What-If modernized Spruance-class DDG

[carr]

..

[navydavesof]

Here is my first attempt at the hull color. I am not sure if I like it or not. It might be too light. The thing I am certainly not pleased with is the contrast between the hull and the above-stack color. I know it is accurate for the type of scheme, being that it's only a few shades darker, but I kinda wanted it to be rather noticably darker. I think I should just stick with what I have for accuracy....but I would like it darker.

I think with the trigger of thought by Carr that I should keep one of the RAM mounts on the stern I am going to keep the starboard side mount there. As you all know, the idea on this model is practicality. Since the ships in question already had a RAM mount, and it was successfully employed there, I don't see too terribly much reason to moving it. It's low on center of gravity, it's almost out of the way; it's in an acceptable spot.

The second mount, and I do think there NEEDs to be a second mount, I figure should be on the super structure and might even be most appropriately positioned on the port side mirroring the starboard Phalanx mount.

Oh, another thing, I don't know if it's just the one I got, but this kit sucks. The plastic is all warped and damn near unchangable. I have tried to straighten out the pieces, but all I do is risk tearing the plastic! I have done what I can, but if I were to enter this into any kind of professional contest, I would get torn up! I think when I assemble this, I am going to have to be very, very careful.
The helo markings are as consistant with DDG markings as I can get them. I think they look kind of spiffy.

Anyway, ladies and gets, here are new pictures.

[carr]

..

[navydavesof]

As usual, nice work! Can't wait to see it finished.

Hey, is it just the camera angle or perhaps I don't realize the size of the RAM launchers because they seem overly large in the pictures compared to real life photos? Are you comfortable that they're reasonably to scale?

Regardless, keep up the good work!

Regards,
Bob

I believe you're right. The RAM launchers are just the tiniest bit over scale in relation to the model itself. It's funny. The Veteran Models Phalanx mounts are over sized as well, and those are after-market, too. I had the RAM mounts custom made so I understand that one man's measurements are not necessarily the same as another. I really like the way they look, though, so I am using them.

[navydavesof]

Alright, here's a challenge that I think have solved, but I would like input as well.

The Sea Sparrow weapon direction system is called the Mk-91. The "bug-eye" director is called the Mk-95. So sayeth the Norman Polmar.
http://books.google.com/books?id=l-Dzkn ... q=&f=false
People, however, like to refer to the illuminator as the Mk-91 so I will neglect the real name and go by slang reference Mk-91.

0598937.jpg (30.44 KiB) Viewed 1375 times

The Spruances only had one Mk91 illuminator to provide terminal guidance to its Sea Sparrows. This illuminator is mounted on the aft air intake on the aftermost part of the superstructure's starboard side. It only has at maximum a 270 degree coverage. Because where the Mk29 Sea Sparrow launcher is, that might have been enough. Since the ships in my upgrade would go to sea with the Evolved Sea Sparrow coming out of the VLS, coverage would not be dictated by how far the launcher can turn. They would be able to engage a target on any side of the ship. Now it's a question of telling the missile where to go: directors.

The SPG-51s operate on a different band than the Sparrow seeker heads, and even though the SPS-48E and SPQ-9B operate on the right band to guide the Sparrows, when you're trying to match maneuvers with a high performance anti-ship missile, rotating antenas don't do the job. You need a dedicated director that will follow the target precisely. So, if the Sea Sparrow is going to be used like it's supposed to be, you need the Mk91 illuminators. I believe since ESSM can engage 360 degrees of the ship and you're going to be in a pretty high-threat environment, there needs to be 360 degree illuminator coverage.

So, three things, 1. Do you guys agree with the necessity to cover 360 degrees of the ship, 2. If the Navy were making all these changes to the ship anyway, would they go ahead and offer up the extra coverage or keep on half-@$$ing it like like they always have with the Spruances? and 3. Where would you put the other Mk91 director?

[carr]

..

[Sauragnmon]

I'm with Bob, either B or C in his picture is the good idea. Alternately, since typically for an NSFS situation you are generally sitting broadside, you already have rather good coverage - the original Mk91, plus the redundant coverage from both SPQ-9's and your SPS-48, which won't be rotating slowly or in a synchronized pattern in a high threat situation.

I would reason, Bob, on the statement from globalsecurity being that there is no non-VLS ship that is AEGIS and still in service - other ships that the ESSM is being deployed on are Carriers, primarily, or other ships as a defensive mounting, replacing NSSM systems. Most such ships, do not feature VLS, and still use the mk29 launcher for the ESSM. I would reason that Austrailia's use of ESSM on the Perries would likely use the STIR, which is also used to direct the gun and as a redundant director for the Standards.

