Ashland (yuck) and Carter Hall (yuck) for a period of time as I was in the Northern Arabian Gulf. I guess you guys don't get to see these ships for real very often, but I must say that if an LSD gets 2 of Phalanx and RAMs, then a modernized Sprucan would likely, too.
Concerning the Army weaponry, I have always been pretty much against that kind of stuff, because if we are talking about a practical application of technology, which is the exercise here, the Navy would not likely delve into ARMY stuff. Army weapons don’t think the same way as Navy ones. As with the Patriot, there is likely a big deal with the fire-control systems needed to point MLRS type weapons in the right direction so they come down in the right area or they don't get lost. The Patriot has a very hard time with moving around its base reference point. Its FCS does not like to be on a moving platform at all. When you suggest that kind of thing (putting a Patriot battery on a ship in place of Harpoon on a DDG for instance) and the room goes quiet and someone tries to explain the basics of static radar base to a know-nothing E-5 GM like myself, you begin to understand the problems associated with just sharing weapon systems...or talking to brass at all. Army and Navy equipment don't go together like they should or like we'd like them to.
With MLRS, you can't just shoot a GPS weapon from wherever you want and have it come down on the GPS coordinate. A fire-control solution still has to go into the system so the weapon has a reference point, and that is not at all as easy as it sounds. TLAMs take so, so, so, so long to program that even the tactical tomahawk is having super problems being justified as a support weapon. So, if we wanted to use MLRS on ships I think we would have to custom make a FCS for it.
But that's all beside the point. These are some really cool suggestions, guys. Please keep the gymnastics going. I am finishing a USS Bunker Hill for a friend of mine (in appreciation for being my sea-daddy) and my USS Kentucky that I hope some of you guys have seen. Even though I have been doing quite a bit of work on the Spruance's forward mast, I have not really done all that much work on the Sprucan DDG yet. I hope as soon as these other projects are down, I will be able to jump right on the DDG Sprucan and get her running.
The Arthur W Radford found here http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html continues to be my inspiration for my DDG-963 project. He did such a good job making that ship look good. MAN!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Get your @$$ down and hump ammo! Eeeaaaat it! Yeeeeeaaaaah!

-GM2 Walsh (EXW)

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I was thinking simply in terms of the reloading system - realistically, the MLRS is a cool concept, but I wouldn't see it serve navally - it's neat and cool, but the logistics on a ship would be different. This is why I suggested an ASROC-style reload setup for the rocket magazine.

Rocket artillery primarily is not guided, and US Army rounds are ~220mm if I recall, more than eight inches. A standard battery of rounds is a dozen, and they can be fired off in rather rapid succession - it'd be quite a substantial platform for NSFS if employed in service. I'm not saying the US Army system, but commonality of rounds would be appealing to the beancounters. Sure, ATACMS might be cool, but you've got LASM for the purpose, it's extraneous in this concept. Not to mention, I could just imagine the look on somebody's face when a barrage of rocket artillery comes in on the poor bastards when they're out floating on the great big blue. "But we're nowhere near the coast!?!?!?"

_________________
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/

Uh oh, guys. Guess what I found? I found the weights of the Mk26 launcher and a 61-cell Mk41 VLS pad. Here's a real shocker. The Mk 26 weighs more than the whole Mk41 assembly. The source is Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet 2004(?) and can be found on google books. I also have a copy at home. But, that fact is incredible. I have since been told that the extra weight is because of the motors involved in whipping around the Mk26 launcher. What that means to me is that the only variables left here are: how much extra do TLAMs weigh than standard missiles, and how much of a structural compromise are you really looking at with the installation of the Mk41 VLS modules? I don't know for sure, but I really, really think that the frame the cells sit in would specifically be built to at least compensate for the loss of the structural members in the magazine void if not increase structural integrity.

So theoretically, if weight and structural integrity are not an issue...the only thing we have left is: Does the back end of the Mk71, yes resurrected, intrude over the forward most cells? I bet not. In fact, I bet there is a huge distance between the gun and the missiles.

