The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Wed Nov 25, 2020 10:52 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
Dave, here's some weights to help with the ideas.

Missiles:
Mk-16 ASROC "Pepper Box" = 23.9 tons

Mk-141 Mod 1 Harpoon (4 tubes) = 6.5 tons (Fleet use)
Mk-140 Mod 0 Harpoon (4 tubes) = 3.5 tons (Lightweight versions, found on PHMs)

Guns:
Mk-15 Phalanx (Early models) = 6.25 tons
Mk-15 Phalanx (Later models) = 6.8 tons

Mk-27 3"/50 Twin = 15.7 tons (Early model)
Mk-33 3"/50 Twin = 16.2 tons (Later, improved model)

Mk-38 5"/38 Twin (Enclosed, base ring) = 47.85 tons (0.5" STS)
Mk-16 5"/54 Single = 33 tons

BTW, you don't need to bother with SPS-55 unless you want to spend $$$. All of them already had SPS-10/67 and given the limited remaining life in these things, those would be just fine.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3451
Dave,

None of the FRAM I or II GEARINGS retained the 3-in/50cal mounts after the upgrade. So if you desire to add 3-in guns, that would be extra weight. In that case "newer" versions maybe a better option. Not sure what 3-in guns were "off-the-shelf" in 1981, but the Mk 75 (OTO) 76-mm gun would be a likely choice. At most, mounting say two Mk 75 on the centerline would be the preferred option for gunfire support. But, if you are worried about Anti-Ship missiles, like Silkworm, maybe no or only one 3-in guns, with one CIWS.

Were there operational Recon RPV drones in 1980-81? I still think deleting or cutting down the DASH helo hangar, if it can't be used for other purposes (crew spaces, repair shops, etc?), is an option so the space can be freed for other purposes.

It is easy to go over weight and over the crew size that can be accommodated on these old hulls.

Think of an INTERIM capability until something newer can be built or converted, only fill a "gap" for five-ten years. The GEARINGs would need to be modified quickly to be useful out to say 1990. Most of what is onboard the GEARING FRAM I is still useful and maintainable, so think what can go and what can be plugged in without a development program or too serious modification effort. Not as sexy, but makes the exercise more interesting and a teaching effort on why this stuff wasn't done.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 7:23 pm
Posts: 49
Location: Texas USA
navydavesof wrote:

An elaboration of the Mission and Requirements are:

Missions:
Overall: . . . and medium range missile strikes.

3) Medium Range Missile Strike

Capabilities

4) Missile Strike, performed with Harpoon in GPS guidance.
7) Pioneer or other RPV launch, storage, and recovery (little added weight)


Thinking I'd drop item 3) from Mission, and items 4) and 7) from Capabilities, above. To my thinking, missile strikes fall out of the zone of direct and indirect fire support. And boots-on-the -ground in the manner of a forward fire support observer better serve the fluid situation of immediate fire support to ground units than RPV. Use the weight saved to pack on more ammo for the fire support mission.

As fortune would have it, stopped by my favorite used book store yesterday and picked up a copy or Becton's 'The Ship That Would Not Die'. USS Laffey (The second one in WWII - Sumner Class DD724). Good fire support description from Normandy/D Day 1944, as well as coordinated USN in support of US Army VII Corps, Cherbourg, against German fixed and hardened shore batteries. Gives me a better understanding of the type ship you are talking to here. Good buy for $3, and timely as well.

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


Last edited by sea mule on Sun Feb 02, 2014 9:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 9:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2749
i shortened a dragon gearing class destroyer to a sumner class destroyer USS Laffey of ww2 time period, not the modernized version of her.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Rick,

I may have miscommunicated. It is not my desire to add 3" guns but to instead say that I plan to hae Phalanx CIWS in place of the bridge wing 40mm/3-inch platforms.

The way the CIWS would be driven is that the SPS-40, SPQ-9A, and the TAS-23 would be wrapped up together into one display by the SYS-2 integration system for CIC. That way, the system can react faster to threats emerging from the shore.


