The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Tue Dec 01, 2020 4:21 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Hey everyone!

As a conceptual exercise, I have an idea I would like some input on. In the 1980s there were the Iowa-class battleships rolling around, but there was still a pretty significant NGFS gap left without any heavy cruisers or the Mk71 going into production. Any amphibious group going on deployment could have really benefitted from having a ship with multiple guns to provide NGFS.

The problem with the 5" has always been lack of lethality. That was compensated for by firing high volumes of fire. If I recall correctly (Busto can probably back this up or correct it) for a 5" gunfire mission to be effective, it has to land either 60 rounds in a minute or 20 inside of a 5 second period.

What about reactivating the FRAM II Gearing-class DDs and modernizing them to capable 1980s standards? As was going to be done with the battleships, the FRAMII Gearings could have their 5"/38 caliber mounts replaced with the 5"/54caliber twin gun mounts designed for the Montana-class battleships.

Perhaps we could even WHIF twin Mk45 Mod2 5"/54 mechnisms inside of the Montana-style 5"/54caliber gun houses to increase sustained rate of fire, reduce manning, and give the guns the advantage of loader drums.

Active and passive self defenses would not be that difficult to install. Since it would intentionally operating very close to the shore, a reliable amount of active close-in weapons would be paramount. Their DASH hangars could be used for storage, maintenance, and utilization of Pioneer RPVs and their associated launching and recovery gear.

Here is what I propose:

- SPS-40
- SPS-55
- SLQ-32
- SPQ-9A
- TAS-23
- retention of the Mk37 director
- 6x 5"/54caliber guns in twin mounts
- 2-3x Phalanx CIWS
- 2x Mk38 25mm gun
- 8x Harpoon
- ASROC launcher for SMARTROC

I am out to sea, and it has come to my attention that the Taiwanese have 2 Gearing-class DDs at sea right now. If the Taiwanese can keep these ships going for as long as they have...we could have used some during the 1980s for exactly this purpose.

What do you guys think? While most of the big funds were going to CVNs and the BB reactivations, would this fill a reasonable NSFS role?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
navydavesof wrote:
Hey everyone!
What about reactivating the FRAM II Gearing-class DDs and modernizing them to capable 1980s standards? As was going to be done with the battleships, the FRAMII Gearings could have their 5"/38 caliber mounts replaced with the 5"/54caliber twin gun mounts designed for the Montana-class battleships.

Perhaps we could even WHIF twin Mk45 Mod2 5"/54 mechnisms inside of the Montana-style 5"/54caliber gun houses to increase sustained rate of fire, reduce manning, and give the guns the advantage of loader drums.

Active and passive self defenses would not be that difficult to install. Since it would intentionally operating very close to the shore, a reliable amount of active close-in weapons would be paramount. Their DASH hangars could be used for storage, maintenance, and utilization of Pioneer RPVs and their associated launching and recovery gear.

Here is what I propose:

- SPS-40
- SPS-55
- SLQ-32
- SPQ-9A
- TAS-23
- retention of the Mk37 director
- 6x 5"/54caliber guns in twin mounts
- 2-3x Phalanx CIWS
- 2x Mk38 25mm gun
- 8x Harpoon
- ASROC launcher for SMARTROC


I think we know I would be onboard with this. The Mk65/66 was a proposed single/twin rapid fire version of the Mk 45, and I think that may be a likely fit here.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk65.htm

SMARTROC give a heavier hit when high accuracy single point delivery is needed.

An offshoot of this same concept I had been mentally working out was essentially a new-build Gearing hull, perhaps enlarged, but only slightly, replacing steam with LM-2500s and diesels in a CODAG arrangement - two engine rooms each with a turbine and a diesel. The turbine allows for quick reaction sprints, the diesels long range cruising, both can be quieted much better that the steam of the original design and require fewer personnel. Combined with the automated guns, the crew requirements should be significantly reduced.

I had two twin Mk66 (or two single Mk71), one forward, one aft (as in most FRAMs) with the B mount being a STANFLEX style modular fit - Sea Sparrow, Mk 75 76mm, or Harpoon + CIWS. Of course, nothing says those Harpoon canisters can't be SLAM-ER instead at the right time. The helo hangar/deck I had a few different ideas for - clearly the hangar/deck could be retained (but is not very large - SH-2 might be the limit of reasonable size), or another weapon module could go in. I was leaning to:

A) (General Purpose) Sea Sparrow (Mk 29) forward with the aft helo facilities replaced by another module with Harpoon/CIWS

B) (spec ops support) Sea Sparrow forward retaining aft helo facilities if I could get two MH6 or OH-58 on board, with CIWS on the roof of the Helo Hangar

C) (Gunfighter) MK 75 fwd and Harpoon/CIWS aft - for clearing out those pesky boghammars.

