The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Nov 26, 2020 2:53 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 416 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 21  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Wow, you guys are great. I have had to read your posts several time a piece to grasp the numbers you guys are putting up. I find it very interesting. There are a few things I would like to interject.

Concerning that there is no indication that the DXG was going to be fitted with the Mk71 8" gun, I have read differently. That the Kidds were specifically given a 24 round Mk26 Mod0 up front in order to support an upgrade to the Mk71 in the future. So, in my mind, at the very least, it was expected that the DXG ship was going to be capable of both the Mk26 Mod0 and the Mk71 gun up front. I wonder if there was that much of a structural difference here with the Kidds versus the Spruances. From what Captain Potter has had to say, they just took a number of the lessons learned from the Ticos into account.
This has really made me wonder about how to actually build this model.

But in general, it really sounds like to me is that a lesser number of VLS tubes would have to be up front anyway. So from what you guys can tell, what are the restrictions on weight here and how can we overcome them? Would a physical structural change to the ship itself be in order? Would we have to cut the main deck off and add bracing both forward and aft adding beams all the way across? Could we add the blister onto the Sprucans like is being done on the Ticos that runs a good length of the ship and reinforce the entire length of the blister with structual beams?

Again, thanks, guys. I appreciate the hard work. I have been very surprised to see how expensive Electronic Greyhounds is!!! WOW! I hope someday I can find a copy less than $200!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Last edited by navydavesof on Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
I figure, just going by the concept of what was mounted up front in a refit Spruance, if we're looking at that being our upper threshold for fitting, you're looking at 32 cells VLS plus the forward 8" mount on the forward section. The aft block was designed to incorporate a Mk26, so realistically we can draw from that same inference a ~48 round VLS would be doable, though I would not suspect TLAM could be used. Just by volumetric displacement, the Kidd aft magazine being 44 rounds, we allow for the mechanical reload systems, and we can theorize 48 cells aft with little problem. The Spruances were weight-considered with only 16 TLAM in the forward battery. Take from that what you will.

_________________
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: Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Well, that is interesting. When you say that the Spruances were weight-considered with only 16 TLAM in the forward battery, do you mean by our projections or in reality with the 61-cell VLS? As Captain Potte pointed out, it could theoretically fir 60 TLAMs, which it has. They could and did carry 61 TLAMS. During our first Gulf War, USS Fife carried 61 and fired 60.

Also, Norman Polmar pointed out in the Spruance-class chapter in Ships and aircraft 17th Edition that "The Spruance design provided for the subsequent installation of additional weapon systems, specifically the Mk26 launcher (and subsequently the Mk41 VLS) forward, with removal of the ASROC launcher, and aft with the removal of the Sea Sparrow launcher. In addition, the forward 5-inch gun could be replaced by the now-canceled 8-inch Mk71 Major Caliber Light-weight Gun."

I do take what Mr. Polmar has with a grain of salt, because of some of his statemetns in the past, having skimmed right over the finer types of points we see here.

So, it seems we have two possibilities. One Mr. Polmar is right and the Spruances could take a lot more than we know, two 61-cell pads and one Mk71 mount with the assumption of associated Tartar upgrade. Two, the Spruances that were designed to be delivered with the Mk71 upfront and a 24 cell Mk26 with 24 rounds forward and 44 aft with all of the heavy, heavy motors that whip that Mk26 launcher around.

So.... What should we think? I am positive Captain Potter is not only on the right track but is 100% right.

I am also positive that if the ships were to be the focus of a 20 year extension program that the ships would be cut up enough to add strength and move weight around to accomodate such perminant changes to the ship's hulls. This would still be cheaper and faster than building a new ship. What of moving around the ballasting? Is it physically impossible to reinforce the hull of an already built ship?

