What-If modernized Spruance-class DDG

[navydavesof]

If you really don't end up finding anything, you can place them in a port visit setting, and hang giant posters inside the hangars, like the South Koreans did when they visited my city:
http://www.modelwarships.com/features/w ... 090436.jpg

Interesting. I have seen something like that a lot. That is a possibility for sure! Thanks, dawg.

That's also a shockingly tall hanger. It has to be about twice as tall as that of a Burke! HUGE!!!

[carr]

Does anyone have any scratch building tips for building the interiors of the helicopter hangers? The Spruance DDH modernization version will have an extended hanger, so it needs to be longer and it needs to have some fun detail on the inside. It's kind of hard finding interior detail of the Spruacan hangers, plus this one is going to be twice as long!

Here's a shot of a Spruance hangar that we looked at previously, though for other reasons. You're going to do a telescoping hangar so you'll have to make some allowances but the basic structure ought to be similar, I would think.

[navydavesof]

There is an awful lot of crap in there, isn't there? Thanks for the picture, Bob.

In other topics of the Spruance-class, there has been a lot of speculation about why the Spruances never got VLS back aft when they were upgraded with strike length VLS in place of their ASROC launcher and magazine in the '80s and '90s. Some even as notable as Norman Friedman have said it was because of propeller shafts and things of that nature. Simply looking at an accurate model of the ship or even comparing it to the Ticonderoga-class which utilizes the same hull you can tell that's not the case at all. In reality, neither machinery and hull depth was why they never got VLS in the aft missile deck. If that were the case, you would simply elevate the VLS as high as the helo deck and you would be good to go.

VLS could have fit in there, sure, but the issue was instead that the structural integrity of the aft missile deck was not strong enough to support the weight of what would have been put in those strike-length VLS tubes under all maneuvering and battle conditions: very heavy tomahawk and ASROC missiles. The reason why the Ticonderogas could accommodate it aft was because they are said to have been built heavier and stronger in that area of the ship. What the Spruances could take in that area, however is compliment of SM-2 missiles. SM-2s can be accommodated in both stike length and tactical length VLS arrangements. While that kind of arrangement would have given the ship up to 61 SM-2s, the ship did not have an appropriate weapon direction system nor the illuminators to accommodate such a ship system change. So, while that entire area was designed to accept a Mk26 launcher, a strike length VLS 61-cell arrangement in that area loaded with TLAM and ASROC may have weighed more and caused more issue to the ship (...so for those who want to know you can add up the payload of a 61-cell VLS arrangement and compare it to a fully armed Mk26 system and see if the above assertion is indeed correct).

Another reason they did not get VLS aft was money. VLS is relatively cheap. Cutting the ship up to install it, however is not. The man-hours involved with rearranging the internals of the ship like that are numerous and put the cost of the actual weapon system to shame.

There is another possibility, too. We know the strike-length VLS can fit aft. As has been stated, the ship cannot take the stresses caused by the weight of 61 TLAMs. The other possibility reflects how VLS are actually filled when a ship is armed today, and that is by missile arrangement. Most of the time missiles are arranged in the VLS system in a particular order for redundancy and maximum reliability. In the case of the aft arrangement, if situation dictated that the DDG needed to go to sea with more than 32 long missiles such as TLAM or SM-2BlockIV, those longer and heavier weapons could be situated in only a few of the the center-line modules, perhaps the center four forward modules (of the half closest to the flight deck). The rest of the tubes would have stands called "gas management" in the bottoms of them so the ship�s fill of SM-2s have something to sit on. This is only a possibility, and I would love it if CAPT Potter would chime in about the possibility of only light-loading the aft VLS with a few TLAMs and their specific positioning to reduce stress on the hull if the mission required it.

So, as was seen earlier in this thread my DDG version of the Spruance-class will have VLS aft, and it will be armed with SM-2s unless tech shows up to the contrary (but this really doesn�t matter, because you can�t tell on a model what�s in the VLS tubes ). Forward will be a 32-cell VLS with a Mk71 positioned forward of that. On the stern will be the Mk45 Mod 4. Whew! This ship is going to carry a punch!

