The Ship Model Forum

Seeing how the CG52s are slated for decomissioning, and the USN is unable to design a new large surface combatant, I have an idea.

We can expand the original DDG-51 Flight III design to accommodate the modern mission demands. There is no reason for these ships to be able to shoot the moon down, instead be able to perform "self" and "theater" defense. Since NSFS is seeming to be coming more and more important in reaction to potential threats, 155mm and 8" guns are being called upon.

65' beam
560' length
128 VLS AAW/Strike/ASW
8"/ 3x76mm ASuW
16 NSM ASuW

- Area AAW
- Credible NGFS
- Anti Small Craft
- Local ASW

This will have an armored hull, Major Caliber gun with 3 small caliber guns.
2 HH-60s and UAVs

-1-3 76mm guns

Let's relight this thread!

I will beginning a project soon. It will be a lengthened Burke to take the place of the Ticos. It will accomplish the following mission requirements:

Area AAW
Area ASW
Credible NGFS
ASW
Credible Naval Strike via missile and gunfire
Anti-swarm

This will have an armored hull, both internal and external, and have facilities for flags. It will also have the capability to support SOF operations. The radar array would be similar to this:
[attachment=0]HD-wallpaper-js-fuyuzuki-dd-118-japanese-destroyer-japanese-warship-akizuki-class-jmsdf-japan-guided-missile-destroyer-japan-maritime-self-defense-force.jpg[/attachment]
Rather than working with a full SPY system that adds $1B to a ship.

Half a century late, too bad the CB-3's Hull is gone. It would have had room enough for whatever.

Hey Dave are you "XV" over at Navweaps Discussion Forums?

I'm sorry Dave:
I don't like pouring large sums of money in to old ships

I Don't like putting AN/SPY-1F on to the LCS when the USN has more Arleigh Burke DDG with AN/SPY-1D than the total number of destroyers owned by the USA's top three potential enemies.
I can't see a reason to reactivate the Iowa class battleships at this date.
I think the 155mm AGS is a perfectly good gun.
I think you argue your points in a hostile manner like a lawyer, rather than in an open format.

I'm sorry Dave.

[quote="navydavesof"][quote="jasonfreeland"]Lasers don't generate X-Rays, only coherent light. They had a program to use nukes to generate directed X-Rays during the SDI days, but it never got past the drawing board. As to the quad packing, I'm aware of it I just want to save the tubes for Tomahawks. I have the room, so why not the Mk-56?[/quote]
Don't worry about Seasick, man. He only aggregates information without an analytical lens. He has demonstrated that he is only a keyboard warrior; nothing more.[/quote]

I never worry about arguing on the internet :big_grin: . I left off a lot of secondary armament anyways, some like the Mk 38s you really can just assume they will be there. Others like decoys and EW systems I'll get to later. What I really need is a copy of autocad, but that takes some heavy stones.

[quote="jasonfreeland"]Lasers don't generate X-Rays, only coherent light. They had a program to use nukes to generate directed X-Rays during the SDI days, but it never got past the drawing board. As to the quad packing, I'm aware of it I just want to save the tubes for Tomahawks. I have the room, so why not the Mk-56?[/quote]
Don't worry about Seasick, man. He only aggregates information without an analytical lens. He has demonstrated that he is only a keyboard warrior; nothing more.

[quote="Seasick"]I wouldn't bother with a 76mm or, RAM, or Phalanx for point defense. The USN will be using lasers for point defense fairly soon. A burst of concentrated x-rays from a laser will at less than a few kilometers will fry even the most hardened electronics and cook off the warhead. Plenty of quad pack Evolved Sea Sparrows, four per launher. Two or four 30mm or 35mm bushmasters to turn light aircraft or speed boats in to swiss cheese. (If the laser is avaiable the speed boats will irridated and their crews literally cooked. :-) ).[/quote]


Lasers don't generate X-Rays, only coherent light. They had a program to use nukes to generate directed X-Rays during the SDI days, but it never got past the drawing board. As to the quad packing, I'm aware of it I just want to save the tubes for Tomahawks. I have the room, so why not the Mk-56?

I wouldn't bother with a 76mm or, RAM, or Phalanx for point defense. The USN will be using lasers for point defense fairly soon. A burst of concentrated x-rays from a laser will at less than a few kilometers will fry even the most hardened electronics and cook off the warhead. Plenty of quad pack Evolved Sea Sparrows, four per launher. Two or four 30mm or 35mm bushmasters to turn light aircraft or speed boats in to swiss cheese. (If the laser is avaiable the speed boats will irridated and their crews literally cooked. :-) ).