Two Twin Guns forward with an enlarged helo facility aft is also an option (similar to FRAM I group A with the helo hangar and deck 'slid' aft to make more room)- 2 twin Mk66 fwd, ASROC(SMARTROC) amidships, Helo hangar and deck for two MH-6/OH-58/Pioneer aft with CIWS/MK 29 on the roof with Mk38s along the sides.

Of course, your six gun (two twin mounts) layout would rain steel on whatever was foolish enough to exist within range of those guns and offend the vessel (like other vessels, re-purposed oil platforms, beachheads....).

Obviously, if the new build option is taken, the hull life allows for RAM and other items later.

There is also the option of a new-build hull with a weapons fit similar to Fletcher, with 4 Mk 45 (2 forward, 2 aft) and CIWS. Clearly what is above is better, but the simplicity of the 'Fletcher re-start' might make it a possibility, and may be a reasonable candidate for a 'surge vessel' which is in reserve commission most of the time and fully manned and called forward when needed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 7:23 pm
Posts: 49
Location: Texas USA
Never the one to take the bone between my teeth, was waiting here for someone else to take the lead in reply. Thank you, SumGui. Anything with 'destroyer' in the subject line gets my attention. This should be an interesting conceptual exercise, navydavesof. My learning curve should be straight up on this one as you guys educate this old ground pounding signalman in Navy ways.

Concerning the conceptual main armament, the 5" gun. In terms of NGFS (Naval Gun Fire Support - right?), perhaps this risks being overgunned in direct fire on the beach area of the LZ (Littoral Zone) and undergunned in the indirect fire inland of the coast?

A lot depends on, as I see it, two things: (1) mission definition, and (2) limits of nearshore and littoral operation. Here is my reference for terms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Littoral_Zones.jpg, as I'm new to all this.

You've defined nearshore operations as, "intentionally operating very close to the shore". I get that - within sight of and by shore. Back when attending Sergeant's Major Academy, defining the Littoral Zone always made for spirited discussion between the Army types (that be me), and the Navy types. At that time, Army defined it as up to 50mi deep from the beach. Navy types were less inclined to put a number to it. Pretty much 50-200mi being their rule of thumb. That's what pre-determined my query on over/under gunning with the 5". Caveat. Using a rail gun load in a 5", it theoretically could reach the full 50mi inland. That leads to the dilemma of either handing off the NGFS to organic Marine and/or Army artillery earlier, or up gunning from the conceptual 5"?

Be interesting reading how you knowledgeable folks develop a concept like this into a potential fighting package. By the way, I like find a use for the "old stuff".

_________________
Building IJN Harusame
Planning USS Hammann; IJN Okinoshima; HMS Esk
Wanting USS Ward


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
navydavesof wrote:
Hey everyone!

As a conceptual exercise, I have an idea I would like some input on. In the 1980s there were the Iowa-class battleships rolling around, but there was still a pretty significant NGFS gap left without any heavy cruisers or the Mk71 going into production. Any amphibious group going on deployment could have really benefitted from having a ship with multiple guns to provide NGFS.

The problem with the 5" has always been lack of lethality. That was compensated for by firing high volumes of fire. If I recall correctly (Busto can probably back this up or correct it) for a 5" gunfire mission to be effective, it has to land either 60 rounds in a minute or 20 inside of a 5 second period.

What about reactivating the FRAM II Gearing-class DDs and modernizing them to capable 1980s standards? As was going to be done with the battleships, the FRAMII Gearings could have their 5"/38 caliber mounts replaced with the 5"/54caliber twin gun mounts designed for the Montana-class battleships.

Perhaps we could even WHIF twin Mk45 Mod2 5"/54 mechnisms inside of the Montana-style 5"/54caliber gun houses to increase sustained rate of fire, reduce manning, and give the guns the advantage of loader drums.

Active and passive self defenses would not be that difficult to install. Since it would intentionally operating very close to the shore, a reliable amount of active close-in weapons would be paramount. Their DASH hangars could be used for storage, maintenance, and utilization of Pioneer RPVs and their associated launching and recovery gear.