Rick E Davis wrote:
Were there operational Recon RPV drones in 1980-81?
Not just yet. The first one was deployed aboard Iowa in 1984, so their testing stretched back maybe a year or so.

Quote:
I still think deleting or cutting down the DASH helo hangar, if it can't be used for other purposes (crew spaces, repair shops, etc?), is an option so the space can be freed for other purposes.
Saying that the Pioneer RPVs were used, I certainly think the DASH hangar would be essential for repair, prep, and storage for the RPVs (mid to late '80s).

Quote:
It is easy to go over weight and over the crew size that can be accommodated on these old hulls.
It's hard with a zero-sum game like a ship hull, that's for sure.

Quote:
Think of an INTERIM capability until something newer can be built or converted, only fill a "gap" for five-ten years. The GEARINGs would need to be modified quickly to be useful out to say 1990. Most of what is onboard the GEARING FRAM I is still useful and maintainable, so think what can go and what can be plugged in without a development program or too serious modification effort. Not as sexy, but makes the exercise more interesting and a teaching effort on why this stuff wasn't done.
Indeed. Thanks very much for your input!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Timmy C wrote:
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.

Great input, thanks!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 9:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
When considering an introspective Navy with a solid funding line, I believe the Navy would go ahead with trying their Littoral Combat Ship theory with 2 or so ships stored in the mothball fleet. For instance, they could have pulled 2 FRAM II Gearing class DDs and fully modernized them to meet the mission areas. This would include the replacement of the twin 5"/38caliber guns with Mk42 5"/54s from decommissioned DLGs and CGs, installation of the Mk160 Mod1 GFCs, SPQ9A, RPVs, etc as described below:

Weapons:
2x Mk42 5"/54caliber guns in place of Mts 51 and 3.
1x 76mm gun in place of Mt52.
8x Harpoons amidships forward
8x ASROC/ROCGP 750lb laser guide bombs
2x Mk32 SVTT
2-3 CIWS

ECM:
SLQ-32
SRBOC

Radar:
SPS-49
SPS-10/55
TPQ-37 counter battery radar
The hangar would be englarged along the portside of the aft stack to accommodate a single SH-60 and several Pioneer RPVs.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 9:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Back in the day there were at least 10 FRAM II Gearing DDs left in the mothball Fleet. They would have worked great.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 6:30 pm
Posts: 3
I happen to be building one of these now in 1/144 scale...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2018 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 6:30 pm
Posts: 3
I have been building something similar in 1/144 scale. This is my test model; the next one will be in 1/96 scale. It would have been neat if the Gearing's would have been brought back along with the Iowa's in the 80s.


Attachments:
screenshot2.png
screenshot2.png [ 232.17 KiB | Viewed 760 times ]
File comment: Harpoon, CIWS, Sea Sparrow, SH-60 plus model radar.
screenshot.png
screenshot.png [ 387.8 KiB | Viewed 760 times ]
File comment: CIWS and SH-60.
screenshot3.png
screenshot3.png [ 218.93 KiB | Viewed 760 times ]


Last edited by DJB on Sat May 26, 2018 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2018 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
DJB,

Fascinating model! My version will be a bit different. I see you have a very large platform built up for the CIWS similar to that on the Iowas. The arrangement confuses me a little. What would the mission of this ship be?

What reaches out to me initially is the CIWS platform. I don't understand why to place them there or why to build such a big platform. The next is the Harpoon arrangement. Harpoons belong between the stacks and not ahead of the bridge. I agree with your idea of the SPS-49. That is a risky position, but because the Gyatt embarked it, it think it's a good idea!