With NTU, I understand that the Sprucans didn't have any FCS to really upgrade like the Kidds or Belknaps, etc, but it wasn't really even an "upgrade" of an existing system. It was really an entirely new system and AAW philosophy. The only things retained were: hardware such as SPG-51 and SPG-55 and the installation of new and additional radars. Even if the FCS were the same "Mark" system, the systems were added onto and supplemented so much that the system was not at all the same as it was. It wasn't an upgrade but really a replacement.
So, as a result,the Sprucans would simply get those systems installed into and onto the ship. SPS-48 SYS-2(V)2 AFADS, CEC, etc. would all be installed ontot he ships.
It sounds like the only disputes here are the structural integrity of the bows and the variable of the difference weight between the SM2 and the TLAM. Honestly, the difference I do not forsee being a big deal. The ships will be very weighed down under a FULL load, but so far, it slooks doable to keep the 61 cells forward and the addition of the Mk71 Mod1 or 2 or whatever would actually be produced if it were adopted.
As far as the fleet not needing more VLS tubes, yes I agree. Already as it is missiles are shifted around ships. The question is not does the FLEET have enough or too many tubes. It is does the battle group have enough tubes. That is why the battleships need 164 tubes in addition to the gunnery battery, why the Sprucans like this should have if possible 164 tubes, etc.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

And speaking about modernised Spruance class.... this is my attempt to make a Super Spruance.

The Armament has been upgraded with a second RAM launcher, a 16-cell Mk-48 VLS and MK-45 are mod.4 Also i replaced the aft mast with AEMSS

_________________
On the workbench:

Various 1/700 aircraft.
Juan Carlos I LHD 1/700.
HMAS Canbera LHD 1/700.
FGS Type 122 class FFG 1/700.
LSD-41 class LPD 1/700.

Good research, now try the math!

From the same source, Norman Polmar's Ships & Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet, 13th edition (1984): a Mk 26 mod 0 launcher, the allowed-for ASRoc box replacement, weighed 162,028 lbs empty. SM-1(MR) weighed 1,100 lbs and an ASRoC 1,000 lbs. Launcher capacity was 24 rounds. Worst case = launcher + 24 war-shot SM-1(MR)'s = 188,428 lbs. The Mk 71 gun was 172,895 lbs. Total allowed weapons forward = loaded Mk 26 mod 0 launcher + Mk 71 gun + gun ammo. Assume that the allowed aggregate weight of ammo for the 5-inch gun and 8-inch gun are equal. The total weight of alternative weapons forward = 188,428 + 172,895 = 361,323 lbs.

Polmar cites an empty Mk 41 61-cell VLS as 2 X 29-cell VLS = ~188,000 lbs. The Mk 45 = 47,280 lbs. Subtotal = 235,280 lbs. Weight for weapons in VLS = 361,323 - 235,280 = 126,043. VL Tomahawks are 3,200 lbs each = 39 and change, so let's call it 40. Weapons over that count come out of your total ship margin, as does the weight of ballast aft to prevent the ship from trimming down at the bow.

You can do the math for the station aft, where a Mk 26 mod 1 was allowed (208,373 lbs empty), with 44 SM-1(MR) as the allowed worst-case load. Allowed additional directors for weapons = SPS-48 replacement of SPS-40, plus one (1) SPG-51, + CWI on SPG-60.

Now allow for the SQQ-89 upgrade with SQR-19 and 1-2 LAMPS helos and other things. And Kevlar armor around CIC. And point defense weapons, including Mk 23 radar. And Harpoon canisters. And SatCom. And Outboard. But no 8-inch gun because you have already used the allowed margin in the forward VLS.

This is just the weight. Allowing for utilities would make things worse, such as extra heating capacity for de-icing all the VLS hatches instead of the few Mk 26 hatches.

The answer I get is what I already estimated: roughly 60 Tomahawks were the maximum shipboard load for a modernized DD 963, no matter where you put them. Even that load took some doing to allow for damaged stability and buoyancy.

Is your answer different?

_________________
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.

Using the same reference from a later date (16th Edition) I find identical numbers for the guns and launchers but differences for SM-1. SM-1 Block VI (IOC 1970) is listed at a weight of 1378 lbs. Not a huge difference.

(It also lists SM-2 Blk IV at 1554lbs, so I will round that up to 1600 for simplicity. No rounding was done in figuring available weight, so computing on the side of caution should allow some room to abosorb errors)

There was enough margin for Tartar-D AND Mk 26 fore and aft. We have no data on the difference in weight of SPS-40 vs. SPS-48. Obviously the Tartar-D fit would be heavier, with the two SPG-51s added. However, there was margin in the design for this.
The challenge is that MK 71 is not clearly indicated in any way in reference to DXG, not for, or against.
Further, we have no weight data on SQR-19 and the additional computers to make up SQQ-89. The hull sonar would probably be a zero-sum game as SQS-53 is already aboard.

For the purposes of this discussion, I assume Tartar-D is aboard, not SQQ-89 (yet).

