New Generation DDH

[sgtryan13]

Elmer's wood putty works great for almost all of my modeling needs. It dries fast, sands easily, is non toxic, won't melt plastic, and excess is easily cleaned off with a damp q-tip while the putty is still wet.

[carr]

Specifically, Bondo Glazing & Spot Putty. The front of the tube is red with a black semi-circle and white lettering. 4.5 OZ. It is not the two part Bondo where you have to mix in the hardner.

This is exactly what I use and it's the only putty I use. I've tried all the "hobby" putties and settled on this by a wide margin.

[navydavesof]

Thanks guys! I'm going to have to find some of this stuff. Maybe this super modelshop of mine I have here is going to have it. They have Kato train locomotives, though!

Gosh, I am not looking forward to doing another hull plug when I get back to this project. I hope that package gets here from Texas same and sound.

I am going to have to pick up a few items tomorrow at this modelshop of glory. First and foremost is going to be some sheet plastic. The CGN is calling.

[navydavesof]

Photoshop! Here are most of the main components of the DDH. I just don't have the mast done up with the SPS-49 and stuff, but the armor belt on the hull is visible, centerline Mk110, aft mounting of the Phalanx. RAM would be over on the port side as well just aft of where the SPY array is on Aegis Burkes.

Oh well. That's do able on the model!

[navydavesof]

Well, I have some more solid data on the utilization of the Mk71 on the DDG-51 hull. I am going to have to contiue going over it, but it's good stuff.

I have been able to check, and the info over at navweaps is right on the money about 8" rounds. If we started using the Mk71 tomorrow, we could fire a lot of different 8" rounds including the SALGP Paveway round. There are base-bleed kits in inventory for giving the round significantly longer range, between 20-30% greater range.

This data is really fascinating, because it puts to rest on an engineering and practical level that we could immediately achieve the Navy's near term goal for NGFS with this existing gun mount and existing ammunition, and it offers the growth we need to achieve mid to long term viability with minimal cost.

[navydavesof]

I just want to throw this out there: there is a design for the Arleigh Burke's with a below deck helo hanger to accommodate 2 SH60 helos.

[Cliffy B]

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?!

Please elaborate sir.

[Russ2146]

Yes, please expand if the info is UNCLAS.

Ref 8" rounds, didn't someone is Houston debate their existence?

[navydavesof]

With the hanger business, there were lots and lots of different variants of the Arleigh Burke-class developed for two different studies. The first was the group of Destroyer Variant Study, or the DDVs that are touched on in Norman Friedman's book US Destroyers Second Edition. The second was the development and feasibility of the DDG-51 Flight III. These are documents I found on line so if I found them, you can too. The unfortunate thing is that I cannot find the first again, and the other I paid $35 for so, go buy your own!

The below deck hanger was developed for the Flight III variant. Another variant was a single helo hanger on the starboard side of the ship with the port side of the VLS arrangement (32-cells) retained on the port side. These all varied with hull lengths from 466' to 505'. It's really fascinating.

The feasibility of Mk71 MCLWG installation onto the DDG-51 hull simply replacing the Mk45 is really fascinating. Amongst other things, there would be quite a rework of the gun base. You get a tube descending into the deep mag with a 20' barbette and base ring. A more powerful elevator would be installed to take the ammunition clips down into the magazine, and the mount would require a whole, whole lot more power, and you would only get to carry a little under 300 rounds as this situation is configured. However, I am 100% positive that can be expanded quite easily, because sonar control spaces have been reduced in number, leaving literally open spaces right next to the magazine.

I think installing the Mk71 in new construction is 100% feasible and 100% the way to go. That way any modification to the bow can be made as the ship is being built, the sonar spaces can be adjusted due to new equipment, and the resultant space can be included in the magazine. It does NOT take very much room to add another clip of ammunition (8" rounds and associated propellant). I am confident another 20 clips could be added into those spaces. Keep in mind this is all done with JUST the original DDG-51 structure, no hull plugs at all. My assumption about a 15-20' plug for the gun was wrong. No plug is necessary. The Mk71 would directly replace the Mk45.

[SumGui]

The more information that surfaces about the MK71, the more plausible it is that there has been a simple fix to NGFS staring us in the face for nearly 25 years with nothing but bureaucratic bovine excrement and fights over rice bowls preventing its utilization.

Makes me want to call 800-522-3451. But then, they don't have any influence over Congress (on a side note, what is the opposite of Congress? - Pro-gress)

Harumph.

[navydavesof]

Makes me want to call 800-522-3451...Harumph.