...and look what the Navy gave up. Sheesh.

[HvyCgn9]

Over on RCGroups Fooman told a story from his days on a Sprucan and was saying they could fit a Seaking in the hanger and had one time landed a CH-53E on the flight deck.....just!!

They R an example of how waste an asset for no gain at all.

Bruce

[navydavesof]

On this topic I would like to specially thank CAPT Potter for his great assistance throughout this process, especially toward the beginning of this thread when I asked the same questions multiple times. I can tell he wanted to find my IP address so he could assault me in my sleep more than once.

Without his help I would have made a far less convincing DD-963 modernization project, and I would not have necessarily known what to look for in modifying ships. His guidance, however has helped me personally and professionally. The elements he lines out shined a light onto an area I had not fully addressed, and since then I have been able to delve into the whole field of which he made me aware.

So, to you CAPT Potter, I hope the DDG and DDH-963 modernization projects I will build up this year will please you!

[navydavesof]

DDH configuration in 2036 ready to be scrapped.

I cannot wait to build this guy after the DDH and CGN! Whew!

[Seasick]

Topic 1:
RE: Photo of Flight Deck above.

I checked with a source and the flight control is the windows on the deck. The window above is somthing else.

Topic 2:
The AN/SPS-48C/E/G is still vulnerable above 65� elevation. Aegis ships have had software upgrades to correct difficiencies at very low altitude and at the zenith. The Ticonderoga class ships have AN/SPY-1B. Software and the computing have been upgraded allowing each phased array to transmit and receive at the same time. The Ticos when they go through the Cruiser modernization program have the older Mk86 gunfire control system replaced with the Mk160 gun fire control system, and have the AN/SPQ-9A radar replaced with AN/SPQ-9B. The newer radar is integrated into the Aegis combat system and sweeps the horizon many times a second to close a gap in capability. The Arleigh Burke, Spanish F-100 and Korean KDX ships have AN/SPY-1D(v) which was designed after the problems were discovered with AN/SPY-1A.

The target acquisition radar from the Mk23 TAS for the NATO Sea Sparrow can be integrated into the RAM/SeaRAM system. The radar in this system is redesignated the AN/SWY-2.

[navydavesof]

Topic 1:
RE: Photo of Flight Deck above.

I checked with a source and the flight control is the windows on the deck. The window above is somthing else.

Thank you for clearing that up. We've been wondering for a while. When one of our cruisers come back in I will ask what the one in the structure is.

Topic 2:
The AN/SPS-48C/E/G is still vulnerable above 65� elevation...

For as much as I like NTU I understand it is not exactly peer with Aegis, but it is so good, is less than 1/2 the cost, and improves interoperability and safety among groups of ships that it has a place in the modern Navy. A method by which to midigate the vulnerability seen in the 1980s and 1990s is to incorporate at least one SPQ-9B into the system as you explain below with adapting the SPY-1B:

The Ticonderoga class ships have AN/SPY-1B...and have the AN/SPQ-9A radar replaced with AN/SPQ-9B. The newer radar is integrated into the Aegis combat system and sweeps the horizon many times a second to close a gap in capability. The...AN/SPY-1D(v)...was designed after the problems were discovered with AN/SPY-1A.

That makes a lot of sense now. When I was talking with Lockheed about the HM&E modernization I asked about the SPY panels themselves, and they made it clear the panels themselves were not being upgraded.

The target acquisition radar from the Mk23 TAS for the NATO Sea Sparrow can be integrated into the RAM/SeaRAM system. The radar in this system is redesignated the AN/SWY-2.

On the CVNs, LHDs, and LHAs, the TAS-23 is being replaced by the SPQ-9B. Why not do that on the Spruances as well?

[navydavesof]

Oh my....

For some reason pictures of the ex-USS Paul F. Foster are hard for me to find. However, look what I found! It looks an AWFUL lot like my DDG-963! OH YEAH!!!

Not only is it possible, but the impact of these systems and all of the other ones on the ship's structure are acceptable on a ship that has no crew to fight fires or control flooding in order to save the ship's stability. So, since this is the US Navy's one and only Self Defense Test Ship, a rather valuable piece of hardware, the Navy feels at least relatively confident that in this configuration the Spruance-class ship can take a hit from an anti-ship weapon and not sink.

