The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:59 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
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 11:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
Glad to see your reply Dave, I thought you had lost interest!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
Busto963 wrote:
Glad to see your reply Dave, I thought you had lost interest!

Busto my man! No lost interest here! I put an order in for 2. One as a 2015 for and one reflecting the CAH proposed for Newport News. :heh:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
Look forward to the CAH, but I urge to consider a retro Des Moines Typhoon conversion - total space ship with huge typhoon radar dome, wrap-around fixed-array AN/SPS-43 like a halo, AN/SQS-26 bow dome with fore/ aft super Talos and super terrier!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
Busto963 wrote:
Look forward to the CAH, but I urge to consider a retro Des Moines Typhoon conversion - total space ship with huge typhoon radar dome, wrap-around fixed-array AN/SPS-43 like a halo, AN/SQS-26 bow dome with fore/ aft super Talos and super terrier!

Make it a conventional version of what Longbeach was supposed to be?

Way back in 2010, I was interested in making a modernized Worcester-class as if fitted in the 1990s. I realize the Salem here is longer than the Worcester, but I do like the stair-stepped weapons arrangement of 6 main battery locations. With the main batteries from forward to aft being A, B, C, D, E, and F, I would arrange:

A: Mk71
B: Mk71
C: Mk41 61-cell VLS
D: Mk711
E: Mk71
F: Mk41 61-cell VLS

with "B" and C" being on the 02 Level superfiring over "A" and "F" being flush with the main deck.

I would consider installing a secondary battery of either Mk45 Mod2 5"/54 or 76mm guns in hip and shoulder mounts (4 mounts total).

She would have St. Paul forward super structure
Attachment:
St Paul Structure.JPG
St Paul Structure.JPG [ 29.9 KiB | Viewed 1743 times ]
(super credit to our buddy modelmonkey!)

and keep the joined single stack of Salem. I would consider a single NATO Sea Sparrow mount center line aft in place of the aft Mk37 director.

She would be fitted with the Mk74 Tartar-D NTU AAW system with the Mk99 integration upgrade (allowing for ASROC and TLAM integration and coordination). That means she would have a Kidd-class type mast arrangement with the SPS-49 forward and SPS48 aft with a TA23 stepped on the aft mast and two Mk95 Bug Eye illuminators nearby. I imagine the forward mast being a mesh between the Kidd-class forward mast platform arrangement and the Iowa mast lattice work.

There would be either 2 or 4 CIWS platforms.

The stern would be a rather large dedicated helo deck with the sliding hatch integrated into the elevated helo deck. The helo deck would be the same height as the hatch, and the top of the hatch would be flush with the deck. The below deck hangar would accommodate between 2 and 4 SH60s.

This would be a pretty fun and reasonably simple project as well! :woo_hoo:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
Busto963 wrote:
Look forward to the CAH, but I urge to consider a retro Des Moines Typhoon conversion - total space ship with huge typhoon radar dome, wrap-around fixed-array AN/SPS-43 like a halo, AN/SQS-26 bow dome with fore/ aft super Talos and super terrier!

Again to this point, would it have guns? Perhaps Mk71 in place of Turret One and one in place of the aft hangar?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
navydavesof wrote:
Way back in 2010, I was interested in making a modernized Worcester-class as if fitted in the 1990s. I realize the Salem here is longer than the Worcester, but I do like the stair-stepped weapons arrangement of 6 main battery locations. With the main batteries from forward to aft being A, B, C, D, E, and F, I would arrange:

A: Mk71
B: Mk71
C: Mk41 61-cell VLS
D: Mk711
E: Mk71
F: Mk41 61-cell VLS

with "B" and C" being on the 02 Level superfiring over "A" and "F" being flush with the main deck.

I would consider installing a secondary battery of either Mk45 Mod2 5"/54 or 76mm guns in hip and shoulder mounts (4 mounts total).

She would have St. Paul forward super structure...


and keep the joined single stack of Salem. I would consider a single NATO Sea Sparrow mount center line aft in place of the aft Mk37 director.

She would be fitted with the Mk74 Tartar-D NTU AAW system with the Mk99 integration upgrade (allowing for ASROC and TLAM integration and coordination). That means she would have a Kidd-class type mast arrangement with the SPS-49 forward and SPS48 aft with a TA23 stepped on the aft mast and two Mk95 Bug Eye illuminators nearby. I imagine the forward mast being a mesh between the Kidd-class forward mast platform arrangement and the Iowa mast lattice work.