Here is what I propose:

- SPS-40
- SPS-55
- SLQ-32
- SPQ-9A
- TAS-23
- retention of the Mk37 director
- 6x 5"/54caliber guns in twin mounts
- 2-3x Phalanx CIWS
- 2x Mk38 25mm gun
- 8x Harpoon
- ASROC launcher for SMARTROC

I am out to sea, and it has come to my attention that the Taiwanese have 2 Gearing-class DDs at sea right now. If the Taiwanese can keep these ships going for as long as they have...we could have used some during the 1980s for exactly this purpose.

What do you guys think? While most of the big funds were going to CVNs and the BB reactivations, would this fill a reasonable NSFS role?

I like the idea, but suggest the ship needs a counterbattery radar.

If I might step a little further out on the limb, rather than trying to create an new 5"/54 mount, consider two 5"/54 Mark 42 *and* a vertical version of your favorite 8" gun aft!

For shore bombardment, assume the gun will normally be firing at 30 to 50 degree elevation. If the gun were mounted almost like a giant 8" mortar, it would simplfy the loading system dramatically, lighten the mount, require much less deck strength and space, and allow for longer barrel length.

The Mark 42 could put out a serious amount of fire with a good gun crew and well maintained mount. I think two 5"/54 Mark 42 mounts more than equal an artillery battery for weight of fire. The biggest downside is manning, but in an NGFS dedicated ship, and in the early 1980s, I think that this could be justified.

GAB


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:12 pm
Posts: 392
love the idea found these photos of the real ship and a Vetran's 1/700 model...
It seems the Taiwanese navy has replaced the 5 inch with oto-76mm and added a ton of blot on weapons...
I know it's what dave had in mind but it is a good visual for sensor's and weapons they did add..
enjoy
-Major B :thumbs_up_1:


Attachments:
ddg927.gif
ddg927.gif [ 51.09 KiB | Viewed 1768 times ]
vet-12.jpg
vet-12.jpg [ 73.16 KiB | Viewed 1768 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
I always prefer new construction to rebuilds like this. Lets see: There were about 30 FRAM II still serviceable in the early 1970s. These ships are smaller than Perry and Knox class frigates. The best mission would probably be a specialist for the Gulf. Gearing are short ranged compared to post war designs, CF Adams, and Spruance class DD have much larger displacement and can absorb a lot more punishment than the ww2 hold overs can. Boilers would need a complete re-tube and I believe they would also going into the 70s and 80s have to be converted to burning Navy Distillate fuel from the older Navy Special. Berthing would need modernization as would food service, electronics. ASROC and Sea Sparrow would be a waste of displacement. Forward and aft 5"/38 replaced by 76mm Mk75 would be a plus. The Mk92 modification 1 fire control system would be the best system for the ship the two 76mm would be able to engage surface and air targets. An AN/SPS-49, and AN/SPS-55 as the air and surface search radars. Phalanx above the forward 76mm for anti-missile defense. Locations for 0.50 caliber machine guns would need to be considered. RAM would be available around 1982-1983. The Defense Department historically wasn't to interested in RAM for ships other than Amphibious vessels before the epic fails of Phalanx in the first gulf war and. ASW would be self-defense only. Taiwanese Gearing DD never had to deploy like a USN ship which made their lives fairly easy.

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Leave it to Seasick to disagree with the topic of a thread, answer a question that was not asked, come up with another topic and then end without addressing what the thread is about. :lol_spit_1:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
There are some great ideas presented! Thank you! Most would make for great consideration of new construction. I will be doing a thread and hopefully a build concerning a new S-Medium sized NSFS ship with perhaps 155mm guns in a Gearing arrangement on a Perry-sized hull.

The next level up, a Moderate sized NSFS ship could be built on a Spruance-sized hull (perhaps a little wider) with Atlanta-class armor arrangement could mount (indeed my favorite) multiple Mk71 MCLW guns and have a reasonable number of Mk41 VLS tubes.

I think Seasick's idea about using a small ship like the Gearing for an anti-small boat ship would be a pretty good use for surplus ships, especially since the Gearings were all converted from Bunker Oil to DFM in the 1960s when the whole fleet was converted. For a low-cost, moderate modernization like this proposed, all the Navy would have had to do is turn the ships back on and provide work the modernizations. While still not a very expensive proposition, the most expensive would likely be the 5" rebuild making them 54 caliber guns.

Seasick's idea of the Mk92 radar of the Perry-class FFGs is interesting. However, as the Spruances used them, the SPQ-9A and TAS-23 can act in conjunction as a counter battery radar. The SPS-40 could provide the long range coverage with the SPQ-9A and TAS-23 providing everything out to the horizon. Since the ship would be operating within 5" range of the coast, it would need to be able to detect, acquire, and track ASCMs approaching from the coast and provide counter-battery fire if directly attacked or to support troops in contact.

