The Ship Model Forum

The idea here is that Germany has regained a certain measure of sovereignty back, and they are beginning to exercise their right to international waterways. Because everything is defensive, this is a defensive support asset utilized by the German Navy.

Germany recently stated that the German Navy needed to begin venturing beyond its coastal waters in order to protect its assets against terrorists and pirates. It is only one step further to state that the German Navy needs to take a more active role supporting its forces and its fellow allied forces abroad.
The extra necessary requirement would be a shift in national consciousness and point of view. From the sounds of it, this would never happen, but I think there is possibly more to the German people than what their politicians think.
We all know how incredible German engineering is. Possibly if their single biggest road block would step aside, Germany might be able to become the real leader of freedom, design, and manufacturing in Europe. Germany could be its economic and social driver.
So, if that situation were to come about, this Scharhorst-type ship could follow the following mission criteria:

Act as an element in Allied operations around the world, the ship would provide tactical support with ballistic and precision gunnery, act as a base of operations and launching point for German and Allied special operations forces into areas of interest, and the ship would operate as a command ship for allied theater commanders.

Support:
4 x 155mm MONARC
9 x 11” guns

AAW:
APAR/SMART-L suite
Not only for self defense, the ship would act as part of a task force’s AAW force providing the ability to detect and engage air threats with its APAR and SMART-L radar suite.

ASuW:
9 x 11”
4 x 155mm
32 x Harpoon BlockIIIC anti ship cruise missiles
The ship’s 11” and 155mm armament would be able to engage surface targets within range if necessary. For ranges beyond the range of the ship’s gunnery, it would be able to further defensively engage with a suite of Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Germans....any comments? After all, Scharnhorst is your baby!

navydavesof

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I love the concept. Scharnhorst and her sister are my favorite German warships of WWII. But I envision her modernized but retaining most of her original superstructure much like the Iowa's. What time frame for Scharnhorst, 1980's?? I hope you finish your re-activated Iowa project. I'm still planning to mirror yours. I'm going to kitbash the Revell New Jersey hull with the Tamiya kit since the bow on the Tamiya kit is wrong in shape. Tamiya needs to retool their kit, at least the hull.

Thanks! While my other WIFs were for actual ships, either reactivation or new builds, this one is just for fun.

They are pretty cool ships. I have been learning a lot about them lately. I have come to learn how the Germans arranged their armor on these ships, and boy, if we were going to do it today, like this design, the arrangement would have to be altered quite a bit to emphasize deck armor. Apparently the Germans were all about side armor but not so much on the decks. I hear they planned on getting in close and having knife fights with main guns so a lot more emphasis was placed on the side belts.

How I am going to do it is reduce the side belts from 14" to 12" and turn the main deck into a splinter deck and increase the second deck, or the "main armored deck" so plunging missiles and artillery fire will not penetrate into the ship.


This is not a modernization of an existing ship but instead new construction. The whole thing would be purpose built. The only common arrangement with the original ship is the hull and main armament.

Me too. The actual proposal has already gone up the chain of command to the CNO. Hopefully they will be reactivated soon, and hopefully they will take a que from my proposal. Boy, writing that beast of a points-paper was something. I recently sent an addendum to it changing the potential radar and aft mast arrangement of the moderate-cost modernization that would not require as much work or the SPS-48.

Thanks! I did not know that the Tamiya model was off. What's wrong with it? I spent a lot of time on and around the Wisconsin while I was in Norfolk, and the above water-line hull is pretty dang close. To your knowledge, what is in error?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The bow is too blunt and rounded. the flair and sheer is off. They got it perfect on the 1/700 Iowa kits. I wish they would scale up the 1/700 version. If you study a bows on view of an Iowa compared to the 1/350 Tamiya you'll see what I mean. The 1/350 revell is a weak kit, but the bow shape is more accurate. The Iowa's are graceful stately warships, I wish we'd get a re-tooled kit. For every point against re-activation there are just as many strong counterpoints for bringing them back. They're still fairly low mileage vessels. Guys like you on or near a beachhead deserve accurate and powerful NGFS. I've followed that thread very closely. It still bothers me that the NSC is armed with the 57mm as opposed to the improved 76mm gun or even a 5 incher, but that's a whole other discussion.

