The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:58 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 2:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
For a ship the size of the Des Moines adding AN/SPY-1F would be an option for ship self-defense. The Frigate version of Aegis is can direct ESSM against the curent generation of anti-ship missiles which are NTU's achillies heel. I see Des Moines as a fire support vessel, area air defense would be a waste of the ships potential and detract from its primary mission. The problem with AN/SPS-48E/G is that it doesn't produce a high enough resolution picture of the situation to justify its considerable weight and power requirements.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
Here's the Des Moines being pulled into my shipyard for modernization. Watchout 2011. Sometime later this year, guess who's coming back to town?
Attachment:
91995045_afQ0rcwa_USSDesMoinessmall.jpg
91995045_afQ0rcwa_USSDesMoinessmall.jpg [ 125.68 KiB | Viewed 2688 times ]

Oh yeah, and that Sprucan in the background, yep she's at the shipyard for the same reason :heh:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
Seasick wrote:
For a ship the size of the Des Moines adding AN/SPY-1F would be an option for ship self-defense. The Frigate version of Aegis is can direct ESSM against the curent generation of anti-ship missiles which are NTU's achillies heel.
While there are some seriously good systems out there, as I have learned how the Navy procures things, there's what's really neat and what would probably provide the greatest capability, but there's also what's most economical, reliable, and best. I think 2 SPQ-9Bs for 100% coverage and reliability would be best and cheapest. Because it is a deul side radar, SPQ-9B provides the same 100% coverage as SPY-1F at a very small fraction of the cost.

Seasick wrote:
I see Des Moines as a fire support vessel, area air defense would be a waste of the ships potential and detract from its primary mission. The problem with AN/SPS-48E/G is that it doesn't produce a high enough resolution picture of the situation to justify its considerable weight and power requirements.
It would be a waste to just use the Des Moines as a fire support ship. We don't have that kind of money to restrict such a massively capable and flexible ship as just a fire support ship. It's a heavy cruiser. Just like a battleship, it's a capital ship and a flagship. Even though the battleships were not fitted with flag facilities in the '80s they were always flagships. The Newport News spent a lot of time as a flagship with facilities. Why simply use it as a consort vessel that follows around an amphibious group when it can be the center of a strike group that goes where adjacent forces are or a carrier is not needed but heavy firepower is?

In that role, an LHD's radar and communications suite would be best, and if we wanted to save money the TRS-3D could be used instead of the SPS-48G.

What has been established is that the CVN/LHD sensor suite when combined with the SPQ-9B provides as good of an picture as one presented by Aegis. Remember, the CVNs and LHDs all have NTU without the Tartar weapon direction system. They received all of the NTU electronics from the decommissioned NTU ships as they were striken from the mothball fleet, and there are a lot of spare systems in storage.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:30 pm
Posts: 346
What a sad sight seeing her go to the breakers, what a waste. She came so close to being a museum in my AOR in Milwaukee. The liberal anti military types had it shot down over concerns that the she would ruin the scenic qualities of the Milwaukee lakefront and bogus claims of pollution hazards.
Semper Paratus!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 764
Location: Adelaide,SouthOZ
Okies here is my early concept drawing for my future 1/72 build this will be all I draw for now until my broken wrist is fully healed!! Its 2 difficult/painful 2 draw with this lump of a cast on my arm..
Please offer constructive ideas on placement of secondary weapons/sensors, etc.
Bridge design is loosely based on the Concept art Dave posted of the AEGIS conversion proposed for CGN-9 USS Long Beach.
My initial design has 32 strike length VLS per side(64 total) with a 16cell tac length VLS in place of the twin 5"turret[with ESSM's], possibly have a 5"mk45 62cal either side fwd of the VLS.
Still need 2 fit some 'poons in......

Cheers Bruce :cool_1: :cool_1:

Question: how much room/deck space is there either side of the aft turret?? What sized chopper could be squeezed past if the midships hanger is at deck level??


Attachments:
QikdrawmkI.jpg
QikdrawmkI.jpg [ 128.68 KiB | Viewed 2582 times ]

_________________
building:
1/72 RC USS LONG BEACH CGN9
1/72 RC USS CALIFORNIA CGN36
1/72 RC USS SAIPAN LHA2
1/72 RC USS JOHN PAUL JONES DDG53
1/72 RC USS SHARK SSN591
1/72 RC USS SEAWOLF SSN21
1/72 RC USS ALBANY CG10
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 7:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
:big_grin: Wow, wow, wee, wow!