Sauragnmon wrote:
I figure, just going by the concept of what was mounted up front in a refit Spruance, if we're looking at that being our upper threshold for fitting, you're looking at 32 cells VLS plus the forward 8" mount on the forward section. The aft block was designed to incorporate a Mk26, so realistically we can draw from that same inference a ~48 round VLS would be doable, though I would not suspect TLAM could be used. Just by volumetric displacement, the Kidd aft magazine being 44 rounds, we allow for the mechanical reload systems, and we can theorize 48 cells aft with little problem. The Spruances were weight-considered with only 16 TLAM in the forward battery. Take from that what you will.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Last edited by navydavesof on Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
My concept of considering the Spruance with only 16 TLAM in the battery comes from earlier comments of the engineers, when told to consider weight for TLAM, assuming 16 being the magic number when fitting the Spruances and weight balancing them.

I think the low-number of VLS cells with the Mk71 forward stems towards the weight capacity with ballasting considerations - if they can hold more weight, even then, we have the issue of "Where are we going to put the ballasting, when we're loaded with VLS aft where the OTL Spruances have their ballasting?"

Just my thoughts here...

_________________
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: Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Sauragnmon wrote:
My concept of considering the Spruance with only 16 TLAM in the battery comes from earlier comments of the engineers, when told to consider weight for TLAM, assuming 16 being the magic number when fitting the Spruances and weight balancing them.

I think the low-number of VLS cells with the Mk71 forward stems towards the weight capacity with ballasting considerations - if they can hold more weight, even then, we have the issue of "Where are we going to put the ballasting, when we're loaded with VLS aft where the OTL Spruances have their ballasting?"

Just my thoughts here...


I understand. Something is not adding up. I am going to keep going back and reading the posts carefully. There's a lot of infomration there, and other than the ballast added after the ships were modified, such as lead ballast to counter for the VLS up forward, I don't understand why the hull could not support the weight of the same type of VLS arrangement as the Ticos with the rearrangemnt of the equipment inside the ship. It sounds like from what Captain Potter has said that the Ticos were build to be stronger as were the Kidds and adding any kind of structral support is not feasible.
Well, as with the USS Hull, you can strengthen the ship of any ship such as she received for the testing of the Mk71. She did not receive enough reinforcing, because the recoil from the weapon damaged the bow of the ship.

To this point, it is my understanding that if the modifications of Mk71 forward, 64-cell forward and aft, and the Tartar D/NTU weapons system would be too heavy for the ship's current strength capabilities, and it would begin to endanger the ship's stability and structural integrity.

Volume seems to be a concern for some people, but like I said before, isn't there significant distance between the forward VLS and gun? It really does not look like they are going to interfere with each other at all on the deck, and the below deck equipment does not expand out very much from either weapon system.

The extra time I still have between my projects is good. It's helping me really figure out how far I can/should go with Spruance.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
Double to remember, Dave - the VLS launch is not a clear vertical, but something more like an 85 degree angle - if something goes wrong, it's still going away from the ship in this case. The forward VLS specifically is sloped. Also, remember that the Mk71 was a big turret, and did weigh a Lot. So the ballasting issue is not from the missile battery, but the guns. Tico's had 61 forward, 61 aft, and a mk45 on either side - pretty balanced in that respect. Unfortunately, the mk71's more than triple the weight of the mk45, so we really Should take that into consideration.

Spruance was built from day one with the mk71 in mind for the forward position - the bulkheads were built for support, the magazine was designed for support, everything about the bow position was designed and planned to support the mk71, but the ballasting was not put in to accomodate the gun - let's face it, she would have been stern heavy if she was set up to accept the mk71 but the weight was not set in place on the bow.

_________________
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: Sat Aug 01, 2009 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Sauragnmon wrote:
...everything about the bow position was designed and planned to support the mk71, but the ballasting was not put in to accomodate the gun - let's face it, she would have been stern heavy if she was set up to accept the mk71 but the weight was not set in place on the bow.


Ah, an excellent point. Very, very nice point.