As far as weapons:

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)

Forward, a 32 cell VLS (94,000) could be loaded with 8 Tomahawk (25,600), 8 quadpack ESSM (14,400), and 16 SM-2 (25,600) for a total weight of 159,600lbs. Taking another 12,000 for the forward Phalanx, there is still about 13,500lbs 'left' forward, while 'retaining' the MK 71 MCLWG. (That is enough weight for an additional set of the Mk 141 Harpoon, say in the deck space not used by the other 32 VLS cells, but let's leave that alone for now)

Aft, another 32 cell VLS (94,000) could be loaded with 16 Tomahawk (51,200) and 16 SM-2 (25,600) for a total weight of 170,800 lbs. After taking 12,000 for the after Phalanx, 13,000 for the Mk 141 Harpoon launchers, and 12,000 for the difference in max weight between two SH-2 and two SH-60B, there is still 61,200lbs 'left' aft. We still need a number for the increase in size of the hangar/other mods - lets say 10,000lbs (arbitrary - love insight here if you have it). We have not touched mount 52, and we have 51,200lbs aft to use.

So VLS and the MK 71 seem quite possible mathmatically, but not 64 cells forward and aft. CIWS is covered, Harpoon is covered, as well as a SWAG at the SH-60B upgrade.

Outboard was not put onboard all Spruance's (less than half), and isn't being used anymore, so it should not enter this consideration. Mk 23 TAS will be redundant if we have SPS-48/NTU. We break down when we get to SQR-19, as we have to weight data there, or for the increased computer requirements (thus, equipment) to combine it and the SQS-53 into SQQ-89. No data on SATCOM.

I'd think we could solve SATCOM, kevlar armor, and SQQ-89 within 64,700lbs remaining - 13,500 fwd and 51,200 aft (I realize SQR-19 is quite heavy, but is is also low in the ship for minimum impact on center of gravity). I would downgrade mount 52 to a 76mm, saving 34,140lbs, if that were needed to ship SQQ-89 (this would also be from a location essentially adjacent to the SQR-19 array). The 76mm is a better compliment to the Mk 71 anyway, as it is a better AA gun (and probably a better choice against small boats), and the Mk 71 showed no talent for AA.

I've intentionally left the Mk 71 'alone', both because I like the 203mm for fire support, and because there is no data supporting the DXG version having weight availible for it, yet there is likewise no data indicating that capability had to be sacrificed for the Tartar fit. The possibility exists that a Mk 45 may have to be there on the DXG version, but that is a huge weight difference (125,075lbs) in a location which won't have much bearing on the topweight of SPS-48 and SPG-51s, other than raw displacement.

So, I'm pretty sold on Mk 71, two 32 cell Mk 41 VLS with 32 ESSM, 32 SM-2 Blk IV, 24 Tomahawk, LAMPS III, two Mk 15 CIWS and NTU. I'd site a 76mm in mount 52's place, so there would be approx 98,840lbs (!) to solve SQQ-89. I'm thinking there would be enough weight for that additional Mk 141 foward after all, which I would load with SLAM-ER. Boat/Flex deck aft would be nice for inshore work as well, but might be more appropriately an alternative, not in addition, too SQR-19 (brown water work= good for small boats, bad for towed array).

You will, of coure, note that this does not exceed CAPT Potter's 60 Tomahawk number, but does give a much more versitile combatant.

(Note - adding 16 more VLS cells aft would cost 47,000lbs plus the weight of weapons (72,600 w/16 SM-2, 98,200 w/16 Tomahawk, and 85,400 with 8 of each) , so it would probably cost any chance at SQQ-89 and Kevlar armor. Maybe fine today in the brown water, but probably not the choice that would have been made in the early 90's when Russian subs still posed a threat)

Alright, here's my own math in this mix. We've got numbers here, on the fully fitted forward section - we'll assume this was the max forward weight at the go.

61 Cell VLS - 188,000 lbs.
16 TLAM - 51,200 lbs - as you said, the engineers only ever accomodated 16 in the VLS fit plan.
45 SM-2MR - 49,500 lbs - these boys are really just a place holder, they could be Any "short" missile, same weight give or take.
Mk45 - 47,280 lbs.

This is the Forward weight of a standard, as-refitted Spruance. 335,980 pounds, going on your own quoted numbers for equipment.

So, we look at the ammount here, and we have, ostensibly, what could be Easily fitted in place of the Original plan.

Now, let's look at the 8" Forward mount - 172,895 as quoted. Since Dave wants the Mk71, we'll put This weight prioritized - 163,085 pounds forward allowance. Alright, not even an Empty 61 cell will fit into this batch, let's look at the 32 cell - 94,000? That's a little more workable. 16 TLAM, 51,200 - that leaves us 17,885. You can still fit 16 SM-2MR assuming the 1,100lb weight, with 285 lbs left over. This is, of course, forsaking the crane.