...awesome.

EDIT:
As an edit instead of a new post, I have figured out the cheapest and leanest way to install the SPS-48G on the Spruance-class's existing aft mast instead of constructing an entirely new mast to produce a DDG-963.

excellent.

[Seasick]

I wasn't suggesting that the modernized Spruance not get AN/SPQ-9B. The ship would need it for gunfire control and air defense. The AN/SPG-60 not fast enough for many anti-ship threats. The mast (fore mast and main mast) on a modernized Spruance should both be torn down and rebuilt They are both rather heavy and can be replaced with lighter and stronger materials in a better low observable design. Check out the new mast on the Nimitz class carriers. They would be a better reference point for a new fore mast on the Spruance. The mast desigs on the San Antonio LHD would be a statring point for the mainmast on the Spruance. The radar from the Mk23 TAS being reused for RAM was just an aside.

[HvyCgn9]

Here's a pic of my club mates USS Scott forward mast nearing completion

Bruce

[navydavesof]

I wasn't suggesting that the modernized Spruance not get AN/SPQ-9B. The ship would need it for gunfire control and air defense. The AN/SPG-60 not fast enough for many anti-ship threats.

Ah, I see. Since it is still being in stalled on all new CVN design I can only imagine that the Bug-eyes illuminator associated with the Mk95(?) Sea Sparrow system is fast enough to keep up with the fastest missiles?

Check out the new mast on the Nimitz class carriers. They would be a better reference point for a new fore mast on the Spruance.

I saw the Vinson getting hers installed when she was undergoing her refueling. It is an interesting mast, remarkably simple. That is the same I imagine for any new-build battleship's foremast as well with all of the junk that would be put on it.

The mast desigs on the San Antonio LHD would be a statring point for the mainmast on the Spruance. The radar from the Mk23 TAS being reused for RAM was just an aside.

Have you read that the AEM/S enclosure has produced significant problems for the SPS-48? It sounds like an issue with this was not foreseen with the Radford's test, because the Radford was utilizing a 2D radar and the SPS-48s are 3D. It has been proposed that the AEM/S cover be removed from current construction and the originally intended tripod mast installed on all new construction.




The balance I am trying to make with the Spruances is one following the Navy's squeezing methods. They would rather use what is existing instead of replacing it and use the extra money they would expend on something that does not necessarily need to be changed on other systems. For instance, I think the Navy might, instead of replacing the masts, modify the existing ones exactly like those on the Paul F. Foster and install a second RAM mount.

Here is my supporting evidence. The Ticonderogas are currently undergoing a very expensive and comprehensive overhaul and service life extension program. I would imagine this would be the perfect opportunity to build and install new masts. The Ticonderogas are significantly more overweight than the Spruances were and have eaten into their damage control margins so they would benefit the greatest from such a modification. So, since the Navy is not modifying the Ticos (to me a higher priority ship to the Navy than the Spruances in almost any case) with new masts they might leave the Spruance masts alone.

However, I would like to see a Spruance with different masts. With as cheap as the Spruance models are on ebay, I think you should make one to the specs you have presented before in the thread. I'll send you a RAM mount and a Mk110 if you want! I think it'd make a cool build.

[navydavesof]

I was thinking about your comments a little more while I was swimming, and I realized I forgot to acknowledge a few things you said.

I wasn't suggesting that the modernized Spruance not get AN/SPQ-9B. The ship would need it for gunfire control and air defense.

As we have both said before, and I would like to reiterate for readers who only infrequently watch this thread, the SPQ-9B is not just a gunfire spotter. Its main advertized capability is detection of high speed, sea-skimming missiles. That quality makes it an excellent addition to NTU and closes the close-range capability gap NTU had. When the Kidds were reactivated for the Taiwanese one of the improvements made was incorporating the SPQ-9A into the WDS input instead of keeping it segregated to GFC. Pretty neat!

They are both rather heavy and can be replaced with lighter and stronger materials in a better low observable design. Check out the new mast on the Nimitz class carriers.