One way or the other it sounds like we are possibly looking at the movement of ballasting material. I will keep pondering as well as you, I am sure.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Well, guys, it sounds like what we can have is the Maximum equivillant of Mk71 MCLWG and 32-cell VLS foward, installation of the end-point NTU system, being what the Kidds wound up with if the Sprucans had the original FC systems or not, an aft position of up to 64 VLS tubes (an overload really instead of 48) and a Mk45 Mod4 gun aft. I am now confident with how I will build up the model.

Thanks for all the help so far guys. I really appreciate the help. I hope to have a finished product within 1 month. If you guys have any further conepts, limitations, or other considerations, please post them up. I look forward to futher posts, guys!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 457
Location: San Diego
If you wish to show VLS's inserted into the spaces originally built to fit Mk 26 launchers, I believe you would orient them as 4x8 and 4x16 matrices, with the longer dimension along the centerline. That was not the plan adopted for the actual VLS conversion, but if you were putting a 32-cell VLS forward, it would be simpler than the reconstruction that Commander Landrum described, and would be attractive to real-world project managers.

Each Mk 26 launcher magazine contained two parallel racetracks. The missiles stood vertically on the racetracks.

In the Mk 26 mod 0 launcher, each racetrack was 5 missile-widths long, plus a missile at each end. Racetrack capacity = 2 x 5 + 2 x 1 = 12, and obviously 2 racetracks = 24 missiles.

In the Mk 26 mod 1 launcher, each racetrack was doubled to 10 missile-width, thus 44 missiles total. No idea whether one reloader crane could reach all cells of a 4x16 VLS, or whether it would need two reloader cranes, had such a VLS been installed before the cranes were abandoned.

NTU is absurd but if you show it, include the four telemetry receivers, which were about all that was visible of NTU. A modern warship would be far better off with better point defenses and more chaff.

Scarcity of Electronic Greyhounds is beyond my control! But if you want the original source about conversions of the DD 963 design, contact the American Society of Naval Engineers and buy a copy of the article by Robert Staimen, "Aegis Cruiser Weight Reduction and Control" in Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987, and comments in the July 1987 issue. You may also be interested in Capt. Bryce Inman, "From Typhon to Aegis, Naval Engineers Journal, May 1988, and comments in the July 1988 issue.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
So to clarify, for the VLS arrangement forward, it would be similar to the original VLS layout, but divided in half, Lengthwise along the Centerline, so it's four columns of eight cells, running between the bridge and the forward position, or do you mean the widest arrangement set to the centerline, so it's four lines forward from the bridge... Bah, the wording is properly escaping me right now, so I'll do Ascii graphic style again:

(A) (B)

-----------(Bridge)
xxxx xxxxxxxx
xxxx xxxxxxxx
xxxx xxxxxxxx
xxxx xxxxxxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
[Gun Mount 51/81]


So here we have the visual alignment, and organization, with the reference points of the bridge and the gun mount, for the sake of visual reference - Unfortunately, the original 64 cell arrangement doesn't quite clarify that point, as it is, conveniently, 8x8. I am surmising that you mean the length down the centerline, as that would sound like what the Mk26's feed track would be arranged to, as the twin feed was aligned to feed with the launcher aligned with an arm on either side, to port and starboard. Unfortunately, I question whether the lengthwise arrangement would be the most fitting choice with the Mk71 mounted forward.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Michael Potter wrote:
NTU is absurd but if you show it, include the four telemetry receivers, which were about all that was visible of NTU. A modern warship would be far better off with better point defenses and more chaff.


Well, Captain, point defense weapons are to defend yourself, and chaff is to decoy a missile. That's not at all what NTU is about or would be about. We are not talking about upgrading its basic self-defense systems. We're looking to give it a credible AAW capability. My impression from project managers intimently involved in the upgrade of every NTU ship except USS Texas, NTU was a $52 million (FY91) defensive anti-air warfare suite that involved a rip-out of the old system and installed a completely new missile direction system and a whole host of other electronics including the big, giant SPS-49 or SPS-48 depending on what the original ship had and the original. It sounds like the only things retained were the physical illuminators, and even those were gutted and rebuilt from the inside out. The Kidds even got entirely new masts build for them. So, NTU would be making the Spraunce-class, a massive and expensive ship, a remarkably capable AAW ship. From the sounds of it one of the biggest reasons why the Sprucans were decommissioned so willingly was because they did not have a real-life AAW capability. I chose NTU, because it is a shockingly capable system. It put Aegis to shame more times than not. If we were simply going to give the ships better self defenseive measures and not make them escort ships, then I agree, evolved sea sparrow and RAM do wonders.

