The Ship Model Forum

Thank you, Captain Potter; very interesting suggestions indeed. The classification, from what I have read, would be as second-line unit. Assignment to marine amphibious ready groups is the role I have always thought best for these converted AAW ships. I never thought them to be replacements for Burke DDGs on any level, which is something one might rightly assume from some of my posts. in this role 15 DDG-963s would be far more cost effective than 15 DDG-51s. The unique part of the DD-963 platform is that it was meant to mount the Mk71 MCLWG.

There are a few roles for a ship like this.
1. MARG escort/consort ship: The ship would join as part of two or three escorts, one of which is an Aegis ship and the other two are DDG-963s, providing AAW, limited ASW, and anti-ship capability.

2. NSFS/strike ship: The ship would employ the Mk71 8" gun mount against hard targets with ballistic, guided, and ERGM rounds. Target designation would be provided by onboard UAVs. SLAM missiles would be employed with GPS or manual guidance against harder targets beyond the range of gunnery. Tomahawk cruise missiles against strategic targets deep inland before an invasion was to be undertaken or when strikes were deemed necessary. The 5" gun would utilize ballistic and guided projectiles to provide bombardment and precision strikes without need of the heavy 8" round. These projectiles would rest on practical ERGM technology supporting a more realistic range of 80 or so miles while carrying a more serious payload.

3. SOF platform: Basing, launching, supporting, and recovering special operations troops, their mission, and their equipment.

4. Maintaining 313 ships: The Navy lost its 313 ship advantage when it sunk the Spruance-class. This upgrade, even if used as standard escorts in carrier groups, would have provided a very reliable AAW capability while keeping the navy as strong as minimum force levels require (313 ships).

It does seem like the "massive weight margin" that was eaten up by the Aegis upgrade that turned the ships into the Ticonderoga-class might be matched by the Kidd-class style upgrades with the Mk71 forward on the DD-963s. From the sounds of it, though we could still be in good shape. One way or the other however, I don't think any escort ship today would be able to take a torpedo hit. As shown by the SINK Ex's done on the Spruance-class they would not take torpedoes well in any condition or configuration.

During the first shots fired, the DDG-963 would be firing rounds from over the horizon being guided by either GPS or laser designation. Thus the ships would only not be as exposed to return fire as one might imagine.

On the note of bombardment, being that the magazine could only hold 400 rounds, they would have to be rather picky about what they shoot. One ship would have to re-arm while the other takes its place and continues the bombardment.

More will come as I accomplish more on the model. Thanks for the input gentlemen.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Update on the DDG-963.

The premise is that this conversion would have been done on the ships before any of them had been sunk or sold for scrap. I was figuring that the conversion would be cutting the 61-cell VLS down and doing work from there. I know that there would be a lot of additional internal re-structuring and flack armor modification. Usually when mods are made to a ship, they’re first done in the easiest way possible. This can be seen on the USS New Jersey in 1982 versus the USS Iowa in 1984. Extra work was done on Iowa and following ships when it was determined the extra work was really worth it.

So it struck me. Since it was stated that the ASROC launcher could be removed and replaced with either a Mk26 Mod0 launcher or a 29/32-cell Mk41 VLS pad without external redesign, it made since to me that the ASROC armed (un-converted) ships would be used as test-beds first. It would be best to use them, because the seven non-VLS armed ships were decommissioned first and mothballed. So, using any number of those first seven ships would be the best idea. This way, none of the 24 ships in service would be removed for conversion and made unavailable for the period of time it takes to convert them to this DDG design.

Here’s NUTs for you. A man who was on the Comte de Grasse when when an EN threw chain link into the ship’s reduction gears told me that within the end the year Comte de Grasse was decommissioned. Boy, that sucks. The WHOLE ship was deemed not worth another reduction gear. WOW. I would have to say of the 7 non-VLS ships to be converted, she would not likely be one of them.

So, we figure several of the first seven non-VLS armed ships would be used first. Then the project would expand to the 61-cell armed VLS ships. NOTE: that helps point me in the direction of which markings I will put on this ship.

According to Norman Friedman, the DX (ASW so Spruance-class) were designed and expected to be converted and modernized to the DXG (Kidd plus modernization) as early as 10 years into their lives. How interesting. How interesting indeed.

Check out the new additions to the model. I have the SYS-2 mid-course directors, a home-made and temporary I hope, SPQ-9B, the new forward Phalanx CIWS gun-house maintenance enclosure, home-made NULKA launchers, SRBOC, scratch boat deck on stbd side and a few parts and pieces here and there. I think fabrication here is about done. Now it's time to put the helo hanger together with only a FEW additions inside. The sono-buoy room will be instead converted to RPV storage.