[navydavesof]

Alternately, since typically for an NSFS situation you are generally sitting broadside, you already have rather good coverage - the original Mk91, plus the redundant coverage from both SPQ-9's and your SPS-48, which won't be rotating slowly or in a synchronized pattern in a high threat situation.

Well, the point I was trying to make was that the SPS-48 and SPQ-9B won't guide the missile at all. You have to have the Mk91 illuminators. Both of those emitters turn too slowly to keep up with a hyper sonic missile like the SS-N-22 or 19 or anything else flying above Mach.

I am sure you understand, but I want to say it anyway. The best analogy I can make is when you are standing around outside at night when there is a police car sitting there with its lights on. You see images, but movement studders around. There's no way to get into a fight with a guy when all you have to see is intermittant strobe lights. He'd probably hit you first. That's what you get with either and both SPS-48 and SPQ-9B. I chose to have 2 SPQ-9Bs to cut down on that and full coverage, so maybe....just maybe...they can provide 100% 360 degree coverage by themselves. That's what the intent is, and I think it would do it...BUT we cannot rely on that, especially for terminal guidance of a combined speed of Mach 2.5 SS-N-22 and Mach 3something for the ESSM....so that plus the other is....CRAZY!!! This is why I think the Mk91s are the only reliable means to accurately direct the ESSMs.

Bob, I am all about "C". Very nice. It's the obvious and best choice to me, but B is interesting...very interesting. It would look cool being on there like on the sides of carrier structures.

Now I just have to fabricate some Mk91 illuminators!!! CRAP!

[carr]

..

[navydavesof]

David,

I hate to ask a dumb question (as if I have any other kind!) but does this thing have a hull or have you developed the ultimate shallow draft destroyer? I came late to your thread and I may have missed an earlier comment about it.

Indeed, it does have a hull! I just painted it, and prepped it for decals. If you want to learn about the evolution of this project, check out the whole thread. There's a lot of really interesting information here!

Seriously, from a modelling technique point of view, I'm fascinated by your approach of building up the deck/superstructure prior to attaching it to the hull. Maybe you could comment on your experience with this approach - advantages/disadvantages? For instance, I would think that trying to get a fairly seamless deck/hull mating could prove troublesome with a built up deck?

Well, honestly, I think I am causing myself more trouble than it's going to be worth. I did it to cut down on masking. If I could individually paint the pieces it might have been easier. It, for the most part, works really well with the Tamiya 1/350 New Jersey model. The truth is, really, that I am kind of a moderate model builder trying to build into tbe big-leagues without building a whole lot of models at once. Plus as you can tell, I am not much of a straight-out-of-the-kit guy. I can tell I am going to have to glue the decking down, sand, and repaint. It's been years since I have built model ships, so I am trying to keep to the sub-structure approach, espcialy since PE is a factor now.

By the way, have you addressed helo/UAV support? For a gunfire ship would you have spotter UAV's? If so, I expect to see a nicely rendered version sitting on the deck!

Yes, the ship would be equipped with at least the Pioneer UAV if not Scan-Eagle. If you check out the aft mast, you'll see a dome center-line on a cross-arm. There would be a multi-channel tranceiver to control 3 or more UAVs simultaneously. The UAVs themselves would have a work-shop inside the hanger, probably some stored disassembled in racks and assembled ones hung on the bulkheads. I do indeed plant to have at least one on a launcher ready to take flight. The method is operating off what they did on the battleships and now that a DDG, it slips my mind which embarked UAVs last year off Somalia.

During that time, a friend of mine was on a small ship off Somalia that UAVs over flew once in a while. When he made 3rd-class, the UAV OIC was the one who came over and promoted him. When the officer came aboard he said, "Oh, YOU'RE the one with the HUGE beard!" The UAVs see things pretty well without being seen.

[navydavesof]

Here are my serious attempts at the Mk91 illuminators, and I tried my best to scale them right. I think they're as close as I can get them. I think once painted they will do pretty well.

I spread the NULKA launchers between the aft mast for survivability and space.

I came into position of some domes in addition to other things. I have to say that when they are painted the right color and positioned in plausible positions, they are really, really nice. They make a huge difference and add a surprisingly large amount of credibility.

Why so blue? This was a fun exercise, because I saw poor Port Royalpaininthe@$$ rocking back and forth on a reef with her underwear showing...and it was blue! Well, since this was a "modern" project, why not try it out on the destroyer. Check it out!

And yes, that's a hydro-dynamic wedge on her stern.

[carr]

..