With the VLS arrangement, are you talking about:

xx xx xxxx xxxx
xx xx instead of xxxx xxxx
xx xx
xx xx

Thank you for the articles. I appreciate that!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
Of course, one would wonder if the full NTU suite would be required to give it a credible AAW suite. SPS-48, rebuilt illuminators, not unheart of - the CVNs all use the SPS-48 for search suite, so given SPG-51 or SPG-62 in a few positions, to allow it to engage with Standard and ESSM, it might not be world class, but it would have a detection and engagement AAW Suite.

Just thinking middle-of-the-road here.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Sauragnmon wrote:
Just thinking middle-of-the-road here.


Well, NTU is the middle of the road. Putting the new SPY-3 miniature-mast radar that's being put on the Israeli-export LCS is one extreme and just putting point defense weapons on it is the other extreme. For instance, the Sea Sparrow missile launchers aboard the Spruances was really cheating the platform. NTU is a lot cheaper than that and from the sounds like it a lot more effective.

I just wonder if NTU was excessively heavy in addition to the equipment already aboard the ship. It's all good in the hood, though. I am confident that unless the Kidd hulls were significantly stronger than that of the Sprucans that the Sprucan hull can wishstand being converted into the DXG version. I still don't get why, forsaking the Mk71 for this statement, that if the forward Mk26 position, which was equipped to have only 24 missiles, could support an entire 61-cell Mk41 arrangement but the position aft that could take 44 missiles could not handle the same 61-cell arrangement. This is not regarding weight concerns, but rather Captain Potter has said that for some reason, the magazine tracks instead of being removed as forward, the VLS tubes aft would have to be arranged inside of these tracks and thus situated on length rather than on width. That does not make a lot of sense to me.

Even if the arrangement is more interesting for naval arcitects, it is not necessary if the forward 24 missile magazine was so easily modified to accept 61 VLS tubes. If the project were undertaken, it sounds to me like the same proceedure for modifying aft would take place, forsaking the gym and stores area.

So, in simply following the DXG platform, the 24 missile magazine area would have to be preserved to stay consistant wtih the philosophy of supporting the Mk71. So, at the very least, and as established before, the forward VLS arrangement would likely have to be reduced to 32 cells.

I am consulting NavSea right now, and I will meet up with another man tomorrow, so I am anxious to see what he says about the arrangements we have talked about here, ranging all the way up to 64 cells forward with Mk71, 64 aft and Mk45 Mod4 aft.

But, Captain Potter, what are the four antennas you're talking about that are tell-tale signs of NTU? A common way of identifying an NTU ship is the combination of SPS-48 and SPS-49 and for the ships with the SPG-55s, the NTU ships' SPG-55s have been upgraded to the SPG-55Bs with the two white boxes on the 9 and 2 o'clock positions. I am very curious to hear what antennas you're talking about. Thanks again guys!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 457
Location: San Diego
Quote:
I am confident that unless the Kidd hulls were significantly stronger than that of the Sprucans that the Sprucan hull can wishstand being converted into the DXG version.
Yes, the Kidd hulls were significantly stronger than those of the Sprucans. No, there was no DXG design, beyond paper studies that were never issued to naval architects chartered to create an actual contract design for a ship. Yes, an original DD 963 (before SQQ-89 and ABL/VLS) could be converted to a 2-director DDG but no, not to a NTU Kidd.