Let’s hear feed back guys!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

One more of the stern. SYS-2 directors and a couple raised additions to the hanger exterior.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I was reading in Norman Friendman's US Destroyers Revised Edition on watch recently, and something that caught my attention was that before the decision was made to go for the Arleigh Burkes, construction of more NTU Kidd was highly considered. This version of the ship would possibly utilize 3 directors instead of just 2 called for in the DX/Kidd scheme. Does anyone know where that third SPG-51 director would have gone?

Thanks.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Hey, guys, I just want to make a point. As I have learned more about the Mk71, AGS, and BAE's 5" ERGM round, it is clear that if the Navy is serious about NSFS, the Mk71 is the answer both in the near and long-term. The 8" ERGM round was already developed in the 1970s, and with BAE's experience in RAP rounds, it could RAPIDLY produce an 8" ERGM round. In addition, the 155mm round, if desired, could be fitted to fit an 8" barrel.

If the Navy was serious about solving its NSFS VOID, it would immediately order a small number of Mk71s for testing aboard ships on deployments. The Spruance-class would have solved the NSFS problem currently plaguing the Navy.

Stay tuned ladies and gents. As the weather improves around here, I will finally get to paint. Hooyah.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Does anyone have good pictures of the RAST system on the Spruances?

I have found only a few, and every ship looks like it had a different RAST configuration. Some were more port than starboard on the flight deck, some were the other way, and others look like they have two tracks.

Can anyone guide me here?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I have read some on the net, and my conversations with NAVSEA has said a whole lot about how destructive the Sea Swap Program was on the Spurance-class destroyers. A few people includeing SeaSick have made comments about the program as well.

Can anyone add more input as to the level of degredation the ships experienced?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Like on the Iowa build, I detailed up the SPS-49, and that was fun! Railings!!!

The Aft Mast: Detailed up SPS-48E, UAV array dome, SPQ-9B, SPG-51, railings!!!

I have included some of the CEC domes the Ticonderogas received and fixed them in out of the way areas. Phalanx and RAM will remain where they are. It's interesting, because on the configuration of the Kidds we sold to Taiwan, the aft port Phalanx unit was moved futher back to where it was positioned and pointed straight back, facing the delo deck.

Generally, this is how the forward is configured. The 32-cell VLS arrangement, a little bleached out with the light, and the Mk71 gun. Railings on the mast!

Finally, the RAST system. I chose the single type that angles and drags the helo out to the middle of the deck. After I sanded all the detail off the deck, I laid down two thin strips of .010x.020 plastic down, fixing them wtih Testors liquid glue so there was no gell glue-goo pressing out from the sides. I then ran the flat edge of my X-acto knife down the middle separating them a little and cut an arrow out of a .010 piece of sheet and put it in the bottom of the track. It really turned out well.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

..

Yes: near-zero degradation. The only Spru-can destination in the Sea Swap program was USS Fletcher. At the end of the original schedule she was supposed to return to the US and USS Elliot was to replace her. Instead ComNavSurfPac estimated that Fletcher could continue for another deployed period. Elliot's crew decommissioned their ship and took Fletcher for another deployment. That was the crew that returned Fletcher to the US. Fletcher then was still in good enough condition to be offered to Turkey. Of the ships decommissioned to provide the Sea Swap crews, USS Paul F. Foster became a test ship. Elliot was put into reserve. The corrupt and incompetent Bush administration precipitously pulled the valuable but mothballed Spruances from reserve and sank them as targets. The effect and the obvious intent were to keep the possibility of recommissioning Spruances from competing against the costly and absurd LCS-1 class of new construction.

_________________
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.

Who actually decides which ships stay in mothballs and who decides what goes to Sinkex?

I believe its "BuShips" and the decisions are "supposed" to be made on the material condition of the ship vs. its age IE useful remaining hull life. That's my understanding of it, anyone care to elaborate? Dave?

_________________
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

What an excellent question. I have not directly asked, but from the sounds of it, NAVSEA did not want to get rid of the Spruances, just store them instead. They would not tell me directly why the were sunk. Maybe CAPT Potter was right. I would hope that Bush and friends would not have been so shallow.

Fleet Maintenance said there was serious corrosion on many ships. The hull itself was fine, just fine. It was the superstructure that suffered fatigue and cracking. They and a structural manager who worked at Long Beach said that the Spruanceses had remarkably strong hulls. They were far stronger than their ratings. The super structure had issues. It was the super structure that was greatly strengthened on the Kidds and Ticonderogas. The hulls, on the other hand, were the same. I found that very interesting. It seems like there is a real "margin of error" in the accuracy of information concerning why the base displacement and structural strength was different between the three classes based on the DX design: Spruance (DX), Kidd (improved DXG), and Ticonderoga (Aegis DXG).