I will not be embarking Sea Sparrow, instead I will be retaining the aft 5" position, with a Mk42 mount. Mk42 5"/54caliber and one Mk75 76mm gun is an excellent arrangement for surface warfare. The ASROC launcher could also be fitted with 750lb laser guided bombs propelled by an ASROC motor our to 15nm.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2018 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 6:30 pm
Posts: 3
@navydavesof, my concept is a multi-mission platform. The reason for the Harpoons forward is that the ASROC launcher would have the ability to fire Standard ARMs as well as ASROC similar to how a few of the Knox class were upgraded in the late 70s' before they were switched to Harpoon/ASROC. My other reason for the Harpoon placement is the placement on the Coronado LCS (I know not the best example:), but aft was taken by the MK-29, and the top of the hanger was taken by the countermeasures and ECM). I almost switched the Mk-29 and the Harpoon positions, but finally decided on keeping the MK-29 aft to improve flight operations and reduce flight deck limitations.

The large platforms for the CIWS was to get the guns higher so that they had more open range without hitting anything near by (such as the boat, or antennas). Additionally the raised platforms were enclosed giving space for additional reloads of ASROCs or Standard missiles (gives the ship a little more teeth). As for the SPS-49, yeah with the other improvements it would only make sense to upgrade the radar as well (I also included upgraded communications as well). If it wouldn't make her to heavy I would have added the SPS-48 as well, to give her the extra capabilities that adds since she is a bit of a "light" DDG having the Standard capabilities.

I know all the improvements would not be considered cost effective given the age of the Gearing's at the time, but that is the fun of "What-If" modeling. However, given the life many of the Gearing's had in other navies (when given further modernizations) the cost might have been worth it compared to new builds for lesser roles such as frigates.

I cannot wait to see your build, the MK 42 should make for a nice looking ship.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2018 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
I had posted on SMARTROC before - a Paveway boosted by an ASROC rocket motor.

First version only went about 5nm (same as ASROC), but a second version with a customized booster hit 24000yd (12nm)

That was throwing a Mk 82, or 500lb, bomb.

CEP was 20ft, same as Paveway of the time.

Tests on the second version were 1975-78.

Ref: Sumrall, Sumner-Gearing Class Destroyers, 1995 Naval Institute press, pg 142.

This book also has data on the SOB program - Shrike On Board - where four Shrike Anti-Radar missiles were placed above the ASROC launcher for dealing with radars when on the gunline...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 5:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Cliffy,

Thanks for the weights!
Cliffy B wrote:
Missiles:
Mk-16 ASROC "Pepper Box" = 23.9 tons

Mk-141 Mod 1 Harpoon (4 tubes) = 6.5 tons (Fleet use)
Mk-140 Mod 0 Harpoon (4 tubes) = 3.5 tons (Lightweight versions, found on PHMs)

Guns:
Mk-15 Phalanx (Early models) = 6.25 tons
Mk-15 Phalanx (Later models) = 6.8 tons

Mk-38 5"/38 Twin (Enclosed, base ring) = 47.85 tons (0.5" STS)
Mk-16 5"/54 Single = 33 tons
And we will add Mk42.
Mk42 Mod9 and 10: 64 tons

The 64 tones makes sense, because it's twice the gun of the Mk45 and an automated version of the Mk38 with feeding hoists into a single barrel.

My current quandry is if we should add Harpoon to the amidships as opposed to swapping out the ASROC launcher with Harpoons. ASROC could still be loaded with the carts necessary to load the rockets with Harpoons amidships with the ASROC launcher where it is. Instead it's a weight issue. To me, the eight cells of the ASROC launcher would have four ASROC and four SMART-ROC. The SMART-ROC is excellent for any target within 12nm; ships or land targets.

So....
2x Mk42 5"54/62caliber guns
8x Harpoon
4x ASROC/4x SMARTROC
2x 3 tube Mk32 tube lightweight torpedo tubes
1x Mk75 76mm gun
2-3x Phalanx CIWS
2x Mk38 Mod1 25mm chain gun
LOTS of CSW .50caliber and 7.62mm
SLQ-32
SRBOC Chaff
SPS-49(v)1A long range
SPS-55 surface search
SPQ-9A gunfire control
TAS-23 target aquisition
TPQ-53 counter battery
some SONAR (perhaps a Perry SONAR?)

We are getting places. GET SOME!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 5:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
DJB wrote:
@navydavesof, my concept is a multi-mission platform.
You and me both, bro!

DJB wrote:
The reason for the Harpoons forward is that the ASROC launcher would have the ability to fire Standard ARMs as well as ASROC similar to how a few of the Knox class were upgraded in the late 70s' before they were switched to Harpoon/ASROC. My other reason for the Harpoon placement is the placement on the Coronado LCS (I know not the best example:),
Indeed, your admission is correct. It's a bad spot. BUT...with the Standards, could they actually be fired from an ASROC launcher? I thought it was limited to ASROC bodies and Harpoons! Also, why would you want to try to make this ship type an area AAW ship instead of an ASW or ASuW ship?

DJB wrote:
...aft was taken by the MK-29, and the top of the hanger was taken by the countermeasures and ECM). I almost switched the Mk-29 and the Harpoon positions, but finally decided on keeping the MK-29 aft to improve flight operations and reduce flight deck limitations.
To me Sea Sparrow is a no-go no matter the era. If we're talking "modern" modern, then I would put a RAM launcher atop the helo hangar and keep the CIWS P/S of the forward super structure.

DJB wrote:
The large platforms for the CIWS was to get the guns higher so that they had more open range...
The 2-3 deck tall Iowa-type structure is unnecessary for that mission. A simple deck extension for the CIWS to sit on would be best. I have my CIWS on the forward super structure instead of the aft. I have left the aft for ECM.

DJB wrote:
As for the SPS-49, yeah with the other improvements it would only make sense to upgrade the radar as well (I also included upgraded communications as well). If it wouldn't make her to heavy I would have added the SPS-48 as well, to give her the extra capabilities that adds since she is a bit of a "light" DDG having the Standard capabilities.
Hey, the 48 is a shockingly good radar. Currently, WDS are behind the SPS-48's capabilities. The radar is phenomenal, ie why the now Taiwanese Kidd-class DDGs (upgraded with Mk99 Aegis target acquisition hardware) out perform our Baseline 9 Aegis ships in targets under 100,000ft. That is also why the Taiwanese are considering sending the Kidds back to the US to have them upgraded with 128 Mk41 VLS, SPQ9B, and Mk45Mod4 and have the SLEP planned for them in the late 1990s performed in order to add between 20 and 25 years to their lives.

DJB wrote:
I know all the improvements would not be considered cost effective given the age of the Gearing's at the time, but that is the fun of "What-If" modeling.
I agree!

DJB wrote:
However, given the life many of the Gearing's had in other navies (when given further modernizations) the cost might have been worth it compared to new builds for lesser roles such as frigates.
Indeed. It was too bad that while the last 6-10 Forrest Sherman-class DDs in mothballs were considered for reactivation and massive modernization in the role of NGFS were instead not reactivated. Perhaps that should be a project for another time! A Forrest Sherman with 2-3 Mk42s, 2 CIWS, SPS-49, SPQ-9A, SLQ-32, Chaff, perhaps a 76mm in place of 1 Mk42, and a modern paint job...fascinating! The SLEPs could have added up to twice their predicted lives. :scratch:

DJB wrote:
I cannot wait to see your build, the MK 42 should make for a nice looking ship.
Thanks, man! I have things set with rubber cement at the moment to visualize before I find my compressor in my house hold goods somewhere and begin laying paint.

:woo_hoo:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
navydavesof wrote:
DJB wrote:
@navydavesof, my concept is a multi-mission platform.
You and me both, bro!

DJB wrote:
The reason for the Harpoons forward is that the ASROC launcher would have the ability to fire Standard ARMs as well as ASROC similar to how a few of the Knox class were upgraded in the late 70s' before they were switched to Harpoon/ASROC. My other reason for the Harpoon placement is the placement on the Coronado LCS (I know not the best example:),
Indeed, your admission is correct. It's a bad spot. BUT...with the Standards, could they actually be fired from an ASROC launcher? I thought it was limited to ASROC bodies and Harpoons! Also, why would you want to try to make this ship type an area AAW ship instead of an ASW or ASuW ship?

DJB wrote:
...aft was taken by the MK-29, and the top of the hanger was taken by the countermeasures and ECM). I almost switched the Mk-29 and the Harpoon positions, but finally decided on keeping the MK-29 aft to improve flight operations and reduce flight deck limitations.
To me Sea Sparrow is a no-go no matter the era. If we're talking "modern" modern, then I would put a RAM launcher atop the helo hangar and keep the CIWS P/S of the forward super structure.

DJB wrote:
The large platforms for the CIWS was to get the guns higher so that they had more open range...
The 2-3 deck tall Iowa-type structure is unnecessary for that mission. A simple deck extension for the CIWS to sit on would be best. I have my CIWS on the forward super structure instead of the aft. I have left the aft for ECM.

DJB wrote:
As for the SPS-49, yeah with the other improvements it would only make sense to upgrade the radar as well (I also included upgraded communications as well). If it wouldn't make her to heavy I would have added the SPS-48 as well, to give her the extra capabilities that adds since she is a bit of a "light" DDG having the Standard capabilities.
Hey, the 48 is a shockingly good radar. Currently, WDS are behind the SPS-48's capabilities. The radar is phenomenal, ie why the now Taiwanese Kidd-class DDGs (upgraded with Mk99 Aegis target acquisition hardware) out perform our Baseline 9 Aegis ships in targets under 100,000ft. That is also why the Taiwanese are considering sending the Kidds back to the US to have them upgraded with 128 Mk41 VLS, SPQ9B, and Mk45Mod4 and have the SLEP planned for them in the late 1990s performed in order to add between 20 and 25 years to their lives.

DJB wrote:
I know all the improvements would not be considered cost effective given the age of the Gearing's at the time, but that is the fun of "What-If" modeling.
I agree!

DJB wrote:
However, given the life many of the Gearing's had in other navies (when given further modernizations) the cost might have been worth it compared to new builds for lesser roles such as frigates.
Indeed. It was too bad that while the last 6-10 Forrest Sherman-class DDs in mothballs were considered for reactivation and massive modernization in the role of NGFS were instead not reactivated. Perhaps that should be a project for another time! A Forrest Sherman with 2-3 Mk42s, 2 CIWS, SPS-49, SPQ-9A, SLQ-32, Chaff, perhaps a 76mm in place of 1 Mk42, and a modern paint job...fascinating! The SLEPs could have added up to twice their predicted lives. :scratch:

DJB wrote:
I cannot wait to see your build, the MK 42 should make for a nice looking ship.
Thanks, man! I have things set with rubber cement at the moment to visualize before I find my compressor in my house hold goods somewhere and begin laying paint.

:woo_hoo:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
A follow-on might be an Adams class with the Mk-13 replaced.....lots of weight to add something fun there. Already had two MK42, ASROC...and we can look to the German hulls for FC mods.

Forrest Sherman's would make a good baseline for close NGFS, easy to place a 76mm Oto forward where the 3"/50 twin was originally. Aft as well if you like

I realize it is non-US, but we did already have a Gun deal with Oto Melara for their 76mm, so....The Italian Compatto 127mm/54 (Audace, De La Penne, Mastrele, Lupo classes) had a weight of only 42 tons empty, and had a 40 rpm rate and the ability to use US 5" rounds.

Considering the 127/38 Twin the Gearings have weigh, this might make the higher rate of fire possible on less weight instead of adding 20 tons on each end by moving up to the Mk 42.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_5-54_LW.php


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Interesting for sure! The n the effort to make a 600 ship fleet while enlarging the NGFS capability, Rearmed Gearings and reactivation and uparmed Adams class DDGs would be great. I imagine that CONEX box enclosures for RPVs/UAVs on either side of the aft 5” gun leading to a fantail launch/recovery point would be pretty good.

A Charles armed with the NTU would give excellent counter battery fire
While being able to calculate counter battery fire and begin the fire mission.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


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

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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