This is one particular thing I was thinking about after my last post. While what I said is true about the Ticonderogas' masts have been left un-modified, the masts on the Ticos are rather small and really don't compare to those on the Spruance. The Spruance mast replacement bears continued consideration!

...The radar from the Mk23 TAS being reused for RAM was just an aside.

Ah, I see what you mean! Conservation is good.

Thanks!

[Seasick]

From what I have read the design of the foremast on the Spruance class was heavily influenced by the requirement of having the AN/SPG-60 up very high. The Ticonderogas had a much smaller fore mast because of no requirement for the AN/SPG-60, and the AN/SPG-62 didn't need to be at the high elevation. The mainmast was switched to a tripod to save weight starting with CG-49.

The responce time for the NATO Sea Sparrow is short. One of the reasons that RAM has been adopted. Turn the Mk49 on to direction of the threat and launch the RIM-116 RAM.

[navydavesof]

From what I have read the design of the foremast on the Spruance class was heavily influenced by the requirement of having the AN/SPG-60 up very high.

Wow. They go to an awful lot of trouble for some things, don't they? The mast winds up being so tough simply to hold itself up. I must say, though, that if combining the SPS-48 onto the ship as well, the SPG-60 position on the forward mast is an excellent place for the SPS-49. We of course know this from the Kidd-class, but we also see this on the highly modified USS Paul F. Foster, the self-defense ship.

Would you consider making your WHIF DD-963? I would be happy to help you out with a few of parts if they could help you

The Ticonderogas had a much smaller fore mast because of no requirement for the AN/SPG-60, and the AN/SPG-62 didn't need to be at the high elevation. The mainmast was switched to a tripod to save weight starting with CG-49.

The 62s are really cool. I would very much like to see one on the move. Matching the movements of the SS-N-22, it must really whip around. I know Phalanx does. I have seen a Phalanx mount play a real shoot-down it had recorded during an exercise. I am not saying Phalanx will shoot everything down, because YouTube has shown us it won't, but it was amazing watching how shockingly nimble that mount is.

The responce time for the NATO Sea Sparrow is short. One of the reasons that RAM has been adopted. Turn the Mk49 on to direction of the threat and launch the RIM-116 RAM.

I am aware ESSM can really move, and so can RAM. I guess the next potential point of failure is the director. Of the carriers' self defense packages I have armed, they only pack ESSMs, no more NATO Sea Sparrows. I am not saying they're not still floating around out there, but just not where I am.

Something I have really found interesting is the Ship-Mod concept that was very well developed during between the '70s and'80s. Perhaps even during the '60s, I don't recall at the moment. This is also where the designation of "A-sized VLS Module" or "B-sized VLS module" comes from. There were three weapon sizes established: AA, A, and B going from smallest to largest. The Ship-Mod ships were designed to have holes of those sizes in the deck so corresponding weapon systems could be installed like Lego pieces. Radars, illuminators, and computer systems would be swapped out in a similar manner. A "Strike" or "CIC" would be pulled out like a big box or plugged in based on the upcoming mission configuration of the ship.

That would make a pretty cool model, too.

[Cliffy B]

I always thought the little raised station on the flight deck was the RAST Control Station and that the Helo Control Station was up on the superstructure next to the hangar.

[carr]

I always thought the little raised station on the flight deck was the RAST Control Station and that the Helo Control Station was up on the superstructure next to the hangar.

I'm with Cliffy, exactly (unless he's wrong - in which case I've always said his info was unreliable ). The glassed-in deck structures only appeared when RAST appeared in the fleet. There had to have been a helo control station before that and it had to have been the raised stations which would provide the necessary elevated view of the entire flight deck.

[Cliffy B]

Thanks for the support there Carr

OK, I've checked a set of official USN plans and my initial assertions were spot on. I can post said plans if need be. They are the ones of the DD-979 that are on the net somewhere.

[navydavesof]

I can post said plans if need be. They are the ones of the DD-979 that are on the net somewhere.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!

[Cliffy B]

I can post said plans if need be. They are the ones of the DD-979 that are on the net somewhere.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!

How many times have I sent them to you already?