Here is 8-inch gunfire responding to a call for fire in Vietnam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfQ9uNaKqxc&NR=1

Only a few weeks ago in Lybia, it took a British ship 30-40 minutes of bombardment with 4.5-inch to do what 6 unguided WWII era 8-inch rounds did in a few minutes. Just imagine what guided 8-inch rounds do.
I can see what Dahlgen meant when it stated that "8-inch is the smallest caliber projectile that can accomplish the goals of NGFS."
Attachment:
WNUS_8-55_mk71_Guided_pic.jpg
WNUS_8-55_mk71_Guided_pic.jpg [ 30.94 KiB | Viewed 2510 times ]
Just imagine what it sounded like when the Mk71 blew the ex USS Burns to pieces with laser guided inert rounds and when it landed 8 out of 10 rounds directly on target on San Clemente Island.

Amazing!!! :thumbs_up_1:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 10:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 2:50 pm
Posts: 114
Location: Ogden, Utah
Scheesch! navydave you have easter eggs all over this board. I love it. I like to hear ideas i have, except someone posted it before i even joind this forum. GREAT STUFF. What exactly is your rate, and how long have you been in ect, ect. How do you get the ear of NAVSEA?? i mean thats pretty impressive. tell me more...or will you have to kill me??
love this thread, cant wait to finish it, im only on page five. good stuff!

Joe

_________________
In God we trust all others we track


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
CSGN138 wrote:
Scheesch! navydave you have easter eggs all over this board. I love it. I like to hear ideas i have, except someone posted it before i even joind this forum. GREAT STUFF. What exactly is your rate, and how long have you been in ect, ect. How do you get the ear of NAVSEA?? i mean thats pretty impressive. tell me more...or will you have to kill me??
love this thread, cant wait to finish it, im only on page five. good stuff!
You flatter me, sir. My rate is GM, but I was stationed at Norfolk Naval Shipyard for 5 years, and because NNSY handles a huge amount of Navy shipyard work, NAVSEA has a HUGE presence there. I went into the building and began making contacts with them. I was able to have long and excellent discussions with NAVSEA engineers. It was a most excellent relationship I was able to make. I have been able to learn all kinds of fantastic things from them, and they have driven a lot of my WIF projects. :big_grin:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
According to Friedman's US Cruisers, it turns out that the Albany's and Chicago's floatplane hangers were converted to accommodate 2 HSS-1 helicopters. They were the same size as H-60 helos. That means that the very same modification would enable them to accommodate 2 H-60 helicopters. Totally feasible and totally awesome. :thumbs_up_1:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Thu Jul 26, 2018 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
Awesome! That's what I call "trawling for ideas" that gets the conversation going as opposed to the negative version, "trolling" that lights off negative arguments :heh:

carr wrote:
You're talking about the folded tail length being the same as the HSS-1 dimension, right?
Yes.

carr wrote:
The height of the SH-60 is about a foot taller which might have an effect depending on the hangar height.

I think you have the heights of the helos backward. The HSS-1 is quoted at 14.3' from the wheels to the rotor head:
Image

The SH-60 is 13.3' from its wheels to the rotor head:
Image

I was also incorrect about the lengths! When both are folded, the SH-60 is about 3' longer than the HHS-1. Probably not a problem. If it is a hair too long front to back, I am willing to bet that the SH-60 could be pulled diagonal on the elevator and fit.

The scan has distorted the numbers a little, but it appears to be between 18.5' and 20.5' tall. Either of these numbers is consistent with ship decks being between 9' and 10' tall.
Attachment:
NNstern.JPG
NNstern.JPG [ 68.83 KiB | Viewed 2179 times ]


The Baltimore-class USS Chicago modified to handle the HSS-1:
Image

As you can see, the hangar goes all the way to the starboard hull; unfortunately no pictures of portside.
Image
There is still a lot of space in there. A friend of mine who was on Newport News said that the hangar went all the way port to starboard like on Chicago. Chicago just has a bunch of magazines and stuff off to the port side.

carr wrote:
Also, there's a significant weight difference with the HSS-1 being 7900 lb empty and the SH-60 being 15,200 lb which might impact whatever hangar lift mechanism you're thinking about.

