The Ship Model Forum

Here are my latest pics, replaced side FC mounts with Band Stands on platforms, added SSN-22 quad boxes in place of the forward secondaries (a platform adds a slight up angle to them - I took the aft funnel caps from the Udaloy I'm scraping and turned them over) also added blast shields aft on each side. replaced the small tripod with a more substantial one (1 arms broken but that's going to be replaced anyway). removed the search radar forward (to be moved to mast platforms) to make room for forward FCS. Ignore the paint (from over 25 years ago) also the forward 25mm platform broke so I added reinforcements (going to use them for AK-630 CIWS). Still not sure on aft secondary position, may add SAN-7 or 9 resited slightly aft to retain aft TT (the slots just under the SSN-22 are the forward TT & the similar slot further aft {below the aft funnel in the pic} are the aft TT, the light circle just above that is the aft mount) probably move the aft Strut Pair to the top of the hanger when I get it built.

You would think the banded camouflage wouldn't do much good in an era with SS-N-22s. Just a thought.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

Just thinking out loud.. but the third, rear facing AK-130 turret really would have little benefit in regard to actual service use, owing to its limited firing arc. I would consider removing it and maybe putting in a couple of launchers for a missile or maybe a torpedo system.

Second thought - your positioning of the Band Stand radars has two problems - first, it forces you to use two. Second, it limits the reach of the radar over the horizon. If you put it up on the bridge structure, similar to, say, Admiral Chabanenko or a Sovremenny, you'd have better use. Cut back some of the structure where you're thinking of putting your radar systems to give you the space - notice the fact there is very little vertical intrusion for the Band Stand, as it sits practically right on top of the roof of the bridge on Sovremenny and Chabanenko.

With regards to your radar positions - you might consider your SA-N-7 positions on the broadsides, and follow with a radar positioning similar to the Sovremenny - they have three Front Dome radars, each with a two-band system, on either side along the broadside. The SA-N-7's launcher is similar to the Mk 13 with the single arm and a rotating drum feed.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Thanks for the feed back.
as I said: will repaint when I'm done.

actually the arc is only about 30deg less, just forward, still has full side arcs

She already has 16 TTs how many dose she need? though a 3rd SAN systems (whichever I decide on) good Idea but that would change the overall Takao/Nachi configuration, I wanted to keep 3 turrets & the AK130 was the largest new ones I could find. (though if I had them, maybe Mk71 or AGS)

I had considered that, but that would interfere with the SAN-FCS positions the reason for... a highly inefficient configuration (are front domes way cheaper than Bandstand sets? maybe that's why they did it?)I want to save that position for the forward SAN-FCS & the SSN-22s are over the horizon anyway.
I'm planning to add a platform just forward of the top mount above the bridge.
yea...really just a Russian knock-off of the Mk13/22, I got 8 of them to use somewhere.

Takao is a slava sized ship. It should probably have better than destroyer type armament.

The 16 torpedos are all for incompatible Japanese old style 24" straight runners, the multitude of tubes facilitates salvo firing to increase the change of hitting something. Replace half with modern tubes firing guided torpedoes or anti-submarine missiles, and remove the other half to free up space and reduce chance of sympathetic explosion should the ship get hit by anything.

Takao was a very fast ship made fast by a exceedingly large but ineffeicient (by modern standards) power plant. No modern cruiser needs that speed. Get rid of two of the 4 shafts and half of the boilers will still leave the ship able to do 29 knots, but will free up space for maybe a midship S-300 battery like those on the Slava. Replace the other half of the power plant with modern gas turbines or pressure fired steam plants and you will free up more space.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

I wasn't sure if you had decided to keep her belowdeck torpedo launchers. They could be upsized to support the Type 65 Soviet torpedos, if you're staying Soviet.

The Band Stand Radar is more than that, it's also a datalink for the helicopter to extend guidance. Mounting two is inefficient, especially when all tubes face forward. They're not trainable, and are no more numerous than on a Sovremenny, so two is excessive.