Quote:
I still don't get why, forsaking the Mk71 for this statement, that if the forward Mk26 position, which was equipped to have only 24 missiles, could support an entire 61-cell Mk41 arrangement but the position aft that could take 44 missiles could not handle the same 61-cell arrangement. This is not regarding weight concerns, but rather Captain Potter has said that for some reason, the magazine tracks instead of being removed as forward, the VLS tubes aft would have to be arranged inside of these tracks and thus situated on length rather than on width. That does not make a lot of sense to me.
To repeat what I wrote, a faster and lower-cost path to install a VLS in a DD 963 would to install a 4x8 VLS within the ASRoc space forward. That way, the USN would need only to open the deck above the magazine spaces, instead of ripping out the magazine bulkheads themselves plus the adjoining compartments. Read the work list about USS Hayler. Before the DD 963 class, mid-life modernizations typically took around three years, were very costly, and deprived the USN of the ship for operations during that time. The DD 963 modular magazine spaces were intended to support conversion in a short time.

The Mk 26 tracks would run parallel to the centerline, i.e., fore and aft, and were so installed in the Kidds. The easiest installation of TWO (2) VLS's (4x8 forward, 4x16 aft) would be to insert them inside the extant magazine spaces. That was the path that the original short VLS was designed to support. In the actual conversions of DD 963s, the USN installed only one (1) VLS, and went to the 8x8 design for that, requiring the rip-out as on Hayler.


Quote:
Even if the arrangement is more interesting for naval arcitects, it is not necessary if the forward 24 missile magazine was so easily modified to accept 61 VLS tubes.
Again, read the posts here about USS Hayler. The installation of the 8x8 VLS forward was considerably more complicated than would be installing a 4x8 VLS inside the ASRoc magazine. But to get more cells per ship than from one (1) 4x8 VLS, the choice was between awkward adding another VLS aft (limited to 32 cells by weight and stability), or instead expanding to 8x8 forward.

Quote:
what are the four antennas you're talking about that are tell-tale signs of NTU?
Two of them are the bar-like objects at the upper corners of the hanger structure in the photo of USS Scott on page 4 of this thread. The other two were at the corners of the forward superstructure, just above the level of the bridge windows. They were pretty small, maybe one foot high, one foot deep, and three feet long. They are 45 degrees from the centerline. SPY-1A Aegis cruisers have them, too.

The origin of this thread was about a conceptual modernization to extend the now-destroyed destroyers for 20 years into the future. NTU was for bad-weather (no flight ops), high-altitude air defense, which you can read as the Barents Sea and the Siberian littoral. There is no foreseeable high-altitude threat there now that Aegis could not handle in bad weather. And again there is no way you could add DDG electronics to a SQQ-89 DD 963.

_________________
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: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Holy, crap I cannot figure this quote crap out. Please forgive me on this post.

Quote:
Yes, an original DD 963 (before SQQ-89 and ABL/VLS) could be converted to a 2-director DDG but no, not to a NTU Kidd.
Quote:

Then, what made the Kidds so special? They were a two-director DDG with NTU. I understand they probably did not have the SQQ-89 so their internal volume was left open for the DDG equipment that could be upgraded with the NTU package. So, the Sprucans suffered from their internal space already being occupied by the sophisticated SQQ suite?

Ah, I understand concerning the differnt VLS arrangement. The way proposed is a quicker, easier, cheaper way to do it. I apologize for asking you repeat yourself.

Quote:
The origin of this thread was about a conceptual modernization to extend the now-destroyed destroyers for 20 years into the future. NTU was for bad-weather (no flight ops), high-altitude air defense, which you can read as the Barents Sea and the Siberian littoral. There is no foreseeable high-altitude threat there now that Aegis could not handle in bad weather. And again there is no way you could add DDG electronics to a SQQ-89 DD 963.