Harumph indeed. I have a funny story about waste, fraud, and abuse. This is how an E-4 can force a CO of a ship to quit his $#it. A buddy of mine was on an FF a few years ago, and they were doing counter narcotic ops in the Caribbean. One of the ship's CO's friends had a yacht driving around out there, so to be funny, the CO brought the ship to General Quarters and raced toward the yacht and launched a helo. For those who don't know, calling GQ triggers a lot of things to happen on a ship.

What happened was that he left the crew at GQ for over two hours, as they went looking for this yacht, which included the VBSS team jocked up in their gear waiting in their closet, no normal movement though out the ship, the gun crews outside on their weapons in the middle of the Caribbean heat and humidity in their body armor, the helo buzzing around burning up fuel, and the ship not pursuing drug runners...all so the CO could play a prank on his buddy.

So, after a long while of putting up with this inappropriate use of a warship my friend started to yell "WASTE FRAUD AND ABUSE!!!" over and over from the bridge wing. It only took 5 minutes before the bird was back on the ship, and they went back to their patrol sector leaving the poor yacht to itself unmolested by the FF's CO. After the CO stormed off the bridge with his fun foiled, the XO came out to the bridge wing and gave my friend a high-five.

[navydavesof]

Mk71 MCLWG

After reviewing many documents and talking to a number of people who worked on the Mk71 there is an easy way to incorporate a 500 round magazine into a new-build ship. For all of those who don't know (everyone) the Spruances were designed to accommodate 500 rounds in a vertical and longitudinal magazine.

The DDH will incorporate a lot of the design elements of the Flight III of the 1989 feasibility study. In addition to that it will incorporate the Mk71 with a 500 round magazine.

If anyone can get their hands on the Flight III feasibility and design study I highly recommend it. It really goes over the ins and outs of the ship. What a great design. I wish a slight modification ( an 8inch forward and a 5inch aft) would have been pursued for replacing the first 5 Tico CGs.

[navydavesof]

There was a study done called DDV that was touched on in Norman Friedman's US Destroyers Second Edition book. One of those versions was called DDV9, and this one relates to the DDH project. What that version included was a DDG-51 FlightI ship with a Mk71 MCLWG, 61-cell VLS, Harpoons amidships, and a single hanger and 32-cell VLS aft with 2 RAM and a Phalanx on the back of the aft stack.

The things I think the people on here might find interesting are that aboard the DDG-51 the Mk71 could handled just over 200 8" rounds in the currently configured 5" mag space, the 61-cell VLS would have been positioned longitudinally in place of the 32-cell VLS, the forward Phalanx would have been deleted, because the longitudinally arranged VLS would have damaged the Phalanx mount, the SPY-1 Aegis system would have had no terminal guidance illuminators (SPG-62s), between the stack would have had 8 Harpoons on a stand (where NULKA is now). The aft stack would have had 2 RAM launchers and a Phalanx in its original position. There would have been a single hanger on the starboard side of the ship that wound up taking up the starboard half of the aft VLS. The port side (4 modules and 32-cells) was retained raised matching the top of the hanger. I find this particular arrangement interesting. SPY-1 has been established as being able to guide missiles in terminal guidance without SPG-62s, but it's kind of tricky. This arrangement relied on the SPY-1 to perform terminal guidance.

A slightly modified gun magazine could accommodate the capacity mentioned earlier with a 64-cell arranged along the centerline.

[navydavesof]

For those who want to know, I have submitted the DDH Proposal to the CNO's R&D group. I stated that the mission of the DDH would be:

The DDG-51 Flight IIA hull modified to a DDH would provide the US Navy with an ASW focused combatant that would be able to operate independently, as an element of a strike group, or as the command hub for an ASW strike force. The DDH would be able to operate in littorals, act as the C4I of ASW operations for an entire group of ASW assets such as FFG-7s or possibly eventual ASW configured LCSs. It could prosecute submerged tracks with up to 4 of its own helicopters and UAVs, conduct surface warfare with 16 Harpoons and precision 8-inch gunfire, provide the NGFS the Navy has lacked for nearly 20 years, and be resistant against suicide boats and mine strikes.

So with other equipment and ships such as FFG-7s and LCS-1 and LCS-2 class ships, the 1/350 DDH that will eventually be built in this thread will be able to conduct ASW alone and in consort with other ships. I have included the option of the Remote Mine System that has so far been plagued with failure. In the future, however, its problems might be resolved and the system might become a very useful tool.

rms3.jpg (8.07 KiB) Viewed 1709 times

rms2.jpg (8.43 KiB) Viewed 1709 times

Other than that, does anyone have ideas or suggestions as to what might be included in the DDH ship?