The Sovremenny class operates Six Front Dome radars to allow it to engage multiple targets on multiple vectors - each radar has two operating bands, allowing it to target two missiles at a time. The SA-N-7 is a medium range system, having more reach than the SA-N-9 on Udaloy, and less than the SA-N-6 on the Slava. They're launched from the one rail fore and aft, superfiring over the AK-130 mounts.

I would consider to say that in all honesty, this refit Takao should be a little less like something heavier than a Sovremenny, and more like a Sovremenny rebuilt as a DDH, especially with the large aviation facilities on the aft deck. You could, in theory, mount an additional set of SS-N-22 tubes in the place of the third AK-130 turret. It's all about maximizing your fields of fire really. Of course, there's also the conundrum of having a CIWS defensive system mounted on the ship for that edge of defense that you should consider. Is it a Domestic system? Is it AK-630 with Bass Tilt radars?

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

I have what fits. Actually Navies didn't design ships to "Salvo" torpedoes...they often were in the heat of battle...but torpedoes were the {underwater} missile of the day, used by doctrine as single shots, the extra tubes were for multiple shots (esetualy ready service reloads). the only attempt at a "salvo" doctrine (I've found) was the US with the Mahans charging toward a target & setting the torps to arc from each side, this Idea was scrapped before the war (to expensive for 1 target & still no guarantee of a hit). even the U-boats didn't salvo a target, they fired a salvo at 4-5 different targets with 1 torp each.
61cmthe tubes should be big enough for sleeves to be set inside to accommodate the more modern torps - if not then quad 533s would easily fit in their place, If I can adjust the aft secondary position enouph I'll keep all 16.
no such thing, every ship needs what speed it can get, the reason so many modern ship can't reach 30kts is because they're primarily ASW escorts & can't use sonar at that speed, this is a helo-cruiser whose primary ASW are the helicopters aft, like the Leningrad.
don't have parts for SAN-6 or I would have found somewhere for them
an internal replacement may be made but I'm not ripping out the existing funnels & trying to find parts to make new ones.

maybe but mounting them atop the bridge gets in the way of the gun & SAN FCS (so 2 FCS for SSN-22 or 2 for the 13cm?) & they look good there, also I checked, the base platforms these are mounted on are right at the same hight from the water as the very top curve of a Nanuchka's Band Stand dome, so they would have a higher horizon then the Nanuchka's SSN-9s
I'm aware of all this, the SAN-7 can only fire 1 missile, per mount at a time, so a single Front Dome can accommodate a Sovremenny's full single salvo, the other 5 are superfluous & only accommodates different fireing arcs, having them more efficiently mounted would reduce the # you have to mount, especially with only 2 launchers (its different with VLS, the only limit to the A.B. DDG is the # that can be controlled at one time, not the # of birds you can get in the air) then why do it? just build another Sovremenny, this is to be a CA/Hinteresting Idea but the whole point of the rebuild was; I needed the 20cm turrets to rebuild a Mogami '44 to a Mogami '41 (had a '44 & got a new '44 which couldn't be made as a '41) so I stripped the 20cm & looked for the closest thing I could replace them with, the AK-130 is the largest modern turret I could find (& they look good there) so I want to keep the Takao/Nachi turret config, even though more SSN-22s would be nice.
of course, that's why I reinforced the 25mm platforms forward on the bridge (but may have to remove them & replace with new ones for AK-630s) also the far aft 25mm on the handling deck will be AK-630s & 4 more in the structure(somewhere)...mmm...need room for forward Bass Tilts, already knew I needed them but hadn't occured to me where. thanks for reminding me. Already added the hanger & moved the aft Strut Pair to the top of it & added the forward one back to the new foremast. but now have blank platform just behind aft funnel where the Strut Pair was (hanger starts just behind it, picks to fallow) could a 3rd SAN-7 be fit there? doubt it.