I decided to rough out my cruiser design using foam (messier than I was expecting) and here is what I came up with. Length 180m, beam 25m, draft who the hell knows? Starting at the bow, which is not cut out yet, an AGS in the place of the Mk-45 that's there now. Next we have a pair of 64 cell Mk-41 launchers and the superstructure has 18 foot AMDR panels. The X band panels and the enclosed mast are not yet in place. Further aft are the Mk 141 launchers and I'm thinking of either one or two 32 cell Mk 56 launchers in between as I want to keep the strike length cells open for full size missiles. Next the hanger module with three 64 cell Mk-41 modules. I haven't put them on yet, but I'm thinking line the outside of the helo deck with Mk-57 for more cells and future larger missiles. For point defense I'm thinking two RIM-116 launchers, two Phalanx 1Bs and two Strales 76mm. I know the last is a long shot, but it's my design and I want them :smallsmile: .

[img]http://www.jfreeland.net/images/cruiser1.jpg[/img]


[img]http://www.jfreeland.net/images/cruiser2.jpg[/img]

Oh a source of 1/350 VLS and an AGS would be great if anyone knows of any.

I came across this image showing a four panel AMDR with a three panel X band. It should give an idea of what they are doing.

[img]http://www.jfreeland.net/images/amdr.jpeg[/img]

I'm doing a rough model out of foam to figure out the superstructure and deck placement of mine, looks like I'm going with 18 foot panels.

[quote="jasonfreeland"]I've noticed on the Ford and Zumwalt classes, that they only have three radar panels. Would a new cruiser class need three or four like the Burke's? For that matter, do we even know if the Flight III Burke's have four panels?[/quote]
The Ford and Zumwalts did it...lierally to save money. Neither one is an air defense ship, so they don't need that level of radar coverage.

The Flight III will have 4 panels. I imagine an AAW CG would have 4 panels as well.

I've noticed on the Ford and Zumwalt classes, that they only have three radar panels. Would a new cruiser class need three or four like the Burke's? For that matter, do we even know if the Flight III Burke's have four panels?

[quote="jasonfreeland"]Does he have a store front?[/quote]
No, I paid for these to be custom made.

[quote="navydavesof"][quote="jasonfreeland"]Anyone make Mk41 or Mk57 launchers in 1/350? It would be a start on building one of these proposed designs.[/quote]
A good friend of mine casts the Mk41, Mk71 MCLWG, and all of my parts in resin, and I make the Mk57 with plastic.[/quote]


Does he have a store front?

[quote="navydavesof"]This kind of thing will lead to a 1/350 model BMD version of the LPD-17 with Mk41 and Mk57 launchers being directed by a full scale AMDR. I have to kits I intend to modify at some point; one as the BMD version and the other as the LSD variant in charge of a regional influence force that will consist of the LSD, 1 - 2 LCS-1 Flight II, and 6 PCG-14s. Oh, my![/quote]

I like it. What are you going to use for the PCGs?

The new USNS Lewis B Puller would make a fine area base for operations as well, but the group you list should be more mobile (I assume the LSD is in a mothership/tender capacity)

I continue to work on the Light Carrier and the 90-00's CG, but other commitments make progress slow (deck for the CG is the hardest part for me right now). The US Takanami based FFG keeps calling my name too - not to mention the AEGIS refit of the Virginia class.... WAY too many things, I'll need to concentrate on one (yeah, right...). Maybe local black Friday sales will help with parts...

This kind of thing will lead to a 1/350 model BMD version of the LPD-17 with Mk41 and Mk57 launchers being directed by a full scale AMDR. I have to kits I intend to modify at some point; one as the BMD version and the other as the LSD variant in charge of a regional influence force that will consist of the LSD, 1 - 2 LCS-1 Flight II, and 6 PCG-14s. Oh, my!

[quote="jasonfreeland"]Anyone make Mk41 or Mk57 launchers in 1/350? It would be a start on building one of these proposed designs.[/quote]
A good friend of mine casts the Mk41, Mk71 MCLWG, and all of my parts in resin, and I make the Mk57 with plastic.

Anyone make Mk41 or Mk57 launchers in 1/350? It would be a start on building one of these proposed designs.

[quote="Seasick"]
I don't agree. The US Army and USMC have already phased out the 203mm gun. 155mm was chosen to simplify logistics. [/quote]
The AGS 155mm does not fire the same projectile as the NATO 155mm howitzer round.

There is no commonality between the two systems, and no cost savings or even related research.

[quote="Seasick"]AGS has been one of the most trouble free systems in the DDG-1000 program. The AGS is based on the 203mm/55 Mk71. The Mk71 gun also won Senator William Proxmier's golden fleece award as a waste of money back in 1979.[/quote]
Interesting. Well, we must agree to disagree. I specifically asked one of the FMC Mk71 program engineers, and the AGS is a realization and derivative of the 155mm Vertically Loaded Gun, not Mk71.