[navydavesof]

Thanks for all of the extra input, guys, especially over PM. I am seriously considering including the RMS shelter featured on the USS Momsen kit. By the time the DDH would be produced, the RMS tech might actually be matured. What his tech can offer is the ability to search for submarines in a littoral environment.

What I have in mind specifically is a UAV acting as a relay when the RMS is over the transmitter horizon from the ship. As a result the ship can still see what the RMS is seeing and direct it to do various things. I really don't think its mine counter measure feature is nearly as valuable as the little ASW passive sonar it can tow behind it is. That would be super neato.

The Mk71 is going to require a little extra space, so it will be reflected in the model. Other than that, I look forward to getting started on the model. Hopefully these nuclear reactors are not going to go super critical and melt down on us. Another quake would really ruin things, too.

Hmmm. We'll just have to see!

[carr]

I really don't think its mine counter measure feature is nearly as valuable as the little ASW passive sonar it can tow behind it is.

The WLD-1 RMS is designed to tow the AN/AQS-20 sonar which is described as a side scanning, mine hunting sonar. As best I can determine, this is an active (it has beam forming capability) and very short ranged (relative to ASW requirements) sonar. It doesn't sound like it would be useful as an ASW sonar. Do you know of a towed passive sonar that would be used with the RMS?

Also, do you happen to know why, specifically, the Navy dropped the RMS from the Burkes?

[navydavesof]

Work on the aft stack!

Here's a little shot of how I built the uptakes and glued them in.

Here's some more of the super structure. I flattened off the SPY arrays y "plating" over them with really thin Styrene. I tried to fill and sand, but the plastic is SO thin that the putty warped the plastic too much and messed it up. This was just a bad piece to try to putty and sand. This is how I will position the RAM launchers as well. It works out well.

Here's the forward VLS arrangement and the Mk71 Mod2

Cool! Until next weekend!

[navydavesof]

It's been a while. It's time for an update of the recent work!

After a lot of fighting over the topic I have settled on including UUWVs on the ship. The Navy seems to be quite enthralled with using UUWVs despite their troubles. Despite the fact that they do not work presently, maybe some day they will.

As a result I have decided to include the UUWV shelter on the side of the ship as seen on the Momsen and similar ships.

As can be seen here the Mk71 Mod2 is forward of the 64-cell Mk41 VLS.

Here is the bridge arrangement with the areas of the SPY emplacements covered and the coms domes up. This is also where the RAM launchers will go. I am debating on having a structure between the bridge and the forward stack that has reloads in it or not.

I have added a 22-25' hull plug in the free board hull. The next step will be to build out the underwater hull. I have some rubber bands holding the arrangement together while the glue cures.

Here you can see the mast arrangement including the SPQ-9B and TRS-3D. This is the JPJ's mast, but I have it fitted here just to illustrate the loose arrangement. The SPS-49 will be on the middle platform (enlarged) on DDH's mast

Properly cutting and fitting the hanger top was a challenge.

I am pleased how it is turning out.

Thanks for the interest guys!

[carr]

It's a WIF so I can't argue with the inclusion of the UUWV and besides, it's a neat piece of technology even if it's only developmental at this point.

Love the overall progress and execution. Nice job with the SPQ-9B and TRS-3D radars. Love the plug!

Can't wait to see more!

Regards,
Bob

[navydavesof]

It's a WIF so I can't argue with the inclusion of the UUWV and besides, it's a neat piece of technology even if it's only developmental at this point.

I know, it sucks. As we have discussed elsewhere the problems are inherent with the environment, but since the Navy has such a boner over everything "unmanned"....just had to include it.

Love the overall progress and execution. Nice job with the SPQ-9B and TRS-3D radars.

Thanks. I know you're twitching in objection over seeing all of the sensors on the same mast, but in trying to maintain as much commonality with the Flight IIAs and keeping costs down as far as possible I could not justify adding a second mast. HOWEVER you can rest assured that even if the mast is blown up CIC will still have active radar inputs. The Phalanx Block 1B aft and the Mk110 both provide sensor inputs to CIC so even if the mast is blown up, or is burned up with napalm like Seasick likes to theorize, the aft end of the ship is still providing pulse doppler fire-control radar inputs from two other sources into the brains of the ship. So, that makes me wonder....

�if the Mk160 GFCS can pair the forward gun with any of the sensors on the ship...can the Mk71 fire based on signal inputs from the Phalanxs and/or Mk110? Interesting thought!

Love the plug!

That's what she said!

You set me up on that one...