To the topic of the thread, considering that at the time, unless you had a battleship around, your NGFS capability was limited to 2 Mk45 5" guns per ship, a Gearing would be able to provide the volume of fire necessary to make the 5" projectiles effective, especially if they were bumped up to 5"/54 caliber guns.

Either the stern or the DASH landing pad would be a good VERTREP spot while probably not large enough to regularly operate SH-60s. It would be plenty big enough to launch and recover Pioneer RPVs and store them in the hangar.

While playing the What-If game, if the Dead-eye had been fielded, the little Gearing could reach over 30 miles inland with laser guided precision.

The new build options are pretty interesting, though! Thanks! Let's keep the discussion going! :big_grin:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
Quote:
The new build options are pretty interesting, though! Thanks! Let's keep the discussion going! :big_grin:


For new build, could you fit 3 to 4 Mark 45 on a Burke IIA hull? I'm thinking ditch AEGIS and carry a radar capable of guiding ESSM, plus whatever surface search and counter battery is needed. Also carry two Strales variant OTO Melara 76mm for combined point missile and anti swarm defense, plus M242 turrets and a RAM launcher. I would guess you would have to lose one of the Mk 41s and change from carrying MH-60s to UAVs for targeting. With a guided 5 inch projectile, DART and Vulcano for the 76mm and some form of quad pack land attack missile, it could be quite the fire support ship. By using an existing hull you could cut the logistic and maintenance costs and eliminating AEGIS is a pretty substantial savings. Any thoughts?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
jasonfreeland wrote:
Quote:
The new build options are pretty interesting, though! Thanks! Let's keep the discussion going! :big_grin:


For new build, could you fit 3 to 4 Mark 45 on a Burke IIA hull? I'm thinking ditch AEGIS and carry a radar capable of guiding ESSM, plus whatever surface search and counter battery is needed. Also carry two Strales variant OTO Melara 76mm for combined point missile and anti swarm defense, plus M242 turrets and a RAM launcher. I would guess you would have to lose one of the Mk 41s and change from carrying MH-60s to UAVs for targeting. With a guided 5 inch projectile, DART and Vulcano for the 76mm and some form of quad pack land attack missile, it could be quite the fire support ship. By using an existing hull you could cut the logistic and maintenance costs and eliminating AEGIS is a pretty substantial savings. Any thoughts?

That is a lot of stuff to put on a hull that is aleady cramped! :big_grin: Where would you put the 2-3 extra 5" guns and the 76mm guns? If you can describe where they would go we can better imagine your configuration. Also, if you are going to use a hull as robust as the DDG-51 Flight IIAs, why stay with the 5" gun instead of going up to an established gun like the Mk71?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3454
To throw some cold water on your original concept, I think that is TOO MUCH stuff on a GEARING hull. After going through the 1950s BuShip files for the existing and then fairly "new" destroyers leftover from WWII, ALL of the FLETCHERs, SUMNERs, and GEARINGs were found to be too cramped for modern missions. The USN was constantly trying to find space for the crew after adding new equipment. Part of the reason the FRAM I program retained only two twin 5-in/38cal mounts was to save weight, the need to fit new electronics, and the need for the DASH helo pad and hangar. By 1980 the GEARING hulls would have been 35 years old. Structural issue would start to be a major concern. The USN re-skinned (replaced hull plating) about every five years on the FLETCHERs. Frankly I didn't know that Taiwan was still using GEARINGs. IF, your concept was given the go ahead, at most only two 5-in mounts (not even sure they would be twin if replacing the 5-in/38cal with newer mounts) and the additional ammo could be fitted in along with a couple of smaller size guns. The helo facilities would have to go completely. Also, assuming little to no ASW capability.

Taiwan equipped their destroyer sized ships with more stuff than the USN because they operated close - very close - to their operating bases and didn't need to operate on long-range operations where crew comfort and things like keeping spares and ammo for ALL those weapons needed to be factored in.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Here are the items I imagine would be necessary for this.