Whatever...the only thing that matters is tha NAVSEA thinks that the Spruance-class could have been turned into Kidd-class NTU ships with Mk71 (the same configuration that we have discussed here) with the removal of almost 50% of their ASW specific gear. The HM&E modernization of the ships would have pushed their lives to 40-45 years.

What I have figured is that...if the Navy had pursued this project in the upgrades I have suggested, is that they would have pulled the non-VLS ships and converted them first, because the non-VLS (ASROC) ships were especially fitted to receive the 32-cell VLS arrangement forward directly in the place of the ASROC magazine and would not have required as much modification for a 32-cell VLS arrangement forward. The 61-cell ships would have had to be reduced almost all the way back to the original configuration. So, it's best to start with the non-modified ships first.

I also learned that the forward 5" mount could have been replaced with the Mk71 8" gun even on a 61-cell forward arrangement without structural issue. The ship would have only suffered a 2 degree forward trim. It seems, however, that would be way too close to the tolerances that CAPT Potter has pointed to before.

The main thing I have learned is that the Spruance-class hulls as constructed had a HUGE margin for growth, which would have accommodated a DDG with modernized NTU package, a 90-cell VLS arrangement of 32 forward and 64 aft with Mk71 forward and Mk45 Mod2+ 5"/62caliber gun mount aft and still had a safe margin for battle damage.

This arrangement, however, is the maximum for confident modification while maintaining damage control margins.

My training is hard, guys. It’s really hard. I like to sleep a lot now. I hope to get a significant amount of work done on Spruance this weekend. Iowa is just too much more work. I have to focus on training and learning how to hold my breath longer...so I think that the modernized Sprucan is all I will be able to finish

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Spru-can!!!
So here is the CEC com dome as is equipped aboard the Ticos, Phalanx Block 1B and a bunch of other stuff you have see on here before.

Here we have our aft SM length VLS positioned aft. Maybe it would actually be "strike" length like in the Ticonderogas. Likely SM-2 length.

Here are the "modern" helo deck markings that would be expected aboard the helicopter decks of the modernized Spruances, as are on the Burke DDGs.

The Mk71 and VLS pads are ready for paint.

Everything aft ready for paint.

Phalanx Block 1B ready for paint.

SPG-51s needed a little more detail added. As one knows, the tiny resin pieces wind up breaking off, and one has to replace them. I had to do the same with the SPG-51s. I am anxious to see how this winds up!


The RAM lauchers will be put on top of the A/C vents. The structural members are installed in the intake stuctures so you really can't see them, so it just looks like they are sitting direcly on top of the A/C intakes.

I am looking forward to paint on the pieces tomorrow, guys.

Comments are welcome!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

David,

Very, very nice. This should be a jewel when it's done.
I really like your close up shots. What kind of camera do you use?

Bill

..

Thank you very much for the complements! I am sure you can tell I am being very careful. I still like your WIF example of a patrol boat with the battleship turrent on it. There was a real-life "monitor" proposal that would have put one of the turrets from the George Washington (BB-56) on a little mothballed DD hull. How rediculous!

I have been thinking about the air vent thing for a while. I think there an easier way to do it and not mess with air flow! I guess the best thing of best things to do is to actually make a chair/platform that stratles the vent so you don't have to do all kinds of fancy internal reconstruction. I think the platform's legs would go down the corners of the vent and a large plate would sit on top so the entire thing could be lifted up and away if the vent needed to be removed. Also, if I am right, that vent might actually be the access to the turbine engines. The Sprucan and Kidd-men know for sure.
Thanks, Bill. The really funny thing is that I am using a stupid, little, 6 year old Nikon Coolpix L4...because it takes better pictures than my Olympus E-500!!! The E-500 takes better pictures of Iranian forces at 3-5 miles with a 300mm lense, though. The lighting is my biggest enemy.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

..

You are correct, Bob. RAM launchers are a direct adaptation of the Phalanx system. Instad of having a gatling gun, ammo, computer, and radar pivoting between its legs, it just has a giant missile box. As a result, RAM is just as much as plug-and-play system as Phalanx. New construction has the controlling motors and all under the deck-work. Add-ons like on most existing ships, they literally install power plugs and cabling, and there you have a RAM mount...anywhere it will fit.

Now, as to why there's ever one on the bow is beause you take so much water over the bow that you don't want anything up there. Not even machines guns do well up there. The bow takes so much vilolence anything electronic would pretty much be ruined.

Something I did consider, however, was keeping the RAM position aft like you do see on some Spruances and adding one up top on the super structure somewhere for the forward and aft coverage, perhaps on the port side of the bridge while Phalanx is on the starboard. I do like the idea of keeping them all up on the super structure, though.

Thanks for the idea!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

..