[navydavesof]

Nicely painted hull, however, for us traditionalists there's just something fundamentally wrong about a blue hull !

The topsides are becoming quite crowded. Reminiscent of Soviet designs. I notice that the housing under the aft mast prevents topside movement from the aft superstructure to the forward. Would that be an issue on a real ship?

Thanks. The blue is silly looking. I won't do it for the Iowa. I will do my best to mimic what Keith Bender did on his most totally awesome Salem.

I see what you mean with the aft mast structure, but that's how the Kidd-class and a lot of other ships are designed these days. You just have to go inside the ship to get to the other side. The real Kidd-class were designed like this, and you would have to pass through the ship to get from one side of the deck to the other. I have not seen on pictures of the Kidds there being hatches on that structure, but I should put them on there anyway. I am sure that structure was a Fire Controlman (FC) workshop.

For the cluttering, yes indeed. The domes are doing that, but it does reflect what is being done to all of the Ticonderogas, and the Burkes are getting pretty stuffy too. I think I have added all the domes and other extra equipment I will for this project. I might add one more aft of the aft VLS arrangement, because a lot of Ticos have a dome back there. I hope that cleared that up a little.

Now it's time for PE, and with the post Dave Hill made on how he paints his PE, the common sense approach finally makes sense. Now, it's time to bend, paint, glue!

[Cliffy B]

Looking good Dave, question though. If she has full VLS why did you install Sea Sparrow bug eyes if the Mk-29 is gone? I didn't think you needed those for ESSM, or do they help some?

[navydavesof]

Looking good Dave, question though. If she has full VLS why did you install Sea Sparrow bug eyes if the Mk-29 is gone? I didn't think you needed those for ESSM, or do they help some?

From the literature I have read, the ESSM is still a passive seeker head. You have to tell it where it go regardless of where the missile comes from, a Mk29 box launcher or a VLS tube. That's why I explained it how I did earlier: the missile can be directed to a general location by SPS-48/SPQ-9B but it has to be terminally guided by an illuminator. The Mk-29 is the only one available to the Spruances that uses the same band as the missile's seeker head. ESSM can just manuever better to meet Sunburn-type missiles through the "skid to turn" technique.

[GTDEATH13]

This is turning out great... Keep the photos coming... And the discussion is greatly appreciated guys...

What's next?

[carr]

Your WIF contains both CIWS and RAM. As I understand it, the Navy has opted to replace CIWS with RAM. Given that RAM is derived from the Sidewinder air-to-air missle and that the Sidewinder kill probability is significantly less than 100% (my guess is around 30%?), do you have any idea what the rationale is for replacing the CIWS? I would think that the CIWS "wall of lead" would have a higher kill probability although I've never seen any data on it. I would further think that the best approach would be to have both CIWS and RAM, just as you're doing. Any insight on the Navy's reasoning?

Regards,
Bob

[carr]

... I notice that the housing under the aft mast prevents topside movement from the aft superstructure to the forward. Would that be an issue on a real ship?

In looking through my Kidd photos, I think I've answered my own question about topside fore/aft passage. The photo below shows a narrow walkway/catwalk with an inclined ladder on the forward end. This is the port side. The starboard side has the same passage but no exit ladder.

Still, your general point about having to pass through the ship to get from topside point A to topside point B is interesting. I wouldn't have thought it would be that way. I learn stuff like that all the time on these threads - love it! Thanks!

Kidd.jpg

Regards,
Bob

[navydavesof]

In looking through my Kidd photos, I think I've answered my own question about topside fore/aft passage. The photo below shows a narrow walkway/catwalk with an inclined ladder on the forward end. This is the port side. The starboard side has the same passage but no exit ladder.

Still, your general point about having to pass through the ship to get from topside point A to topside point B is interesting. I wouldn't have thought it would be that way. I learn stuff like that all the time on these threads - love it! Thanks!
Regards,
Bob

Thanks for adding that, Bob! I did not realize it was there. It's going to have to go on the model now!

[navydavesof]

The big parts are starting to go together, guys. I have a lot of the PE railings cut and bent, ready for paint with the MK-91s. Let's see what we can do!

Like you can see, NULKA and SRBOC are arranged and angled. They are never arranged the same way. Some are angled the same and some are differently, so here, I angled one of each NULKA launcher differently so when they shoot they distribute them at different distances (like they really are). I tried my best to get the stern-flap/hydro-dynamic wedge shaped like those on the Ticos (same hull). I hope I got close. The helo hanger doors and interior of the hanger are finished. All the little domes and such are installed and glued down.

I tried to do some non-skid patch-work that's done on real ships. I don't know how well it came out, but...there it is!