What-If modernized Spruance-class DDG

[navydavesof]

Progression!

It took forever to make that little deck house the aft mast is sitting on. I kept trying to incorporate some of the kit pieces into the deck house, and all that did was cause problems, so I got a new blade and cut it all off!..and did it again.

I have been recommended to use Tamiya acrylics. I have always been an enamel guy, but the thing I really dislike abut enamels is that you have to wait...and wait...and wait until the paint is dry to start work on the next part. When I am painting these ships, I am going to need to do several coats in a day.

How have some of your experiences panned out between enamels and acrylics?

Later, guys!

[Sauragnmon]

She's looking good now, Dave. What're you going to do with the position where the Sea Sparrow director once stood? RAM position? SPG-51?

I personally find I Like acrylics over Enamels. Sure, the coat is not as strong initially as with enamels, but over plastic it tends to be a rather durable coat if you let it cure after it's dried, which it does rather quickly. Cleanup is also much easier in general. I personally use Vallejo acrylics, and I find them quite nice to work with, especially because of their two-stage curing nature - I do canopies on my 1/72 aircraft without masking, and then once it's dried, I take a metal pin and gently scratch back the paint to clean up the lines. But that's just my opinion on the matter.

[navydavesof]

She's looking good now, Dave. What're you going to do with the position where the Sea Sparrow director once stood? RAM position? SPG-51?

Hey, buddy. Good to hear from you again. What a great question. What to do with the former Sea Sparrow director. I have replaced it with a RAM launcher. My Phalanx/RAM mix is going to be a cornered arrangement. The Phalanx will be in their original places. The aft mount will not, however, be raised, because it will be in the way of the aft SPG-51's fieled. As a result, it will still have the chair it sits in but just down on the deck level.

I am still pondering where the NULKA will go. I am wondering about doing a staggered arrangement with that too, one set of SRBOC and NULKA port forward on the structure, and the second staboard amidshisp (just forward of the SLAM cannisters).

By the way, like I posted earlier, it turns out the Spruances were designed with a "massive weight margin" so I will say four quad SLAM launchers is called for, maxing it out.

I have decided after reading in N.P. US Destroyers, Amphibious Ships and Craft, NAVSEA, and CAPT Potter that 32-cells foward and 64-cell aft is correct. The 32 forward will be for a MAXIMUM of 32 TLAMS and 64 SM-2s aft in the short tubes CAPT Potter described...maybe deep cells are possible, but one way or the other, the weight dictates a max of 32 TLAMs so the rest are SMs.

Blue hull, with a duck tail/hydrodynamic wedge.
Thanks for the comments.

[GTDEATH13]

Impressive work to say the least...

I think that the US navy was quite wrong about decomissioning the spucans... A trusty hull with lots of potential for modernisation and exploitation in various forms of weapons platform (ASW, AAW, land attack ship, fleet escort, patrol ship and special forces support ship)

Keep up posting..

Are you going to make any other variant?

[navydavesof]

Impressive work to say the least...

Thanks. The mast I made went to waste, so I salavaged one off the Kidd I bought a while ago. Since I am making a modernized Spruance, that is the model I started with, and I built on top of that. I assume the aft director housing would be same, so I thought it a safe bet to use the one off the Kidd.

Keep up posting..

Are you going to make any other variant?

I would investigate the DDH that the Hayler was supposed to be. Preparing for BUD/s like I don't have the time these days. Completing the ones I have started is going to be hard enough. I appreciate the kind words!

[Sauragnmon]

Agreed, Nikos - the Spruances are one of the few Good "design to cost" era ships out there. Certainly not so much for the Perries, though few have truely gone into the depths that those boats could potentially be upgraded with.

I agree the cornered arrangement for Nulka/SRBOC might best serve the principle. You could also set them either side of the deck house up top possibly.

[navydavesof]

Agreed, Nikos - the Spruances are one of the few Good "design to cost" era ships out there. Certainly not so much for the Perries, though few have truely gone into the depths that those boats could potentially be upgraded with.

Indeed, we few stand alone.

I agree the cornered arrangement for Nulka/SRBOC might best serve the principle. You could also set them either side of the deck house up top possibly.

Cool. Veteran Model provided SRBOC will work nicely, and I don't think it'll be too hard to fabricate some NULKA lauchers. I will have to burn that bridge when I get to it.

Also, one thing to consider is: what is the advantage of replacing the Mk45 Mod2 5"/54 with the Mod4 5"/62? Since the 5"/62 ERGM does not work, during such a conversion, should we invest the weight and money into the potential that the 5"/62 ERGM might not come along some day? We should keep in mind, though, that the ERGM that required the heavier 5"/62cal gun is technically out of reach right now. Dead-eye and other ERGM rounds that don't have to reach 120nm can be fired from the standard 5"/54 caliber gun and provide 30nm ranges as is. With a reduction in chamber pressure, I bet a modern rocket booster could push a guided 5" round much, much further than 30nm.

So, Mk45 Mod2 or Mod4 and why?

[Sauragnmon]

I'm for the Mod 4, since realistically you're looking at the kind of ship where every inch of range you can get is important - that and RAP/PGM/etc might still be of use - even if they're by and far outmatched in a number of degrees by the Mk71 gun, but no holds barred on the secondary gun is equally important.

[navydavesof]

I'm for the Mod 4, since realistically you're looking at the kind of ship where every inch of range you can get is important - that and RAP/PGM/etc might still be of use - even if they're by and far outmatched in a number of degrees by the Mk71 gun, but no holds barred on the secondary gun is equally important.

Conerneing the 5" guns, Roger that. I understand. Great point.

What kind of input do you guys have on the CEC and C4I upgrades the ship would have as far as installation/placement of the radomes and various sensors?

Thanks, guys. I have 4 days coming up all to myself. I will see what I can do on DDG-963 and get posted. Thanks a lot. Unfortunately, I can only afford so many parts, and I hope to be able to mould and manufacture my own Mk45 mod4 guns for other projects. I hope to have 2 Mk45 Mod4 pieces from Voyager coming in from Pacific Front soon.

I look forward to your input, guys!

navydave

[Sauragnmon]

I'm not quite sure really. I'll admit, I'm at a blank with regards to how to rig your CEC/C4I upgrades. Depends on how much you're including as well, since the question is, where is this ship in the group? Flag, or Otherwise?

[navydavesof]

I'm not quite sure really. I'll admit, I'm at a blank with regards to how to rig your CEC/C4I upgrades. Depends on how much you're including as well, since the question is, where is this ship in the group? Flag, or Otherwise?

Happy Thanksgiving to the American guys and gals around.

Alright, to the C4I stuff. I think we are kind of getting into some really variable things that could happen one way or the other depending on pretty time dependent and small time upgrades. So, covering all the bases, an inclusion of just a bunch of domes on santions should be sufficient. I can't wait to post some more guys.

Happy Thanksgiving

[navydavesof]

You know, GTDEATH13 made an awefully good suggestion, and while I was sitting at Cici's Pizza today talking with a coworker about building his own 7.62 AR rifle, I sketched out what I think the Hayler would have looked like if she had been built like Congress mandated, a DDH.

It was an interesting concept. The DDH based on the Sprucan would have been a very interesting ship type. If time permits, I have an interest in building one ship with two options on it: 1. the version with ASROC launcher, Mk143 Tomahawk armored box launchers, and the Mk45 Mod2 5" gun, 2. ther version with the Mk71 8"/55caliber gun and a 32-cell VLS pad in place of the ASROC magazine forward.

The ship would still bear the SPS-49 on the aft mast and all other improvements built into the Hayler from the Spruance, Kidd, and Ticonderoga classes.

To be perfectly honest, save the radar cross-section issues (possibly reduced to acceptable levels by RAM panels applied to the exterior of the ship) I think the DDH would have been one hell of a SPECOPs platform. Consider: a heavy 8" gun, TLAM strategic target strike capbaility, UAV/RPV capability, at least 4 helos (perhaps a mix different than just SH-60s), and a boat deck large enough to support Mk5 special operations craft, the USS Hayler DDH would have been a formitable and likely perferred platform to the SEAL community.

What are your thoughts?

Impressive work to say the least...
I think that the US navy was quite wrong about decomissioning the spucans... A trusty hull with lots of potential for modernisation and exploitation in various forms of weapons platform (ASW, AAW, land attack ship, fleet escort, patrol ship and special forces support ship)
Keep up posting..
Are you going to make any other variant?

[SumGui]

A SPECWAR platform is what I was referring to when I had recommended the 'boat deck' on the fantail in earlier posts. the platform would already be close to land, so small force projection seems a no-brainer to add on.

Replacing mount 52 with a 76mm elevated to allow davits for, say 10m RHIBs was what I had envisioned, which also allows a location for RMHS or the like if a given platform is not carrying SEALs.

The DDH version should be great for the same missions, with more weight toward aviation capability. UAVs are an absolute requirement from here forward. The drawings I have seen for Hayler might allow for an update along the lines being discussed, retaining the DDH aviation and 'losing' the MK 29 launcher if you put ESSM in the VLS forward instead. Then the aft becomes availible for a significant ship/sea interface - maybe even a way to get a Mk V onboard, although that will probable require significant modification to the stern/transom. Close in to land, we are probably giving up SQR-19 anyway. Sticking to RHIBs would allow a ramp system similar to those refit to the PCs.
(we constantly said we needed that while I was aboard USS Squall...)

Completely agree with adding specwar capability to the platform, and the DDH version could be an even better basis for modification for that.

Now get a V-22 onboard.....

[navydavesof]

Now get a V-22 onboard.....

The comments about the boat deck are interesting. Never mind about the Mk5; it would be way to large to get up on the deck or store in a transom. If I did my math right, at 1/350 scale, it'd be 2.88 inches long...huge! Eleven-meter RHIBs, on the other hand would work well. By the way, the 11 meter RHIBs used by Special Boat Team (SWCC) are significantly different than 10 or 11 meter RHIBs used by ships. I think the DDH might be able to support the stern conversion, however. My version of DDG-963 might be too occupied already.

The MV-22 sounds like nothing but trouble so far. As the aircraft spools up and gets ready to take off, it blows crewmen off the decks of the ships, and what seems worse is that the exhaust from the engines is so hot it warps the decks of LHDs. I dare say if it's warping the steel deck of the LHDs, it's going to murder a Spruance's aluminum deck. I wonder if they have figured out a way throttle up, get the engines up to speed, pivot the necells into vertical position, and then pitch the blades or something. I am sure, like the Harrier which had much the same issue for a while, they will figure out how to do it and not burn non-skid off and warp the flight decks.

Stay tuned for new pictures.

[Timmy C]

For a V-22 on a Spruance, would not the nacelles be overhanging the sides of the hull and be above the water? That might mitigate the effects of the exhaust, though hit might direct some of the heat onto the hull sides instead...

Also, don't forget to account for all the spaces that you will be removing when inserting stuff into the hull - they weren't there just for looks

[Sauragnmon]

I'd almost think the version with the Mk71 of your Spruance DDH would make the better SPECWAR platform - tactical options in the form of the VLS, plus the big gun, you can do the boat deck on the fantail. I wonder if some sort of extending ramp area or a folding hatch or some sort of extendable well deck area on either side of where the gun mount used to be, might not allow support for the Mk V - davits would be impossible for it, though it doesn't rule out mounting a crane in place of 52 to lift the suckers, but the length might be the question, and the extending platform to house them kinda came to mind.

V-22 in a Spruance - interesting concept, and I agree - realistically, the operation of them is still coming up to speed really, and there's still a big learning curve on them - they could probably spool up the engines in forward position and then tilt them up when the blades are only minorly pitched down to generate airflow over the exhausts, which would disperse the heat faster and avoid trashing the deck. I'm betting it's a lack of forethought in some aspects - without the wind off the blades to cut out the heat, it's pretty much a jet blowing straight down onto the deck - Harriers can burn stuff up when they're in pure vertical position too without proper treatment, and heaven forbid a Freestyle or JSF try VTOL in reheat.

[SumGui]

I avoided the 11m RHIB based on personal opinion from what I saw operating with them. I'm concerned that the weight of the engines might create a stress wekapoint forward of the engine compatment (essentially amidships) which could be compromised during a 'ride' up a ramp, especially during a hot extract after repeated use.

I also thought a 10m size allowed more comonality from a shipalt sandpoint, for when the capacity might be used for non-specwar missions.

I worked with specwar in 1996-1997, so many things have been tried, tested, and trained since.If my hull stress concern is not valid, then by all means the 11m should be used, as training and familiarity of the operators with the 11m far outweighs the convenience of any other commonality. The overhead height would need to allow for the 11m to enter (as I envision an enclosed space for boat ops), but extending the davit should be no problem.

One of the main reasons I want an enclosed boat space is so no one knows what is present - maybe RHIB, maybe SDV/ASDS, maybe this one has a RMHS...etc. Also helps with light discipline for night ops. Maybe even a good incercept craft for VBSS.

I fully acknowledge all the issues with V-22, but the speed/range capability is hard to ignore.

[navydavesof]

Hey, guys! Alright, not as much progress as I would have liked today, but I still have tomorrow. I spent a lot of time trying to adhere too closely to some detail on the Kidds and Spruances instead of just adding a bunch of detail I want to see Adding sensible detail I want to see is what it's all about!

...and I was e-mailing a project manager for the Iowas at Longbeach Naval Yard during the '80s and making posts all day...distractions.

So, here we are, guys.

[navydavesof]

For a V-22 on a Spruance, would not the nacelles be overhanging the sides of the hull and be above the water? That might mitigate the effects of the exhaust, though hit might direct some of the heat onto the hull sides instead...

Also, don't forget to account for all the spaces that you will be removing when inserting stuff into the hull - they weren't there just for looks

I think you're right, Timmy. Great observation. The warping is a concern I have thought about concerning a V-22 operating off the stern of a battleship. IF it was planned to have the V-22s opperate off the stern of battleships, I think the helo deck would have to be reinforced, perhaps with ablative armor or to replace the existing elevated deck with HY-80 maybe 1/2 or 3/4" thick.

Spruance on the other hand, it seems would actually be in a unique position to operate but not store a V-22, because she is so narrow in beam.

[SumGui]

Now, a DDH (Hayler should-have-been) may have the length of hangar to accomadate the V-22 and the narrowness to exploit it....

V-22 wingspan is about 45ft to Spruance's beam of 55 ft. I think a solution may be a slanted connector from a 45ft wide helo deck outboard, giving the blast/wash someplace to go (offboard) other than down to destroy the deck. It would give the sides of the helo deck/main weatherdeck interface a kind of turtle back look.