I really do think if you modified the bridge roof and put the Band Stand up there, it would be better off, and you could sit the Kite Screech so it goes Above the Band Stand, much like, say, Admiral Chabanenko. Saves on power if anything, and some weight.

You assume they only fire one at a time with the SA-N-7 and that's where you're wrong. They have so many radars so they can engage multiple targets with a salvo launched in rapid succession - the rail launches, snaps back to vertical, picks up another missile, tracks in, launches that one, repeats for a third or more as needed. Remember, it's a Medium Range missile, so generally it would have the time to salvo fire.

Why focus on the DD/CA-H idea? Simply put, if you optimize the weapons suite, it would be more plausible. More missiles would give it better firepower, putting it noticably above the firepower of a Sovremenny. The additional helicopter support would give it an improved role as well. Hell, with the space you gain from removing the belowdeck support for that third turret, you might even have space to carry reloads for the SS-N-22 launchers, something a Sovremenny doesn't have. Just another thought to add.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

That was my first thought to place it, & I'm going to put the S-A FCS there (SANs & 13cm) 1 more band Stand doesn't weigh that much & it looks good there. & I can use only 1-13cm FCS position
I was a GM I'm aware of this, but they still take time to re-position, reload, re-position & fire, you might get 3 in the air per launcher at 1 time & I'm going to have multiple FCS but 2 are going fore & aft for max coverage (though I could have put Front Domes (or the 13cm FCS) there instead but I like the Band Stands & have plenty of the part) the whole point of the rebuild was to find a turret that could replace the 20cm twins I removed, replacing the #3 with missiles could be useful but would spoil the silhouette & reduce the 240rpm broadside I can put out! (+ {as with the Brooke class} more missiles means more $$$$ for an "old relic" to be rebuilt with)

News comrade, we have received word from the bureau of ordnance, the people have no additional SSN-22 launchers available at this time, we are instructed to use the equipment the people have allotted; 2 quad SSN-22 launchers & 3 AK-130 twin turrets, we have also been instructed to utilize, on behalf of the people, the 2 Band Stand directors they have provided.

I have a new progress report and pictures for you. I replaced the dog-ear sponsons on the sides of the bridge & built my own (still working on upper platforms for the Base Tilts).
You can see from the overhead turret view that the central turret has a very wide arc (the Japanese wouldn't have put it there otherwise) and covers over 2/3rds of the horizon.
I built the hanger from scrap, the aft end is the actual hangar from an Udaloy, I extended it forward (can anyone figure out with what?)
I added a Kite Screech FCS midships (had an open platform with nothing to put there) as the backup for the main Kite Screech FCS forward (to be placed above the bridge) also moved the aft Strut Pair back (atop the hanger) & added an aft mast (from a Nanuchka, to be mod as needed) and a pair of pylons in the aft 25mm sponsons to hold the aft base tilts (or I may put them atop the hanger in the positions aft of the Strut Pair & a 2nd pair of AK-630s on the platforms, any Ideas?)

Oh I started on my Isuzu CL-AA, mid '60s upgrade, replaced the 12.7cm/40 twins with 57mm quads. 2 more 57mm quads added on sponsons abreast the foremast (where the old # 3 & 4-14cm guns were), retain the TT & AK-230s in place of the 25mm mounts, also planning to add RBU mortars & 4-SSN-2C tubed to the sides. (something like this maybe.)

The original had DC racks & 19kt speed (presume with new funnel GT-for 23-25kts maybe); for ASW add Mk32s at the back edge of the fore deck, abreast the open gap forward of the funnel (maybe add deck house midships for reloads?).

(BTW...some of these projects I've had stalled, Thanks for the inspiration.)