There would be either 2 or 4 CIWS platforms.

The stern would be a rather large dedicated helo deck with the sliding hatch integrated into the elevated helo deck. The helo deck would be the same height as the hatch, and the top of the hatch would be flush with the deck. The below deck hangar would accommodate between 2 and 4 SH60s.


I am confused is this a Des Moines or a Worchester WIF?

You could make a compelling argument (e.g. previous alterations) for either hull, but it seems a shame to give up any 8"/55 RF MK16 rifles, and the 6"/47DP turret ring has a radius of ~9.5' so not many VLS cells would fit without massive modification. Of course by the the time frame in question cutting technology will have progressed to the point where precision cuts in deck armor and armored bulkheads will be straight-forward and fast.

Assuming we are talking about Des Moines, each 8" turret is ~453 tons - while a Mk 71 is ~ 80 tons and a 61-cell strike length VLS is ~230 tons loaded with 48 SM-2 and 13 tomahawk. Stripping another 150 tons or so worth of 3"/50 and 5"/38 and you have a lot of margin (1,509 tons!) for weapons/supporting services.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2694
Busto963, they were able to do precision cuts in deck armor and armored bulkheads during the war as they had to repair damaged ships before sending them back to the front.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
DavidP wrote:
Busto963, they were able to do precision cuts in deck armor and armored bulkheads during the war as they had to repair damaged ships before sending them back to the front.

Sure, the ships were built after all...

The issue is doing the reconstruction work economically, which would be orders of magnitude more cost effective with 40-years of advances in industrial processes to include diamond and carbide tooling, industrial water jets, improvement in abrasives, CADCAM and so forth.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
Busto963 wrote:
DavidP wrote:
Busto963, they were able to do precision cuts in deck armor and armored bulkheads during the war as they had to repair damaged ships before sending them back to the front.

Sure, the ships were built after all...

The issue is doing the reconstruction work economically, which would be orders of magnitude more cost effective with 40-years of advances in industrial processes to include diamond and carbide tooling, industrial water jets, improvement in abrasives, CADCAM and so forth.


I imagine that if these ships had been brought back in the 1980s or (likely) 1990s, shifting work from Wisconsin to one of the Des Moines, they would have steered clear from cutting through the armored deck to install VLS. Otherwise they could have done it and built an armored trunk around the modules. If I were to bury VLS in a heavy cruiser like this, I would not make them flush with the hull, unless they would be in place of a barbette. I would only sink them by 2 decks and have them stand up to the O2 level. If it were in place of a barbette, there is plenty of depth to use.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
navydavesof wrote:
... If I were to bury VLS in a heavy cruiser like this, I would not make them flush with the hull, unless they would be in place of a barbette. I would only sink them by 2 decks and have them stand up to the O2 level. If it were in place of a barbette, there is plenty of depth to use.


Great point and idea.

An alternative is to remove the waist 5"/38s and 3"/50s and put two VLS installations on either side of the aft centerline 5"/38 and aft super structure. These would be essentially built up from the main deck.

Personally, I would never give up a single 8" RF turret. The Navy was reluctant to do so in the early cold war era, and instead selected the Baltimore class for missile conversions. By the Reagan era, the 8"/50 RF turrets were gold again.

One consideration is that by the end of the 1960s, the threat of sea skimming ASCMs from SSGNs, or popping out from shore clutter during NGFS missions might have warranted a Tartar-D (MK11 or MK13) or MK26 GMLS installation in place of the center line 5"/38 turrets. Sea Sparrow, or some other pre-RIM-116 missile with a launcher that points right at the horizon (instead of vertically) is also desireable. That does not get you VLS tomahawk, but Tartar/SM-1 might have been a better tradeoff.

Another consideration is for the installation of a SQS-23/26 sonar in the bow.

Finally, mucking about with the propulsion system is unlikely, but the Navy might have trialed the Allison 501 SSGTGs, an very old and reliable commercial gas turbine even by the mid 1960s.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
Busto963 wrote:
An alternative is to remove the waist 5"/38s and 3"/50s and put two VLS installations on either side of the aft centerline 5"/38 and aft super structure. These would be essentially built up from the main deck.
I have considered that type of arrangement as well. In my CAG/CA with a large VLS battery (96-128) I have considered them centerline in place of the forward and aft 5", installing 32 or 48 cells in each, likely only 32, and then two more arrangements between the stack and the hip 5" mounts and rotated perpendicularly so they run long instead of wide the super structure between would act as room for the deluge and control rooms.