- Dragon 1/350 Gearing-class DD
- Veteran Models Phalanx CIWS, Harpoon, ASROC, ECM/Chatt, and Small Boat sets
- Left over SPS-40 and 55 from a Modern Warship GMM fret
- Left over Evergreen sheet for the enlarged amidships deck, flight deck, FRAM hangar, and some to enclose the bridge.
- Lengthen the 5"/38caliber gun mounts to accommodate the 54 caliber guns. Maybe make one good master and cast a set? :thinking:

In theory, everything else should be out of the box.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
Quote:
That is a lot of stuff to put on a hull that is aleady cramped! :big_grin: Where would you put the 2-3 extra 5" guns and the 76mm guns? If you can describe where they would go we can better imagine your configuration. Also, if you are going to use a hull as robust as the DDG-51 Flight IIAs, why stay with the 5" gun instead of going up to an established gun like the Mk71?


Basically I'm imagining a completely different superstructure with just the Burke hull. I'm also trying to go with in production or close to production technology. I know from reading that you love the Mk71, but it would take a new production line. The guns would be in a Spruance/Ticonderoga configuration with an additional one or two superfiring 5" guns. The 76mm would be amid ships port and starboard since I think they just wouldn't fit anywhere else. While I would love to see 8 inch guns come back, I just don't think it's going to happen with current budgets. What I've described would be cheaper than a regular Burke and stands a chance of being built.

Edit: I'm far from a naval architect by the way. I have a pretty good basic understanding of the technology, but zero practical experience with its use.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Rick E Davis wrote:
To throw some cold water on your original concept, I think that is TOO MUCH stuff on a GEARING hull.
Ah!!! That's cold water, Rick! Thanks for the input.

The Harpoons are a heavy addition, and the SLQ-32s and CIWS would all be new weights added to the ship. Perhaps could a short mast similar to that on the Ticos replace the pagoda-type mast atop the DASH hangar to hold the SPQ-9A and/or TAS-23?

The Harpoons may need to be a 1 for 1 swap with the ASROC/SMARTROC launcher. In theory, of course. The least I can do is mae a model that looks like it might have been workable. :big_grin:

Concerning the re-skinns, Rick, how well did the STS amidships do on the Gearings? In nearly every photo I have seen, it appears to be smooth and in good condition. Did the Fletchers not have STS amidships?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3454
I have noticed quite a few photos over the years of the WWII-built destroyers (FLETCHER-SUMNER-GEARING classes) during the 1950s with oil-canning on the hull plating in one photo and then smooth plating in a photo taken sometime afterwards which really puzzled me. After I found that there was a standard ShipAlt to replace hull plating ... actually different ones for different parts of the ship ... it started to make sense. I know that the USN replaced hull plating on FLETCHERs and have to assume they did the same on the SUMNER-GEARING class units as well since their design is based on FLETCHERs. Also, most oil-canning is at the bow and stern, but midships takes a beating in bending stresses (bending stress was worse on the SUMNER and GEARING classes because of more weight forward). They replaced plating when cracks appeared (sometimes you can see where a crack is allowing fuel oil to leak) or the steel got too thin (the museum ships CASSIN YOUNG and TEXAS and LAFFEY and OLYMPIA and others, have all had this problem because they didn't get drydocking for below waterline overhauls/painting).

If you are purposing your concept to be strictly a "Fire-Support" ship, do you really need an Anti-Ship missile like Harpoon? Does your concept have to be "alone and able to defend itself" or will there be help near-by? Need any ASW? Besides the weight and space required for Harpoon, you would need the fire control equipment to go with it. Any real concept weapon system is a whole series of trade-offs. First establish what the "Needs" are, then work on "Requirements" to meet them, then look at solutions best able to meet them (off-the-shelf or new development ... I assume since this was assumed to be an Interim solution using overage destroyers, that equipment has to be "off-the-shelf"), and finally figure out if everything can fit. If not, what has priority. Another factor is what are the demands for the crew and how long do they need to remain on station. Every weapons platform also has requirements to be part of "the Team" by having the same communications equipment everyone else does.

Remember that during the Vietnam war that the USN retained several overaged FLETCHERs scheduled for retirement, strictly for patrol and fire support missions off Vietnam ... without any "special" new equipment. Actually, these destroyers were pretty stripped down as it was.

This is a What-If, so there is no correct/right answer. Play with it. But, if you want to understand how DoD services come up with the the rational for and actual design of weapons systems (true for air, land, or sea), going through at least part of the process helps in learning. What really messes up a new weapon acquisition, is constantly changing requirements or selecting solutions that need more development than the schedule can tolerate or worse yet need a system that requires "new inventions" to work. :big_grin: So, keep it as simple as possible to be a quick solution.

Oh and something I was going to point out, in 1980 there were exactly 19 GEARINGS ... two CARPENTER class FRAM I (one twin 5-in mount) and seventeen FRAM I units (two twin 5-in mounts) ... left in the USN all assigned to NRT. In 1981 this number was down to fifteen units. The rest were either stricken and/or transferred to foreign navies, none kept in mothballs. This would be your "available pool" of hulls. The FRAM II's went much earlier. (Check out 1980/81 editions of COMBAT SHIPS and The SHIPS and AIRCRAFT of the US FLEET for names/hull numbers)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Rick E Davis wrote:
...left in the USN all assigned to NRT. In 1981 this number was down to fifteen units. The rest were either stricken and/or transferred to foreign navies, none kept in mothballs. This would be your "available pool" of hulls. The FRAM II's went much earlier. (Check out 1980/81 editions of COMBAT SHIPS and The SHIPS and AIRCRAFT of the US FLEET for names/hull numbers)
Thank you very much for that input. Indeed learning the hows and whys of modifications and especially naval engineering are really fun to learn about. The research necessary for most of my indepth WHIFs has taken me down all kinds of paths of naval engineering with CG being the most important. I have not gone so deep into that in this project :big_grin: .

I remember reading that the amidships plating on the Gearings was 50# STS which equates to 1/2" HY-110. It's probably there for structrual strength. I don't think I have seen any pictures of that area oil-canning on them. Please correct me if I am wrong. The reskinning of the bow and stern makes perfect sense. Our modern DDGs are experiencing similar and more extreme structural problems.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
Why use AN/SPS-40? In the 1980s it was out of production. The AN/SPS-49(v)4 has better range and better resolution.

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3454
Why not use what is already on the ship? Does the ship need the top of the line radar for only a few years of service in a more limited role? The FRAM I destroyers got a "top-of-the-line" radar/ECM suite in the 1960s and were still functional. Depending on the individual destroyer, they had air search SPS-29 or SPS-37 or SPS-40 (for fleet-wide diversity) along with the long served surface search SPS-10. Pretty much the same radars used on the SHERMAN and CHARLES F ADAMS classes in the 1980s.

Again, what are the requirements, not what is the best wiz-bang toys can we throw on it. Concentrate on a SLEP process for the hull and machinery and enhanced equipment for the Fire Support mission. A lot of upgrade projects for units in the 1970s got terminated when the costs went too high to justify the expense.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Rick E Davis wrote:
Again, what are the requirements, not what is the best wiz-bang toys can we throw on it. Concentrate on a SLEP process for the hull and machinery and enhanced equipment for the Fire Support mission. A lot of upgrade projects for units in the 1970s got terminated when the costs went too high to justify the expense.


Sorry, the limited time I have ont he computers here at sea limits how much I type.

An elaboration of the Mission and Requirements are:

Missions:
Overall: Interoperability with an ARG to provide NGFS to troops ashore and light-medium pre-landing bombardment and medium range missile strikes.

1) Naval GunFire Support
2) Naval Gun Strikes
3) Medium Range Missile Strike
4) ASuW

So, let me ask you, would the following features be too much for use, or would they be borderlining the possibilities? For consideration:

Capabilities
1) NGFS, specifically the abilities to resond to calls for fire both direct and indirect fire. In direct fire would be per what the requesting troop is calling and correcting, and direct fire would be spotting with own ship's RPV.
2) Naval Gun Strike, performed with extended range laser guided Deadeye 5" round.
3) Self defense/group defense ASuW. The group defense would be combined with the ARG's AAW/ASW escort. (Harpoons could replace the ASROC launcher, maybe and equal weight swap)
4) Missile Strike, performed with Harpoon in GPS guidance.
5) Self Defense ECM gear (swap with early ECM gear. Slight weight increase with the SLQ-32?)
6) Explotation of existing radars (SPS-40, SPS-55 no additional weight)
7) Pioneer or other RPV launch, storage, and recovery (little added weight)
8 ) Interoperability with ARG
    i.e. UNREP, communications, Link 16,
(any added weight?)
9) Quick reaction CIWS self defense (less weight than the wing 3"/50s?)
10) VERTREP (no weight)

I guess the deal here would be only two 5" mounts like you suggested earlier. I always really appreciate your input, Rick. Thanks!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11303
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
Do you expect a Gearing that's been deployed and worked as hard as most US combatants to still be seaworthy by the last 5 years or so, when GPS-guided Harpoons were first introduced? Maybe if the ships were used only as infrequently for local operations as the Taiwanese, but I don't see a globally-deployed vessel to last long enough to make it to 2011 and the Block II Harpoons.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group