In your opinion, Captain, if NTU is not the ideal weapon system to turn the Spruances into escort capable DDGs, what would be? I have heard a modified Mk92 has helped the foreign Perry-class FFGs tremendously.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
Unfortunately, Captain Potter, the 4x16 Aft is not feasable. It would appear, the magazine tracks for the mk26 in that specific instance ran under the helipad. So aft would have to be modified to accomodate the 8x8, but in this instance, the modifications could be rearranged on the inside, there is the space to accomodate the cells in this area, by moving compartments into the aft magazine area. I just checked on a Spruance on my desk, and eight cells barely fit into the area, let alone attempting sixteen.

Dave, remember - the Kidds actually had additional spacing in the upper works - there was built space under the aft mast where the upper aft SPG-51 was, as well, there was a Third SPG-51 on a raised section under the SPQ-9 mounting. In technicality, Pre-NTU Kidds were a four director ship, as the SPG-60 in a pinch could be used for direction in theory, but that was supplanted by the SPS-49 with NTU.

I would imagine having the SPS-48 installed would help with air search. SPG-60 replaced with 62, remove the NSSM Director and replace with SPG-62, and addition of a third SPG-62, in theory, on the aft mast, could potentially give their engagement capacity a bit of a bump.

_________________
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: Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Sauragnmon wrote:
SPG-60 replaced with 62, remove the NSSM Director and replace with SPG-62, and addition of a third SPG-62, in theory, on the aft mast, could potentially give their engagement capacity a bit of a bump.


Isn't the SPG-62 just the Burke illuminator? I know that it does not have track and scan capabilities that are necessary with NTU. To my knowledge, only SPG-51 and SPG-55 had those abilities. Maybe if the SPG-62 were modified to carry those capabilities, then we'd be cooking, but it sounds like the SPG-62 would be covered by more SPG-51D/Es in any event.

Yes, I have noticed the large extra structures at the base of the aft mast and on top of the bridge. You can also see the HUGE extra A/C units. I imagine that similar structures would have been built on the ships to accomodate the extra directors. It sounds like the SQQ is going to have to go if the DDG is going to be feasible.

So, Mk71 and 32-48 cells forward, Mk45 Mod4 and 64 short cells aft. Sounds like we have a significant platform that will sit really low and rock and roll in heavy seas.

:deadhorse:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 457
Location: San Diego
The exploration of alternative designs is a good use of modeling. The magazine space aft was for a Mk 26 mod 1 launcher and magazine. The kingpost marks the forward-most extent of a Mk 26 mod 1 launcher aft. It may be that only a 4x12 VLS would fit aft, and only a 4x6 VLS would fit inside the original ASRoc space forward. Those still give about the same total capacity as the two MK 26 launchers even allowing for re-loader cranes.

Correct, for missile guidance purposes the SPG-62 is an illuminator only, without tracking capability, and cannot functionally replace a SPG-51, which fills both tracking and illumination functions during an intercept. With Aegis, SPY-1 does the tracking and aims the SPG-62. Only two SPG-51's on a DDG 993. On DDG 993s and CGN 38s, the SPG-60 had a CWI channel added and thus could guide missiles to intercept. The CWI channel was not provided for the SPG-60 on DD 963s, CGN 36s, and LHA 1s.

Modern warships first need good point defenses, including chaff, jammers, and hard-kill weapons, so that they can look after themselves during distant patrols and raids, which can be tactically offensive. Area air defense from surface ships is a back-up to deck-launched interceptors ("defensive combat air" in joint ops lingo) and in general is tactically defensive, although you could exert a degree of air denial over the littoral.

This has been a good discussion. Still, if you take an accurate model of a battleship, do you stick extra gun barrels between the modeled barrels because they fit geometrically, and then offer the model as a valid example of a practical ship design?

_________________
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.


Last edited by Michael Potter on Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
Alright, I stand corrected on SPG-62 suite - I was not entirely aware of the difference, and SPG-51 stands in the whole definition. I could have sworn Kidd had two aft and one forward, one SPG-51 on the block above the bridge (Not SPG-60 which was replaced with NTU by SPS-49), and the two SPG-51's on the aft block. My mistake if not correct.