I imagine the elevator machinery would have to be replaced one way or the other. It's age would likely be up for replacement. I believe the interior of the hanger would need to be modified like having new racks or other fittings welded to the bulkheads to hold spare rotor blades, wheels, and other bulky spare parts.

Also a huge issue is the hatch and maneuvering the helos around on the flight deck while the birds are on deck. See? It does not look too conducive to moving helos around.
Attachment:
hangarhatch.JPG
hangarhatch.JPG [ 56.65 KiB | Viewed 2179 times ]
This is how I have planned to make the sliding hatch usable on any below-deck hanger CL, CA, or CB, and if I were to do a new-build battleship it would also incorporate this design.

To do it justice, I am going to have to make a drawing of this, but I have a way to make it to where the reliable, water-tight, sliding hatch can still be used instead of resorting to the Virginia-class CGN design where the elevator elevates all the way. I will try to generally describe it. A flat cover would have to be fabricated over the top of the hatch so a helo could roll across it and so the elevated helicopter landing pad raised to be flush/level with each other. Like on the Iowas, the helo landing pad would have to be elevated anyway for AFFF plumbing to be installed underneath it. The top of the hatch and the raised deck would be flush and provide for a landing area that would accommodate a sliding hatch. This enables the hangar to be closed with the elevator down, and it would keep water out of the hangar.

:thumbs_up_1:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Thu Jul 26, 2018 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:28 pm
Posts: 2126
Location: Egg Harbor Twp, NJ
It may be possible to encroach on the berthing space forward of the hangar because modern weaponry installed on the ship is much less labor intensive than previous weaponry, thus reducing crew size.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
carr wrote:
If there is "stuff" on the port side of the hangar that prohibits storage of a helo, that's going to cause a bit of a problem in terms of severely limiting the flexibility of helo movement. One helo could be stored to starboard but the other would have to be stored on the elevator. That would be a problem in trying to get the stored helo up. Hopefully, the port side is, or could be, freed up for helo parking.
No problem! You just put the one that is on the elevator on the deck first and park it off to the side, then bring the other one up. You don't need to shuffle them inside the hanger. :heh:

If you have the elevator open, would you rather leave it empty or put another helo on it? From an analytical view, you may indeed want to leave the elevator empty so either the port or starboard helo could be put onto the elevator at once, but from the practical point of view you would want to embark an additional bird? I would! :cool_2:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
What a beauty shot. Newport News
Image

The ultimate expression of the US heavy cruiser.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Last edited by navydavesof on Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
The gunnery capability is totally unknown...The Alaska-clss CA is the hull that this could possibly offer several things...another thread to come...One would be the Mk41 VLS and Raytheon's AGS(L) and Mk57 and Lockheed's Mk41VLS...Totally awesome?!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Last edited by navydavesof on Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:28 pm
Posts: 2126
Location: Egg Harbor Twp, NJ
Whoa!!!
The two hull forms are very different, suggesting that they would have to be endowed with different capabilites. The issue then becomes which and how much capability to build in to each. For example, the CB hull form suggests that it would be more suitable for helicopters than the CA. On the other hand, the stern of the CA appears to be more suited to the launching of small craft than the CB.

At this point, a little devil is whispering, "Well, if you're going that far, why not add CGs and DD(G)s into the mix and design an operating/strike group where the enhanced capability of one hull form complements the enhanced capabilities of of the other hull forms, yet retains enough overall capability to enable it to operate indepedently for certain missions?" To this I reply that this is entirely logical and therefore beyond the realm of possibilities and, besides, this thread would become totally confused.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 9:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
Russ2146 wrote:
Whoa!!!
The two hull forms are very different, suggesting that they would have to be endowed with different capabilites. The issue then becomes which and how much capability to build in to each. For example, the CB hull form suggests that it would be more suitable for helicopters than the CA. On the other hand, the stern of the CA appears to be more suited to the launching of small craft than the CB....

I like the idea of being able to embark 2 helos just for the sake of it ie to satisfy the Navy; nothing else. The rest of the ship and space are dedicated to shore bombardment and naval gunnery strike with 90 VLS tubes for deep TLAM strike.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:12 pm
Posts: 392
Your prayers r answered 1/350 coming in plastic oh my now if they did a boston in plastic :woo_hoo:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
MAJOR-B wrote:
Your prayers r answered 1/350 coming in plastic oh my now if they did a boston in plastic :woo_hoo:

And it will be glorious!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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