Busto963 wrote:
Personally, I would never give up a single 8" RF turret. The Navy was reluctant to do so in the early cold war era, and instead selected the Baltimore class for missile conversions. By the Reagan era, the 8"/50 RF turrets were gold again.
I agree. I would only work on new munitions that could be handled by the hoists. Those would include base bleed, a limited RAP, the more aerodynamic 8" HC round they developed for the Mk71 pushing the range out of 22nm, etc.

The big modifications I was describing earlier would have been to the 6"/47caliber turrets of the Worcester-class being removed and replaced. My understanding is the juice was not worth the squeeze with the 6" guns, especially as we moved into the AAW missile era. The Mk16 8"RF turrets I would not touch, either. Giving the Worcesters 4 Mk71 8" guns, 4 Mk45 5" guns, 122 Mk41 VLS, Tartar D, and 4 CIWS would be a great capability and value to the fleet.

Busto963 wrote:
One consideration is that by the end of the 1960s, the threat of sea skimming ASCMs from SSGNs, or popping out from shore clutter during NGFS missions might have warranted a Tartar-D (MK11 or MK13) or MK26 GMLS installation in place of the center line 5"/38 turrets. Sea Sparrow, or some other pre-RIM-116 missile with a launcher that points right at the horizon (instead of vertically) is also desirable. That does not get you VLS tomahawk, but Tartar/SM-1 might have been a better tradeoff.
I agree, and while it would be an involved operation, I think it would be pretty feasible to remove the 5" upper handling room and replace it with either the Mk11 twin or a Mk13 one-armed bandit. Perhaps even a second could be installed in the centerline forward 5" mount head of the bridge as well. The bridge might get blasted once in a while from a launch, but that's alright. :big_grin:

Busto963 wrote:
Another consideration is for the installation of a SQS-23/26 sonar in the bow.
Perhaps. I imagine it would only be for self defense. In the Newport News CAH configuration, she might! If she would be carrying four plus SH-60s she might really add value as an ASW asset.

I can hear it now. "Ooo! Ooo! Put Harriers on her! Yeah! Then she could perform close-air support! Yeah! To which I would reply: If we don't do that with LPDs that could handle Harriers, then we would not with a CAH. They would not even be able to carry enough to make it worth it. AH-1 Cobras, on the other hand, Newport News could be come a snake pit for Cobras! :woo_hoo:

Busto963 wrote:
Finally, mucking about with the propulsion system is unlikely, but the Navy might have trialed the Allison 501 SSGTGs, an very old and reliable commercial gas turbine even by the mid 1960s.
Yeah, I also don't know where they would put them. Of course they could replace the existing boilers, but there isn't much benefit there. My understanding is that the Westinghouse 620 psi boilers were pretty good.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
Quote:
I agree, and while it would be an involved operation, I think it would be pretty feasible to remove the 5" upper handling room and replace it with either the Mk11 twin or a Mk13 one-armed bandit. Perhaps even a second could be installed in the centerline forward 5" mount head of the bridge as well. The bridge might get blasted once in a while from a launch, but that's alright. :big_grin:

We could raise the bridge one level!

Quote:
[SQS-23/26 sonar in the bow...] Perhaps. I imagine it would only be for self defense. In the Newport News CAH configuration, she might! If she would be carrying four plus SH-60s she might really add value as an ASW asset.
There plain fact is that hull mounted sonars on deep draft warships (e.g. CV-66) consistently and significantly outperformed the same sonar installed on destroyers. The USN got a real wakeup call when it compared the sea keeping of its ships with Soviet designs with alarming ramifications for ASW. I could also argue for VDS, or even an early TACTAS installation. As to hanger aircraft, a 1960s conversion might have 3-4 DASH QH-50 drones (yeah, I hear the screams, but the USA and Japanese made them work) and an pair of Hueys or OH-6s for observation and PAX.

Quote:
I can hear it now. "Ooo! Ooo! Put Harriers on her! Yeah! Then she could perform close-air support!
Absolutely not, not only no, but *&%$ no. Units have to be organized for combat effectiveness, and also logistics efficiency. Adding AV-8s does nothing for combat effectiveness and is not logistically sustainable... that dog don't hunt.

Quote:
[Allison 501 SSGTGs] I also don't know where they would put them. Of course they could replace the existing boilers, but there isn't much benefit there. My understanding is that the Westinghouse 620 psi boilers were pretty good.
No specific issues with the installed boilers, the issue is upgrading power for sensors, weapons, data links, and so forth. The Navy waffled about the GT issue on several SCB conversions (non CA-134 projects); even considering installing them on the main deck. My plan would be to replace the existing generators and emergency diesels. This "invisible" upgrade would likely force going from one stack to two - a major damage control improvement. Besides, simplifying that snake pit of exhaust pipes might free up enough room for the GTGs.
Attachment:
Des Moines Class Reduced.jpg
Des Moines Class Reduced.jpg [ 312.8 KiB | Viewed 1578 times ]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2019 5:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
Busto,
Busto963 wrote:
Look forward to the CAH, but I urge to consider a retro Des Moines Typhoon conversion - total space ship with huge typhoon radar dome, wrap-around fixed-array AN/SPS-43 like a halo, AN/SQS-26 bow dome with fore/ aft super Talos and super terrier!

I find this arrangement interesting. Do you imagine it being a conventional version of the double-ender Longbeach design/a longer Columbus CG? The Columbus superstructure always looked SO stupid to me. A super structure similar to that of the Little Rock would be a lot better on the eye. Heck, maybe even more practical!

Do you think she would have a deck gun capability? It would be interesting!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
navydavesof wrote:
[Des Moines Typhoon conversion] Do you imagine it being a conventional version of the double-ender Longbeach design/a longer Columbus CG?

Unique superstructure: a double ender with SAM-8/RIM-50 Long-range Typhoon (Super Talos) fore and aft; with waist mounted SAM-9/RIM-55 medium range Typhoon (Super Tartar).

Quote:
The Columbus superstructure always looked SO stupid to me. A super structure similar to that of the Little Rock would be a lot better on the eye. Heck, maybe even more practical!

Me too - I never cared for the Albany class! I think the dominant feature of the Des Moines based Typhoon ship would be the spectacular dome shaped AN/SPG-59 electronically scanned tracking radar, with the fixed array (imagine a wrap-around halo) AN/SPS-43.
Quote:
Do you think she would have a deck gun capability?

Sadly, no guns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3101
Busto963 wrote:
I think the dominant feature of the Des Moines based Typhoon ship would be the spectacular dome shaped AN/SPG-59 electronically scanned tracking radar, with the fixed array (imagine a wrap-around halo) AN/SPS-43.
That's interesting. I imagine the superstructure would be modified. I like the idea of it being like Little Rock's structure and double ended Talos with the single stack.
Busto963 wrote:
Sadly, no guns.
Perhaps there could be a pair of Mk45s amid ships like the 5"/38s on Long Beach. I still like the idea of the Longbeach style strike cruiser. Such a ship on a Des Moines style hull would be good, but that upgunned and upmissiled Worcester we touched on earlier has the most interesting potential to me! Mk71s, 122 VLS, a below deck hangar, and NTU Tartar-D.

It makes me wonder what kind of story this kind of Worcester ship would get itself into. I imagine it would be a preferred SOF platform. Helos and boats for insertion/extraction, heavy guns and missiles for strike and support.

Busto, do you plan on making the super Talos/Tartar Des Moines? That would be pretty legit!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 9:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
navydavesof wrote:
I still like the idea of the Longbeach style strike cruiser. Such a ship on a Des Moines style hull would be good, but that upgunned and upmissiled Worcester we touched on earlier has the most interesting potential to me! Mk71s, 122 VLS, a below deck hangar, and NTU Tartar-D.

PM inbound! I do not want to run over your WIF: essentially my SCB conversions call for a CAG based on Des Moines, and a "Large Task Force escort" built as new construction modified Worchester.
Quote:
Busto, do you plan on making the super Talos/Tartar Des Moines? That would be pretty legit!

Right now, I want to build a historical ship as a baseline, and also a CAG-5 version - the Navy should have converted four Baltimore/Oregon Cities into CAGs for a full division. The Des Moine based CAGs would have been CAG-5 through 12 (in my alt. timeline the Navy would have completed at least eight (8) Des Moines for two divisions of fun). :heh:


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

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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