I think it's a doable concept, with a few of the assumptions you put forward. And this is just the forward section, without modifying the aft block.

This is also drafted before SumGui's post, which of course would adjust some things. I would assume there's Some play on the weight with the SM-2MR as the maximum weight forward would equally be adjusted with regards to the SM-2 series in this context - The whole layout would be adapted with the context of fitting the loaded VLS into place anyways.

_________________
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/

Here's another idea, maybe a little over the top, but mathematically supported:

Fwd: TWO Mk 71 MCLWG forward (mount 81 AND mount 82...), Mk 16 CIWS, leaving 10,205lbs available fwd (I'd use it to increase 8" ammo after SATCOM)
Aft: Trade mount 52 for 76mm (mount 31) , LAMPS III, Mk 16 CIWS, Mk 141 Harpoon, 48 cell VLS with 32 ESSM in Quad pack, 16 Tomahawk, and 24 SM-2, leaving 11,000lbs aft.
No SQQ-89. SATCOM would have to come out of the 21,205 left over. I’d consider making the Phalanx RAM instead (at 4,138 each), if possible.

And so everyone can play, here is a rundown of the numbers I am using:
Ref: Polmar, Norman. Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet, sixteenth edition. USNI, 1997.

Guns:
Mk 71 203mm/55 MCLWG: 172,895 lbs
Mk 45 127mm/54: 47,820lbs
Mk 75 76mm/62: 13,680lbs
Mk 16 20mm/76 (Phalanx CIWS): 12,000lbs (this includes whole mount, not just gun)

Launchers:
Mk 13 : 134,704lbs empty (Capacity: 40 SM1/2 or Harpoon)
Mk 26 Mod 0: 162,028 empty (Capacity: 24 SM1/2, ASROC or possibly Harpoon)
Mk 26 Mod 1: 208,373 empty (Capacity: 44 SM1/2, ASROC or possibly Harpoon)
Mk 29: 24,000 to 28,000lbs loaded (8 Sea Sparrow)
Mk 41 VLS: 32 Cell: 94,000lbs (Capacity: 32 SM2, ESSM(x4), Tomahawk, VLASROC)
Mk 41 VLS: 64 Cell: 188,000lbs (Capacity: 64 SM2, ESSM(x4), Tomahawk, VLASROC)
*Mk 41 VLS: per 8 cells: 23,500lbs (Capacity: 8 SM2, ESSM(x4), Tomahawk, VLASROC)
Mk 49 RAM: 16,138lbs loaded (12,736lbs launcher + 162lbs RIM-116Amissile x 21)
Mk 141: 13,000lbs loaded (8 Harpoon)


Weapons:
RIM-7 Sea Sparrow: 450lbs (note this is Mk 29 version, ESSM weight not covered in this edition)
RIM-66b SM-1(Block VI): 1,378lbs
RIM-66c SM-2(Block IV): 1,554lbs (for my estimates, I round this up to 1,600 for simplicity and to give a cushion for error)
RGM-109 Tomahawk: 3,200lbs (2,650 + 550 for booster)
RUM-139A VLASROC: 1,409lbs (as its weight is lighter than any other alternative for the cells, I leave it out in computation, suffice to say any cell can be traded for VLASROC)
RGM-84 Harpoon: 1,757lbs (note: this would be for adding to Mk 13/26, the Mk 141 number already includes the weapons)
RGM-84E SLAM-ER: est. 1927lbs for surface launched version (difference in AGM/RGM version of Harpoon to represent the booster, added to the AGM version of SLAM-ER)
Aircraft:
I am using 22,000lbs as an estimate for the difference in SH-2 to SH-60B. This comes from the difference in MTOW of SH-2 (13,500) and an ASW SH-60B (19,500) twice for two helicopters (12,000lbs difference). I’ve added 10,000 for the steel in the expanded hangar and larger Helo deck. If anyone has better numbers, pleas provide so we can upgrade this SWAG.

Quick reference:
8 Cell Mk 41 with 32 ESSM (quad pack): 37,900lbs
8 Cell Mk 41 with 8 SM-2: 36,300lbs
8 Cell Mk 41 with 8 Tomahawk: 49,100lbs

Note: no credit is given for deletion of the loading crane as there is no weight data specific to the crane itself.

Or in theory, keep the CIWS, shift a few things on the upper structure, put RAM on the opposite corners for an increased protection suite.

_________________
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/

right on

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance