The Ship Model Forum

Evening all! Its been a while since I posted any of my whiff designs so I figured it was about time to fix that. Dave and I have been working on some literature for some time now and I've working up designs for some of the whiffs. I found this half finished drawing the other night while digging through some old notebooks and decided to finish it. This is still very much a work in progress so please feel free to contribute. Sorry for the scan quality, its still in pencil. I will ink it and scan it properly after I iron some design issues; see below.

USS Oregon City (CAH-122) circa 1984


Backstory: *incomplete*
She and her three sisters that didn't become CGs became CAHs, or Heavy Helicopter Cruisers, in my world. Oregon City, Rochester, Cambridge, and Bridgeport all underwent conversion in the late 1960's, early 1970's with major refits in the early 1980's. She is depicted above at the conclusion of said refit. They were found to be so successful that all four were kept in service until the late 1980's early 1990's when sufficient numbers of the Hayler-Class DDHs were commissioned. The world is lot more chaotic in my story so there aren't very many fiscal crises. Makes for better whiffs

Armaments:
2 triple 8"/55 Mk-15 turrets
4 twin 5"/38 Mk-32 Mod 0 mounts
4 Phalanx CIWS Mk-15
8 Mk-141 Harpoons
1 ASROC Mk-112 "Pepper Box" with 2 reloads. *Re-load system is same as in DD-963 class. The CAHs trialed the system prior to its installation aboard the Sprucans*
2 triple Mk-32 Torpedo Tubes *Enclosed in the hangar ala DD-963 Class*

Aircraft:
3 SH-3 Sea Kings or
4-5 SH-2 Sea Sprites or
a combination of both

I decided to use a foremast similar to the one the Iowas received in the 1980's for commonality but I'm not sure if they could of carried them. I remember hearing that the Boston and Canberra (Baltimores) had to have reverse masts (forward legs leaning back instead of vice versa) due to an expansion joint between the forward superstructure and the funnel. I know the Oregon Citys shared the same hulls but given the differing superstructures I have no idea if the same expansion joint exists. Can anyone shed some light on this? If I have to re-design the mast then so be it but I can't find any info regarding the expansion joint.

For the mainmast I opted for one similar to CGN-36 and mounted a SPQ-9A, TAS, and some various antennae with SLQ-32 below. SPS-10, 49, and TACAN are on the foremast. There are helo re-fueling stations in the stern gun tubs.

I got the idea for the basic design from a BuShips sketch in Friedman's Cruiser book about a similar conversion for a Des Moines Class CA. Only that sketch called for an amphibious support ship with USMC CH-46s and LCM-6s in in amidships davits. I used it as a basis for an ASW conversion of the CA-122 Class. One neat thing about the original design was that the large flat hangar roof was to be used as a second landing pad. I liked that idea a lot and I envision that when these ships were originally converted that they built them that way.

I found that when laying out the weapon systems though that that capability might need to be nixed. There just wasn't enough room to mount everything unless you wanted it all on top of each other. I rather liked having the after Phalanx mounts so far aft since it gives them a much better field of fire. If they were moved further forward though, say in place of the Harpoon launchers, you could retain the second helo capability. Do you guys think its worth it? I could move the Harpoons amidships but then the stupid boat davits get in the way. I'd much prefer to just have to 26' whaleboats aboard but every Cruiser back then had at least 6 boats so i figured the double davits like on the BBs would be the most realistic choice. Could I get away with less and still keep some realism? I know this is a whiff but I prefer to keep them as realistic as possible.

One other point I struggled over was the length of the hangar space. The original sketch had a hangar around 130' long. If I had kept that the after 5"/38s would have been displaced and since I already removed the forward centerline mount for an ASROC launcher that would of left me with only one twin mount on each side. I figured it was a better compromise to go with a hangar around 105' and keep two twin 5"/38s per side to maintain some level of fire for shore bombardment. The extra length would of only bought one helo so I don't think its too bad of a tradeoff. Thoughts?

Any comments, questions, ideas, etc... are appreciated as always.

-Mike

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

cliffy excellent proposal.. I found this the other day it a post 1984 refit for the USS Boston it might help you with your design..
Few suggestion like you told me once.. think time-frame . I don't know if you thought about ABL launcher for a couple of Tomahawks (she would carry at least two boxes)... SH-2 were being phased out in mid 80 for the SH-60.. So consider using SH-60 instead just a thought.... also if money is not a question what about replacing the older five inch with either Spruance/tycho type or go with otto 76 mm.. again it a cool a proposal what would be the starting point (kit) you would use and what scale 1/700 or 1/350..

I am the process of re-doing my two what-if proposals the DE build and Aegis DDG.. Best of luck

Alright, folks after some serious re-working of the design she's done and looking quite nice if you ask me

That dotted line square around the ASROC launcher is the outline of the Sprucan style reload magazine. The drawing is to 1/700 scale so construction a whole lot easier. Niko's 1/700 CA-122 kit will serve as the base and from looking at it on their site, I won't have to cut very much at all save for slicing the superstructure in half but thankfully its a separate part!

After talking with Bob Carr and Dave we came up with this re-vamped and more highly capable version.



Here is the hangar interior drawing, also to 1/700.


We decided to go with the middle helo arrangement of 5 SH-2s and 3 SH-3s as the best of both worlds. The old seaplane hangar houses the elevator machinery as well as some workshops. The old 8" magazine for the after turret now houses torpedoes for the ship and her helos and as a result is centrally located within the hangar. From there they can either be rolled forward to the Mk-32s or aft to the flight deck torpedo elevator next to the main elevator which is a deck edge type similar to the one on the LHAs. The elevator is flanked by workshops. It's large enough to handle CH-46s of which 6 could be carried. 12 AH-1s could also be carried if need be This baby has some spec op potential in her. The Mk-32 rooms are equal in size to the ones of the Sprucans only I doubled their widths to allow for more ready service torpedoes and to lessen the cramping. Countermeasure torpedoes will be stowed on their own separate racks next to the tubes with Mk-46s next to them. I added cutouts at the after end to facilitate access to mooring equipment lost when I added the hangar. It ate into the workshop space but there should be more than enough to go around.

There is a catwalk surrounding the flight deck (same dimensions as on a CVN) with re-fueling hoses and AFFF stations. There is UNREP gear folded down atop both the 8" turrets as well as the quintessential US Flag and hull number atop turret 2. The only re-fueling station left accessible is immediately behind the 5"/38. The other one was forward of the after mount but has since been covered up. I thought about moving it forward but there isn't much room to spare. I also noticed that even the Des Moines-class had only one station on each side so I don't think its that big of a deal.

The flight deck is marked off with the exact measurements of a Sprucan's flight deck. Large enough for two helos and then some to operate at once. I kept the stern gun tubs but cut down the splinter shields to allow for more area for line handling and the like. I also added two sets of towing bits and chocks. There is a large bow mounted sonar dome so keeping with other designs there is a new stem anchor and a corresponding longer bow. Now she has more of a clipper bow rather than that old blunt one that made her look like she ran into a wall.


Ex-Navy: I remember that drawing. I helped Dave draw it up awhile back for his Boston build, pretty neat isn't it? In my timeline, she won't have any ABLs, at least not yet. SH-2's hung around until the 1990's in real life but yes, they were being phased out of front line service earlier. In my timeline though, the SH-60 is still a ways off from entering service (if at all) and the Super Seasprite is due to show up before the 1980's are out. A newer version of the SH-3 is also in the works at this time and will likely supplant the SH-60 entirely. I thought about swamping the 5"/38s for 54s or OTOs but for now I'm leaving it as is. We'll see when I get to the build stage.

Thanks for the input and good luck to you as well.

So what do you think guys?

-Mike

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

lol I recognize that! That one's mine!
viewtopic.php?f=67&t=44445

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I think she's pretty cool. The only thing I have a concern about is topside weight. Even with the little, bitty missile deck built on the backs of Boston and Canberra they were supposedly starting to get top heavy. Building entire steel flightdeck 2 decks above the main deck and filling the hanger space with helicopters...I think you're looking at a super top heavy ship.

However, might be totally wrong.

She's a sweet looking ship. It'd be really cool if you could draw an action shot with her performing helo operations or something. Show of your talents, man!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

You certainly have a valid point about top weight but if they can build those abominations called the Albany-Class on Baltimore and Oregon City hulls then I think can get away with my flight deck. Those things looked they would turn turtle if you looked at them wrong I know they used lighter alloys and aluminum to build their monstrous superstructures but they were still huge and probably weighed just as much if not more than my flight deck, regardless of what they used to build them. I could be wrong as well Dave. Can anyone shed some light on this issue?

Look for a drawing/painting in a month or so

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

Hey..
check out Rusty White CD for the Iowa conversion he discussed the flight deck issue vs weight issue on his conversion..
I think it would be an equal trade off with the removal of the aft gun mounts and spaces that would be used for ammo, and equipment.. just a thought..

Well, that is a very, very, very good point. Long Beach is also a good example. Long Beach was horrifically top heavy and took 35-45 degree rolls all the time, and she was designed that way from day 1. I am willing to bet that engineers are willing to eat into the stability margin a lot more than most people think. Keep it!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

One further point about the weight issue.. which I feel is a moot point.. with your design...
I seem to recall from days in the gator navy we dealt with this issue every day.. It dependent on what type of helo you where handling and the loadout (ex Ch-53E vs Cobra or Ch-46 or even a Huey).. you had different spots for these birds to balance the ship, help with take-off and landings...etc.. Since you are going to working with ASW birds, they are lighter and hense could be used on this platform with minimum problems.. Just think logically about placement..One last point is you need to have some deck equipment ie a tilley and tow tractors for movement or are you going to have some sort of RAST system to the elevelator platform.. Just a additional thought and weight issue.. (tilley was used to stablize weight problems) to be considered also.. but it will still be cool regardless keep it going man.

I thought about this, too. I thought maybe a structure on either side of the flight control tower for tractors and fork lifts. That way some can be stored on top as well as in the hanger. They would take the place of RAST tracks just like on an LPD, or any other amphib. With the illustrated configuration I would also suggest looking at how the Tarawa-class do it, because they have a stern elevator like that as well.


Here's a model of one:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I like this proposal, but I wrestle with the ASROC box.

Do you intend to refit a sonar and use the vessels is ASW, or have the ability for them to switch back and forth - ASW groups support during transit, fire support once in theater?

I don't have real high confidence that the WWII era machinery would be a good fit for an aggressive ASW unit, and if she were to stand off, then let the ASW helos aboard do the work.

But If that is the case, the ASROC magazine could be a split between ASROC and SMARTROC (Mk82 LGB thrown with an ASROC booster from a Mk112 box - cancelled in the late 70's), or all SMARTROC if ASW is left to the helos or other platfoms.

Otherwise, I would be tempted to trade the ASROC box for Sea Sparrow for point defense.

Why thank you sir



Yes, she will get a sonar. Right now its a big bow mounted unit with an extended bow and stem anchor for clearance. I might opt for the two dome unit used on ships during the 60's and 70's since they would fit the time period for this conversion better. I don't know though...



You're absolutely correct and I came to the same conclusion as well. She'll be acting more or less as the centerpiece of an independent ASW group. The sonar and ASROC launcher are more for self defense than anything else. When that inevitably sub penetrates the screen I want the ship to have more than just a pair of Mk-32s.

These cruisers are meant to take the place of the Essex-class CVSs when they retire and perform almost the same role. With the added feature of their gun batteries I have these ships almost always attached to an ARG providing ASW and fire support for them while in transit, in theater, and during/after the invasion. While providing fire support, the ship still provides command and control for the ASW screen while her helos and the screen actively search and prosecute contacts.



SMARTROC huh? Sounds really neat. Do you have anymore info on it? All I can find on Google is reference to an abortive space based anti-satellite/anti-ICBM weapon.

It sounds like it could be a useful bombardment weapon if it has long enough legs. On the same vein, I've been looking at a series of bombardment launchers by Breda firing rockets ranging from 51-105mm in diameter. The Italians use them as countermeasure launchers as well with a variety of different chaff rockets loaded, among a myriad of other types. They are fairly small (about the size of an old twin 40mm) and lightweight and can carry up to 36 rockets a piece. A few of these might prove worthwhile although, with such a small magazine size they might not be worth it unless mounted in large numbers. I wonder if the old pepper box could be utilized in a similar fashion making an effective naval MLRS? Hmmm....

Thoughts gents?

Glad you guys are liking the design

-Mike

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

SMARTROC:

ref: Sumerall, Robert F; Sumner Gearing Class Destroyers, Their Design, Weapons, and Equipment, pg 142-3

"SMARTROC was a means of providing destroyers with a heavy shore bombardment/surface attack round that could be delivered with precision accuracy. The Naval Weapons Center (NWC), Dahlgren, developed the unique and inexpensive weapon during the Vietnam War, using existing technologies and weapons systems. SMARTROC consisted of a Mk82 laser-guided bomb projected by an ASROC booster from the Mk112 launcher. The program was originally called SMARTAS, a derivative of smart bomb (Paveway) and ASROC. The acronym was changed to SMARTROC for obvious reasons. A mark number (Mk) was never assigned..."

I won't reproduce the entire section here, but the numbers:

Two phases:
First Phase 72-73, using existing rocket motor and parts - 10,000yd (5nm) range, same as an ASROC round.
Second Phase 75-78, improved rocket motor and improved airframe (still fit in Mk112 box). 24,000yd (12nm) range

Tests seem to show approx. 20ft accuracy, for both, same as Paveway.

The mentioned reference also has information about Sea Chaparral, Firebee, DASH, Weapon Alfa, RAT, and SOB (Shrike On Board). An outstanding reference which I cannot recommend enough.

It has the only references I hold on SMARTROC, and SOB. It holds the best references I have to RAT, Weapon Alfa, DASH, Sea Chaparral, and the electronics fits of the late 60's-early 70's. It covers the FRAM processes, which can also help envisioning your conversion. I wish there was a reference like this for the conversion of the CGs...

(SOB was Shrike added to Gearings used for Shore Bombardment in Vietnam, with the intention of being able to respond to shore targets illumination the bombardment vessel. Four weapons were added to the top of the Mk112 box in a basic frame, and elevated and trained with the ASROC box. Installed in 10 Gearings from May 72 to Oct 73)

I mention these because they may have a bearing on how you might arm a 1972 version.

SMARTROC is on an early version of a shore-bombardment enhanced Spruance I intend to build - with SMARTROC and ASROC mixed in the magazine - along with the Mk71. Probably the Hayler DDH version, and a this be the first to get the ABLs in my altered timeline. Sounds to me like that is a near match for the roles you have for your build. (Of course, Laser guided 203mm rounds may make the SMARTROC less relevant...)

I also thought a SMARTROC equipped Knox might be reasonable for a get in close bombardment platform with the Mk42.

Basically, I love the SMARTROC idea - anything with an ASROC box becomes a potential bombardment platform.

Was the bomb laser guided in this application or just ballistic? If guided, was it intended that the laser designator be ship based or a local designator near the target?

Thanks,
Bob

Laser Guided (KMU-388 sensor and guidance package = Paveway). The text clearly implies that all rounds were guided, no reference is made to any consideration or provision for an unguided version. Note that one of the goals was 'precision accuracy'.

Location of the targeting laser is not specifically addressed in the column, however Friedman's US Naval Weapons (of 1983) states that a Navy/Army program started in 1971 showed hand held or shipboard provided an effective spot:

"The Navy side of this joint Army-Navy program included both 5in and 8in rounds, and guidance could be either by shipboard or by hand-held laser; CLGPs could be effective both in antiship and in shore bombardment roles. For example, during the tests of the 8in lightweight gun, the destroyer Hull made five hits out of five shots on a moored ex-destroyer"

CLGP = Cannon Launched Guided Projectile

So there had to be a shipboard targeting laser, and Paveway has never cared where the laser was coming from, just where it broke up, so I imagine shipboard, hand held, or airborne laser designators would have worked.

Fascinating! Thanks! You know, the LCS is looking for a replacement for the NLOS. This sounds like it would potentially be a better alternative than the Griffon that the Navy is looking at.

Do you know why the program was halted?

Thanks,
Bob

Thanks for reminding about Sumrall's book SumGui. I had it once from the library and almost forgot what a wealth of info it contains. I echo your sentiment about a book about the CGs as well; what a gem that would be though! I think I'm going to have to snag a copy off Amazon in the next day or so.

SMARTROC sounds like it could of been a nice addition to the arsenal. I think I'll have to incorporate it into my alternate world. But to play the naysayer for a moment, I can see some drawbacks to it. Range isn't all that great, even with the improved version. A 5" shell could go just as far and the ship could carry a whole lot more of those. How much more destructive would it be over a 5" shell? Accuracy would be better yes, but how much more accurate was this over a 5" shell, spotters or no spotters?

I think the biggest drawback though is its designed for the ASROC launcher, IE an eight-cell launcher. ASROC launchers were more valuable for almost all ships at that time for ASROCs. The killer is re-loads! How many ships carried a re-load capacity for their ASROC launchers and how large were those magazines? Those ships that had them were meant to be off hunting subs, not sitting on the gun line. How would the magazine be divided between the two weapons? A ship would have to be able to carry a large amount of SMARTROCs to be considered a useful addition I think. VLS would help this weapon out immensely and if the price tag was right it could be a very nice alternative to TLAMs. You don't always need to send a missile 600nm and a cheaper alternative would be very attractive. The fire support ships of the 1970s would have been an ideal platform for these weapons.

Does the book have any photos or drawings of SMARTROC by chance? I'm curious as to how the improved version looked and wonder if it could be adapted to ASROC to help out its short legs.

I wonder if I could install a second level magazine under or beside the rotaries in the Sprucan style magazine I have on this and fill it full of SMARTROCs. That way one rotary could be filled with ASROCs and the other with SMARTROCs and each could be re-loaded as they were used. Hmmm...how to move the missiles around, they're not exactly 5" shells...hmmm... thoughts?

Great discussion gents, keep it up.

-Mike

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

The book does have two pictures, launches of one each of the early and late versions.

Interesting that you think the ASROC launcher is a drawback - I think it being able to launched from the ASROC box is its biggest strength. This means (after adding a laser target designator) any vessel with an already existing system can be a precision bombardment platform. While a Knox escorting convoys won't want to lose many ASROCs to a rare capability, the Spurance with an automatic reloader or an older vessel freed up by a Spruance playing ASW becomes a better bombardment vessel.

As an example it would certainly enhance an Adams going close in for fire support- probably the most likely platform to perform NGFS in the 70' and 80's once the Gearings were gone. An Adams using this would be a nice platform - two Mk42 5/54 (twice the rate of fire of Mk45), SMARTROC, smaller profile, SM-1 for self defense, etc.

How much more effective is a 500lb laser guided bomb than a 68lb 5" round? About 432lbs more effective - AND laser guided.... Remember you are not trading away a 5" or other mount for this weapon, you are using a mount already aboard which would otherwise be useless in the NGFS mission.

ASROC was on nearly every vessel out there - so no, not every vessel with ASROC would have been off hunting subs (FRAMs, Garcia, Bronstein, Knox, Adams, you name it...). I'd have loaded ASROC for the transit, and SMARTROC when on the gunline.

12nm certainly is not deep strike, but it does reach the horizon, and ain't a bad deal for not adding another weapons system to the vessel.

Edit to add: no direct mention of why it was cancelled, but it was cancelled in the same timeframe as the cancellation of the Mk71 and a number of other programs, which was the same time as large economic problems in the US, and when there was a fight rather there would be anymore CVNs or not. It is my opinion that this was cut for the same reason as the MCLWG - it distracted from the big-deck aviation community and was an easy target when Aviation and Submarines (LA Class, Trident program) were fighting over smaller budgets.

So it begins....

More about the sub and OPV later


Dug out my old, poorly, half built 1/700 Trumpy Baltimore and deemed her salvageable. I'm using the Hull, about half of the deck, the 8" turrets, and some other sundry parts. Rest will be scratch built. She'll be getting a fully detailed hangar with lowered lift and removable flight deck. Been staring at photos of the LHAs for design inspiration and I have the bulkheads mapped out to me liking now. Time to start detailing them! I was contemplating fire doors across the middle of the deck but decided against them. After some measuring I found out my hangar is slightly smaller than on the LHAs and they don't have one. Would have messed up my helo arrangement anyway

I'll post updates in a WIP thread later on, until then!

-Mike

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

Love this design and I looks forward to seeing her progress and completion.