_________________
Russ

Hey Russ, thanks for posting theses pics it really illustrates what I'm talking about. The Tamiya kit is good, great for when it was released but really needs an update.The 1/350 Revell isn't a very good kit but captures the shape of the bow much better. I've built 2 Tamiya kits but for this WIF I'm going to do a kitbash. I've dry fitted my Tamiya deck to the Revell hull, and I think I can make it work. Sorry for hi jacking this thread. Now back to the Scharnhorst!

i want to scratchbuild it ! But with a few other parts , any guys willing to draw up the super structure ? ? And i really enjoy german engineering because they build unique guns and they usually have beautiful ships balanced with purpose

_________________
be inspirational today , you might never get that chance tomorrow

Dave,
This is an awesome design!
The Germans designed these ships to fight in the North Sea where weather would largely tend to limit engagement ranges (before the profusion of radar). The armor protection schemes reflected this, as well as a much lessened emphasis in defending against high-altitude bombers.

Interesting concept Dave,
if the bows of the ship want redesigning, why not go for the ultra modern X bow concept. This would give you the space for the guns and vertical launchers.
Regards
Richard

_________________
SI VIS PACEM,
PARA BELLUM

Interesting. Seasick posted something about this type of bow before.

I think this is the type of bow you're talking about.


There is already plenty of room for the guns, because they are already there, and the missile launchers fit. I don't think the Germans would fit more than 64 VLS tubes in a ship like this anyway.

However, while I see what you mean of allowing more hull volume for missile launchers, that hull volume would all be accommodated way up front near the bow. Unfortunately, you typically don't want mechanically involved weapons systems like those, or CIWS, etc where sea water is going to be crashing over them. Gun turrets are okay, because they have few moving parts that need to be sealed against sea water in comparison to a VLS system so the VLS needs to be further into the ship and/or totally surrounded by a shroud like the Type 45 DDGs have.


Thank you. A modern equipped Scharnhorst is on my long list of to-do models. I think it would be fun if it were an element, or the center piece, of a story involving the Germans sometime in the mot too distant future.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

What are envisioning for the main battery in terms of modernization? Without some dramatic changes, aren't the MONARC's going to almost out range the 11"?

Or were you thinking something like the discarding SABOT DARPA cooked up for the Iowas back in the day?

Neat pic btw! I wish someone would make a few of the neater gun installations (30mm Mk44, Millennium Gun, MONARC, etc.) in resin, and preferably for me, in 1/700 scale.

Oh, goodness, you're dragging me back into the WIF world of Scharnhorst!
It would be petty dumb not to modernize the 11" the same way they modernized the 155mm for the MONARC, wouldn't it?

Of course the 11" and larger would be modernized with much the same technology as the 155mm of the United States. The secondary battery would be 155mm and would employ the technology from the US's GPS guided Excaliber and LRLAP projectiles.

No, just a modern version of such a projectile. The only reason you know about the DARPA stuff is because that was back when the US took naval gunfire seriously. The larger the projectile, the easier it is to fit it with guidance and extended range technology. If this ship were to be built, I have 100% faith that the Germans would indeed build upon their own extended range munitions technology and maximize the projectiles for the guns. By all means, projectiles provide the best cost/benefit ratio for effect on range from 5" to 18".

If you want to make a 1/350, PM me, and we can talk.

So, generally,
This ship is predicated on the Germans thinking that is was an okay idea to build a modern Scharnhorst to fit their fleet. If they were to do that, they would build one with modern large guns, like her original 11" weapons. My idea is that she would start off with 11" automatic guns to stay within the treaty limits of "no major caliber guns!!!" Of course, "major caliber guns" means 12" or greater. So, she would start off with 11" automatic guns but would be able to be fitted for larger is the Germans wanted. Later, the Germans would want to, and they would step it up to another caliber they knew already, the 15", and fit her accordingly.

Dahlgren developed a 12" automatic loader based on the Mk16 8" gun in the late 1990s. I am sure the Germans would be happy to buy/lease that design or develop their own for large and major caliber guns. I really don't think that the Mk45/Mk71 design would work for anything over 8". Instead they would step it up...or down...to the Mk16 design. The Mk16 gun provides for either 11" or 15" guns. Naval gunfire, especially 15" would be able to accomplish all of the Scharnhorst land attack mission without relying on super expensive missiles.

So, yes, I would continue to use large/major caliber guns for this ship. The secondary battery would be at least a Monarc if not a multiple gun turret or larger gun.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Do you have any details of the 12" automatic loader? I am curious as to RoF, did it use powder bags, did it do a "double ram" cycle: inquiring minds want to know!

The only information I have on that came from 3 e-mails I sent to a retired engineer at Dahlgren. He's from whom I have gotten a lot of my Mk71 and AGS information.

What he said is that it was made from an existing 12"/50 caliber gun, yoke, and breach they had from WWII. They designed a two-hoist loading system very similar to that used by the Des Moines-class Mk16 8" gun. These hoists would be behind and on opposite sides of the gun. The projectile would be on one side and the propellant charge on the other. The two hoists would come together and ram both into the gun. He also said that depending on how detailed design would go, either they could use a single ram where both projectile and propellant were loaded at the same time or a double ram where the casing did not have to be nearly as reinforced to absorb the forces of ramming a 900+lb projectile.

He said that if they had received funding to fully develop a prototype mount and loading system, they expected 6-8 rounds per minute out of a single 12" gun.

This came about after the Navy ordered a study from Dahlgren to assess what caliber gun would satisfy all of the Navy's anti-surface warfare and naval surface fire support needs in range, lethality, and accuracy. Dahlgren stated a gun with a minimum diameter of 10" capable of firing rocket assisted guided projectiles was needed. They took what they had, a 12"/50caliber gun, and made a sub-prototype test. No further work was ordered. Instead the 155mm caliber was selected for further study.

So, while it needs a lot of real-world (and WIF) development, I have chosen this weapon to mount as the primary battery aboard my future large cruiser (the Alaska-plus class). As opposed to three-gun turrets, I have these weapons mounted two to a turret with a magazine arranged similarly to the Mk45 and Mk71 magazines in the Spruance-class utilizing the Mk71's overhead mono-rail-style crane to move projectiles and propellant from the storage cages to the hoists. The magazine design requires more thought, but I have been thinking about using the clip-type ready service loader arranged in a lateral instead of a circular arrangement for each gun in the turret.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

This would have been a very potent weapon.



I am thinking along somewhat similar lines: a 24cm/60 weapon, smooth bore barrel (all rounds woud be very long finned sabots with extremely high ballistic coefficients), and the gun would operate at extremely high muzzle velocities (1,200m/s +). The weapon will probably have to employ a double ram loading cycle given the projectile lengths I am envisioning. The gun would probably have a RoF of 5-6 rounds per minute at best, but those rounds would fly even w/o rockets or base bleed!

i have a odd question , what sort of power plant would this modern scharnhorst have ? ? Why i am asking this is because a lot of ships are restrained by fuel capacity and as you all know . Generators tend to eat fuel to keep a ship powerd and lighted up , radar systems are also heavy on juice . What it comes down to is that a crew cant operate in pitch black darkness . And you might be asking . Okay this is a silly question because it wont really effect the model . Wrong guys it would because a diesel power plant has a whole different exhaust out lay than a fuel oil one , a nuclear powerd ship wont even have a exhaust i think . So it would effect the look and super structures . Just my opinion

_________________
be inspirational today , you might never get that chance tomorrow

I was thinking a combined diesel and gas turbine plant. That's why I chose the stacks I depict in the picture

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

ahoy mr.dave ! I hope everything has been going well , i wanted to ask you , would you consider the D.R.E.A.D gun system for a secondary armament ? ? It uses centrifugal force to sling a round , i have read that a .50 caliber D.R.E.A.D gun can fire up to a 120 000 rpm , would it be a good choice or a bad one ? ?

_________________
be inspirational today , you might never get that chance tomorrow

Ahoy, Mr. Diederick!

It's a pretty interesting system! A secondary battery, no; a CIWS system, absolutely! It sounds like the type of system a close in weapon system would really take advantage of.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance