Calling all Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) fans

[Thundergrunt]

Thanks alot for the scoop, I Got the Hopper for (Milius), and a Shermanfor (Kidd) and scored a Trumpy Arleigh Burke at hobby town for 30$ which i will make the Benfold..

[Seasick]

The authors on that site aren't identified so its hard to say.

They also have an article about how Taiwan wants our used FFGs.
Can't Get Enough Of Perry
January 15, 2010: The Taiwanese Navy wants to buy eight more used Perry class frigates from the United States, and equip them with an Aegis air defense system. The Perry's are 4,100 ton ships that have a crew of 220 and are normally armed with a 76mm gun, six tubes for launching Mk 46 anti-submarine torpedoes, and a 20mm auto cannon as anti-missile defense. As built, the Perry's has a missile launcher for SM-1 anti-aircraft or Harpoon anti-ship missiles (from a 40 missile magazine), but these were removed from all U.S. Perrys in 2004. This was done because U.S. allies needed the dwindling supply of SM-1 missiles more than U.S. ships did. The SH-60 helicopters carried by the Perrys could still use their smaller Penguin anti-ship missiles. The Perrys have air search radar and sonar, and can carry two helicopters. Top speed is 55 kilometers an hour. If built today, the Perry's would cost about $300 million each.
The Taiwanese government needs to do something about its surface force, which now consist of 20 old, former U.S. Navy, destroyers and frigates, and six French frigates, which entered service in the 1990s. The U.S. is retiring its remaining Perrys, and has the capability to refurbish and upgrade them. It is currently doing this for a Perry that is going to Pakistan. (You think maybe some of those Spruance class might have been sold instead of trashed??)

The US Govenrment (USN) offered several Spruance class ships to Pakistan, Taiwan, Turkey, and a few others: No takers.
The Perry class frigates are much less expensive to operate than Spruances. Also after many years of operation the USN's Perrys are fairly worn out. They are like old Chevrolets 200,000 miles on them. There aren't enough RIM-66E (SM-1MR Block VI) around to sustain a larger force of Perry frigates. Production of the RIM-66E ended in 1987 and the missile itself is only expected to remain viable until 2020. The USN has a very limited supply of Penguin anti-ship missiles (AGM-119) left and can't afford to to sell any to Taiwan. If Taiwan does buy them they would do better to purchase more Exocet missiles from France. The Perrys cant be turned into an efficient anti-air defense vessel without a considerable modernization which would be ill advised on ships of their age.

The shrinking numbers of ships in the USN is due in large part to the disasterous management at the DoD some years back. When the light weight modest LCS was compromized by a SECDEF that wanted to turn it into a gold plated starship. Waht the USN should do now is just pick one of the two designs, remedy the structural problems and start producing them and worry about mission modules later. Without the mission modules they can still be sent out to chase pirates and drug smugglers so that Arleigh Burke class destroyers don't have to be tasked with that operation.

[Unicorn]

Some shots of a 1:72 Flight 2A Burke, USS Pinkney.










Images courtesy of Ozpirate

[Bigdaddy Mark]

Some shots of a 1:72 Flight 2A Burke, USS Pinkney.

Wow! That is FANTASTIC!
I sure hope you can post how you built her. After I did the Momsen I have a particular love for the Burkes, and I can only imagine how challenging this could have been.

Thanks again for sharing.
Mark

[Unicorn]

Not mine I am afraid.

Both Pinkney and USS Winston Churchill, which is posted earlier in this thread, were built by members of Task Force 72 from a 1:72 semi kit, including hull, plans and fittings, from APS Models here in Australia.

Both are superb models which run superbly.

Mike

[navydavesof]

I have gotten a summarized report from Gibbs & Cox on the application of the Mk71 MCLWG installation on the DDG-51 Flight Is. I think many would find this very interesting.

Without any hull modification, the planned magazine would have been that of the Mk45 5"/54caliber mount with its current spaces. It would have carried 204 8-inch projectiles and a similar number of propellant charges. No special pressure alterations would have been needed to the ship in order for it to mount this weapon.

There were "supposed" concerns about the forward VERTREP station being fowled by the mount and the line of sight from the bridge being fowled by the mount's height. I directly question this, from recent personal operations on DDG-51 FlightIIa ships, inspection from the bridge, and a walk through of the 5" compartments, and a lengthy discussion with the CO of the ship. None of those concerns seem to have merit, so I am very, very curious why G&C made such assertions about the visual obstruction and VERTREP station. Both would be 100% clear even with the Mk71 standing atop a barbette.

There have been recent developments in the structure and compartments of the ship that dictate that the magazine can be nearly doubled without lengthening the ship.

[max41pl]

Hi
Where i can buy Arleigh Burke flight IIa model plans in 1/200 or 1/100 scale?

[Thundergrunt]

Hey All

Can I build a 1/350 FLTII boat Higgins (out of box),from a trumpeter Arleigh Buke, or a Dragon Sullivans?? I have both. and Want to build Carney. which kit should I use for which ship?? I read there are differences but being new to ships I cannot tell. to save my life. I have the Classic warship book, have read here and been all up and down navsource.

[Cliffy B]

USS Carney (DDG-64) is a FLT I Burke so you'd need a FLT I kit. Any kit of a FLT I ship, save for DDG-51 or 52 should suffice. The first two ships have different deck houses above the bridge. The rest of the FLT I's were altered and had those deck houses enlarged. Look through the CW book and you'll see some photos showing the differences as well as the line drawings in the back.

FLT I is DDG-51-71
FLT II is DDG-72-78
FLT IIa (Helo hangar) is DDG-79-112+

Depending on time frame, I'd say the Sullivans kit is your best bet.

Word to the wise, if you're building 1/350 Burkes, use a Trumpy kit!!!! The Dragon ones are old Panda kits and have some accuracy issues IIRC. Grab a set of WEMs PE and you'll be set.

If you want to use a Trumpy kit then their USS Cole (DDG-67) would be the best to use.

Hope that helps.
-Mike

[Thundergrunt]

You lost me Which one for a FLT II 71-78 and would be the changes?? from a FLT I

[Cliffy B]

If you want to build Carney then look at FLT Is. Look at page 5 in the CW book, there's a breakdown of the three flights. Basically, the only differences between FLT I and II are internal; new comms and SM-2 Block IV capability. FLT IIA ships are the ones with the hangars, are are six feet longer overall, the after SPY panels are one level higher, and the VLS re-load cranes were removed and replaced with standard cells.

Also, from looking at later photos, those deck houses on the first two ships were later enlarged to match the rest of the class so they no longer stick out. When, I don't know.

Still lost?

[Thundergrunt]

Thanks I was meaing for Higgins it's a flt II. so nothing external all internal, and go for a Cole or Hopper if I can get one cheap right? I just dont see paying more for Photo etch than the kit it self. Like dragon sullivans I paid 22.00 and WEM is 45. thanks for the scoop. when im done with my first burke right now. USS. Kidd then Ill do the Trumpy one when i get it. thanks for the info.

E

[Niklas Kull]

I am building a Trumpeter 1/350 FLT IIA USS Momsen DDG-92, full hull version and I am undecided on how to color the hull beneath the waterline.
Under the bow we have the Sonar buoy / boulbous buoy. Is it suppused to be all red or red with the half lower part colored black?

With kind regards

Niklas Kull

[Timmy C]

The latter: http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/050111108.jpg

[Thundergrunt]

Cliffy, Timmy or anyone.

Well I after reading this, I see that the Trumpy Arleigh burke I got , I was going to use for Benfold, I cant use and was unsuccsessful at trying to sell it or trade it. now a question I have is what would be the changes I need to do. I have looked in the book and on Navsource. an only saw a couple pictures, like in trials but the majority all have the top change, but wouldn't even know where to start. Any clues for help? Thanks in Advance.

[64Molson]

I THINK I'M IN LOVE!!!

I just received the Trumpeter 1/350 AB (DDG-51) and just reading through the instructions, it looks GREAT!!!
Lots of small, delicate parts that are missing in the Dragon/Panda kits.
I think I might try my hand @ casting resin parts with all the goodies Trumpy packed into this kit. I might even be able to fix my 2 Dragon Burkes to make them look even better! (but I'm NOT going to attempt to fix the problems with the hulls; I'm actually building USS Preble as another Flight I ship.)

The first Trumpy kit I bought was HMS HOOD & that kit is pretty good, but EVERYTHING is bigger on a BattleCruiser.
I also just received the Trumpy 1/350 Jeremiah O'Brein, can't wait to break that open...

I think Trumpy will soon be my ship kit of choice!!!

Keep up the excellent work!

[Timmy C]

I think Trumpy will soon be my ship kit of choice!!!

Keep up the excellent work!

You've been lucky thus far - if you check out some of the other threads (the Hornet, New Orleans, and The Sullivans, for example), more often than not Trumpy kits have rather significant accuracy issues. Hit-and-miss, really.

[ex-navy]

Does anyone know of any studies on the burke hull design regarding minimum length and maximum length that this hull is functional?

[Cliffy B]

Does anyone know of any studies on the Burke hull design regarding minimum length and maximum length that this hull is functional?

I remember reading that the max the hull can grow in length is another 55' (Flt II hull) if I'm remembering correctly that is. That's according to NavSea (formerly BuShips). No idea about minimum.

[navydavesof]

Does anyone know of any studies on the burke hull design regarding minimum length and maximum length that this hull is functional?

The Ship Impact Studies article by Philip J. Sims published in the Naval Engineer's Journal states that

"The DDG-51 is a dimension critical design-it cannot be made shorter and still fit what it must carry topside." This is the Aegis Weapon system of 360 degree field of view (4 SPY-1 panels) and 3 illuminators.

The DDG-51 Flight III study by NAVSEA and design says the Flight I ship can be lengthened by a maximum of 56'. This was to accommodate 128 VLS tubes and a duel helicopter capability without cramping the ship. The DDG-Flight IIAs are as cramped as they can possibly be. There is no room for growth.

The Flight III design has been chosen to accommodate the AMDR intended for the CG(X). CG(X) was canceled, because it was going to cost almost as much as a nuclear powered aircraft carrier to build. There are rising concerns, however that the weight of the AMDR is going to be too much for the ship.

An article just published in Aviation Weekly says:

It is starting to appear, according to defense analysts and contractor officials, that the vessels will be built to essentially accommodate the AMDR. But the Navy�s top shipbuilder executive warns against following that course.

�Sometimes we get caught up in the glamour of the high technology,� Huntington Ingalls Industries CEO Mike Petters says. �The radars get bounced around. They get changed. Their missions get changed. The technology changes. The challenge is if you let the radars drive the ships, you might not get any ships built.�

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... h%20Alarms

If any kind of costs are going to be controlled, these AMDR ships need to be AAW/BMD ships only so they can 1. focus on that mission and 2. not cost so much it's rediculous. With the Navy's budget being cut again but the need for 10-20 more DDGs present, the Navy needs to get its cost house in order. Maybe it's time for some non-Aegis DDHs?viewtopic.php?f=59&t=65112