Also the IJN DDs Asashio & Asashimo have been recovered from the bottom & are awaiting refits! thinking 1 USSR to go with Isuzu (thinking 2-10cm twin {moding German 105s} & 1-57mm quad in X position). Russian TTs or SSN-?s ?

had the idea last night to put my SSN launchers on the Isuzu cross firing between the aft guns (in place of the aft mast), dose anyone know the off-axis firing arc of the SSN-2C? Tried to Google it but got "Star Trek Enterprise episodes" (???)

Part of the problem would be that you keep forgetting that the proper designation has TWO dashes - SS-N-2C - It's a NATO designation code, and BOTH Dashes are important, because it differentiates the SS-N-2, aka P-15 Termit from the SS-2, the R-2, a ballistic missile derived from the V-2, and translates to Surface to Surface Missile, Naval, Model 2.

As to the off-bow firing angle question, I'm not sure there was ever a case they were mounted like that, since if you look, every ship that fired the P-15/SS-N-2C, they were mounted either straight forward or straight aft. Might have been something to do with the force of the launch, possibly, but I don't know. I'm pretty sure the SS-N-2C is hot-launched, so there might have been some force to the launch of the missile that made it undesirable to launch off-center.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Not forgetting or problem, I was omitting for expedience. the "N" designates the difference in the 2 missile types, the actual significance of the 2nd dash is to differentiate between a Russian Surface-to-Surface Naval missile "SS-N-2" and a Nuclear Attack Submarine "SSN 2", but I assumed anyone in this forum would know I wasn't trying to mount an attack submarine on top of a light cruiser (Didn't know I was being graded on technical grammar)...anyway I mounted the 5-57mm Quads on the Isuzu along with 3-AK-230 turrets (2 side by side on the 25mm gun platform forward of the bridge) and 1 far aft in place of the 25mm on the fantail, I also added 2 platforms, 1 each side of the #2&3 funnels with 4-SS-N-2C launch tubes, 2 on each platform, firing forward. an additional platform aft replaces the tripod mainmast for aft FCS placement. So the Isuzu is an early '60s upgrade with a late '60 mod to 2C tubes in place of the 2A boxes (no 2As available). I also added RBU-6000s on the platforms (light grey in pic) each side of the Atagos new hanger. (RBUs to be added to Isuzu)

added 8-AK-630s to Atago - 2 on new forward-bridge platforms, 1 each side of main funnel & 4 aft (2 in old 25mm tubs far aft & 2 on platforms just aft of hanger doors) and new platform around bridge to have room for Kite Screech & base tilts . also added Don/Don-2 to foremast of Isuzu (actually SPS-49 but closest I had to Don sires) need to add FCS for AK-630s, AK-230s & 57mm quads to each (as needed) & SAN system (whichever I decide on) with FCS to Atago along with forward Kite Screech.

Also, having difficulty with other upgrade. I have a really bad 700 scale Atlanta model too be upgraded (original to bad to finish, not even the right turrets, 4-Mk38 twin & 4-Mk30 single) was planning '50/early '60 upgrade (sold to pre-rev Cuba & sent to Russia, post-rev, for upgrade) but lack parts, so I'm going with NATO upgrade. replaced A B & Y mounts with OTO Melara compact 12.7cm & added Meroka to aft bridge in 40mm tub over aft mounts, now I'm stuck. thought of adding additional compact 12.7s but that's just the same thing with new mounts, was going to replace aft mounts with Mk-26 but striped that off (just didn't work) & thought of adding OTO Melara compact 76s in remaining Mk38 positions (?? may look good - but why) was planing Mk-32s in place of old TTs (which would have been striped off before the war ended anyway) & adding Exocet launchers on side Mk38 positions??? what about British refit (maybe for India or someone)? Mk6 twin 4.5" mounts where current 12.7cm are (maybe more), Exocets in side positions, remove Meroka & add Sea Cat or Sea Wolf in various positions? Or should I go with the small Mk8 Mod0 mount (actualy increase RoF over Mk 6 but wouldn't look as good).

Pic Updates Isuzu. You can see the TTs below the midships 57mm (2 quads replaced the 4 twins when rebuilt).