Did the magazine space for Mk26 Mod 1 aft get replaced in the SQQ/VLS refit? If not, in theory (this does stand in theory solely) I fail to see why a full blown 61/64 cell VLS can't be fitted in, using the similar guidelines of the Mk26M1 to Mk41 conversion of Ticonderoga. Especially if we're going to, say, Toss the SQQ suite, and possibly move to a towed array - which might be a possibility, as they did have a fitting for towed array, correct? You were talking a 4x16 arrangement, I'm proposing the 8x8 - you said it would be feasable, But the problem stood in my examination that the helipad sits in the way of about a quarter of that length.

Either way, SPS-48, SPG-51, let's avoid the full blown suite for the NTU, but we can still give a few of the systems in action - Pre-NTU Kidd AAW suite, or similar?

_________________
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: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
I continue to be confused as to why NTU is "impossible" or "absurd" for a vessel which already has (or, in our discussions, could have had) Tartar-D.

The primary sensor for NTU was the SPS-48E. 48E was a reliability and maintainability improvement of SPS-48C. In comparison with 48C, 48E has about half the number of components, and more than quadrupled reliability while reducing weight and roughly doubling transmitted power. (Reference - my surface warfare training aboard California, Truxtun, and Kidd) That is to say, an NTU SPS-48E decreases weight onboard when it replaced SPS-48C. (Note - Truxtun did not get NTU, so she was a fine example as to the differences between SPS-48C and SPS-48E, and in reality, non-NTU and NTU). As told to me by the FCs teaching me, SPS-48E took half the weight out of the mast AND half the weight out of the lower elements, and those elements were able to be moved lower in the ship as compared to SPS-48C. What I saw on CGN-35 vs. what I saw on CGN-36 and DDG-993 supports that. (In spite of the increased power, the newer electronics generated LESS heat than 48C, and thus even reduced the cooling required)
I have no data on the weight difference between SPS-40 (the Ray Charles radar) and SPS-49. However, Captain Potter's book does give the weight of SPS-49 equipment as 7 tons (pg 173). This is allot of weight to consider if you are not getting any 'credit' for removing an SPS-40, but they did manage to pull it off on the Kidd’s while re-arranging (an lightening) the masts. This is not to say that is enough evidence to declare it was possible for any fit, but the Kidd’s are the only ships to get NTU that didn't already have an SPS-40, so are our only valid example.
NTU was also a basic 'gutting' of the directors and computer systems for the MFCS, replacing old analog and analog/digital with all digital. SYS-2 was added for mid-course corrections to SM-2 in flight (SYS-2 antenna are the 'bars' referred to by CAPT Potter). This wholesale change-out added lighter, more capable computers, but also added equipment that used that weight savings.
As an example, the Leahy and Belknap classes had already had numerous modifications, including the addition of Harpoon (at the cost of the twin 3"/50s), SLQ-32, Phalanx, SRBOC, SATCOM and the like, yet were still able to trade off SPS-40 and SPS-48C for NTU. That is to say, I'd bet they were already at or near their margin limit before NTU, yet were able to ship it. That was either due to NTU fitting into the onboard weight commitment, or removal of some other equipment as compensation. There is no reference to any equipment being removed in order to ship NTU on the CGs. The Virginia class likewise was to ship NTU without any known major equipment removal. The California’s had the ASROC box removed during NTU, although this was probably done due to working all ASROC pepperboxes out of the fleet.
Overall, it seems to me that NTU was a zero-sum game, as far as weight was concerned.

Edit to add:
My experience with NTU showed it to be master of low, slow, and especially, overland tracking. Yes, better than SPY-1 (USS Chancellorsville, CG-62). SPS-48 pulled tracks slower than SPY-1, but also had fewer erroneous tracks. Don’t get me wrong – against saturation attack I’d want Aegis, and I’m positive its reaction time in automatic mode would be far faster than NTU, but some comments here seem unduly dismissive of the capabilities of NTU.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 416 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 21  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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