The Ship Model Forum

@Cliffy
I know the Albany-class cruisers had waist missile launchers, but were there any issues with this layout in service?

[quote="carr"]

If a man says something and there's not a woman around to hear it, is he still wrong?

:heh:[/quote]

In the interest of self-preservation, I always assume 'Yes'.....

..

[quote="carr"]After a little digging, I agree with Busto that the antenna is a HF communications Discone-cage antenna, commonly mounted on the bow of ships in order to avoid interference from surrounding equipment and structures. ...
I didn't find any description of what type of communications it was used for so I'd go with Busto's explanation. He's invariably correct.[/quote]

Not sure that my wife would agree, but I will take any praise where I can! :whistle:

I think that these antennas were far enough forward that the main guns were fine, but any encroachment by other weapons [i]might[/i] be problematic.

..

[quote="carr"]For Hawaii, that large antenna on the bow (I should know the name of it but I'm drawing a blank - sorry) is shown on the profile but not the overhead view. The profile shows it just about smack on top of the anchor handling gear. Maybe a conflict there? Plus, it looks like it would cut a major chunk of the field of fire of the 40mm that's shown immediately aft of it.
[/quote]
Isn't that an AS-1018 (or similar) discage omnidirectional HF antenna?

If it is, then it is the single most important of the ship (at least as far as ship to shore fire is concerned) and well worth relocating or removing weapons to enable that antenna to function!

NGFS was assigned to HF nets - a gunfire ship that cannot communicate with troops ashore is a liability.

Ahhh, the Link-11 antenna! Yes...it among other things didn't make it from the side to the top drawing and vice versa now that I look it over. I tried to place it similar to how other cruisers and the BBs had them but yeah, it could probably slide forward a bit more. Those are twin 3"/50s not 40mms but point still taken. That second mount on the bow was intended more for firing on the beam then the bow so it would have cutouts to prevent it taking out the antennae or the forward most gun tub.

Glad you like em Bob :thumbs_up_1:

..

Thanks guys! That was a big whoops on my part for [i]Hawaii's[/i] weapons list :doh_1: Edit it I shall!

Thank you for the links to the launcher info. Those photos are awesome!!! That PDF link is perfect too!

Glad you guys like the designs and the story. Thank you for the compliment Bob, that means a lot :thumbs_up_1: I will definitely be using that term when I get back to writing the rest of the night's "festivities".

The similarities to the CG-10 class are not a coincidence. I "cut and paste" the after Talos arrangement from them figuring it would be an easier/cheaper installation and more appropriate given the time period then a custom fabricated setup. I modified it from there but the basic structure is from a CG-10.

I chose the full Mk-13's to fully utilize the size of the ship and make her more useful. I looked at the design sketch weights and the weights of the launchers and guns when they were actually built as well. Best I can tell a Mk-13 Mod 0 (introduced in 1962) weighed about 66.3 tons. Further mods weren't available until the 1970s and they weighed more anymore.

A Mk-42 Mod 9 (closet mod to the time period it seems; about 1964) weighed 73 tons fully loaded (ammo and fluids) and 64.6 tons dry. So they are very close in weight to each other.

In comparison a Mk-22 Mod 0 (introduced in 1966) weighed 46.2 tns and a twin 5"/38 with a DD shield (Mk-38 Mod 0) weighed 47.9 tons.

I don't know if the weights for the GMLS's are empty or loaded but they are close enough for these calculations. The design sketches would have been modified and weights altered had they gone through with these anyway. So a "close enough" mindset I think is just fine for a whiff design such as this. Probably got more precise then necessary but I like my designs to be as real as possible :thumbs_up_1:

Thanks again for the interest guys.

[quote="SumGui"][quote="Busto963"]MK 13 GMLS - would this weapon be a "drop in replacement" for forward 5" 38s (weight and size)?[/quote]

According to reference, the Mk22 (inner ring only version of the Mk 13 - 16 rounds) would be a 'drop-in' replacement for the Mk42 5"/54"

"Tartar Launching System Mk 22 was developed for use on small ships where space and weight allowances were too limited to permit the use of the Mk 11 or Mk 13 system. The Mk 22 system was designed to replace a 5"/54 gun mount. A single ready-service ring is located directly below the launcher with the missiles stowed vertically."

Page 144:
http://www.okieboat.com/GMM/GMM%203%20and%202%20CHAPTER%205%20Guided%20Missile%20Launching%20Systems.pdf

This does not say you could not replace a Mk 42 5"/54 with a Mk 13, after all, that is essentially what was done between the Forrest Sherman and Adams class (with some additional growth on the Adams class), just that the Mk 22 was an option if the vessel could not take the higher Mk 11/13 weight. So I read this as you probably could always trade a Mk 42 5"/54 for a Mk 22, and sometimes you may be able to get a Mk 11/13 if you could take the extra weight.

Other references I have indicate the Mk 42 5"/54 was intended to be a near-direct replacement of the twin 5"/38 mount, however, as in all things, it came in in excess of that target weight.

BUT (confused yet?), the Brooke class DEG/FFG was the Garcia class FF with the amidships 5"/38 SINGLE replaced with the Mk 22. So...

Essentially there is real-world evidence to the Mk 13 being a close swap for the Mk 42 5"/54, and there is real world evidence for the Mk 22 being able to be a near direct swap for a 5"/38 single, and there is real world documentation for the Mk 22 intending to be a swap out for a 5"/54....so there you have the confusing information.

I do believe is is reasonable in a WHIF to replace a twin 5"/38 with Mk 22 without much modification (say, replace the B mount on a Gearing FRAM - but note the ship still needs the other components such as computers, 3D radar and FC radar) - not with Mk 13 unless you found more weight somewhere - the second ring of the Mk 13 would certainly make it overweight.

some other references:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk42.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm[/quote]

Thanks!

[quote="Busto963"]MK 13 GMLS - would this weapon be a "drop in replacement" for forward 5" 38s (weight and size)?[/quote]

According to reference, the Mk22 (inner ring only version of the Mk 13 - 16 rounds) would be a 'drop-in' replacement for the Mk42 5"/54"

"Tartar Launching System Mk 22 was developed for use on small ships where space and weight allowances were too limited to permit the use of the Mk 11 or Mk 13 system. The Mk 22 system was designed to replace a 5"/54 gun mount. A single ready-service ring is located directly below the launcher with the missiles stowed vertically."

Page 144:
http://www.okieboat.com/GMM/GMM%203%20and%202%20CHAPTER%205%20Guided%20Missile%20Launching%20Systems.pdf

This does not say you could not replace a Mk 42 5"/54 with a Mk 13, after all, that is essentially what was done between the Forrest Sherman and Adams class (with some additional growth on the Adams class), just that the Mk 22 was an option if the vessel could not take the higher Mk 11/13 weight. So I read this as you probably could always trade a Mk 42 5"/54 for a Mk 22, and sometimes you may be able to get a Mk 11/13 if you could take the extra weight.

Other references I have indicate the Mk 42 5"/54 was intended to be a near-direct replacement of the twin 5"/38 mount, however, as in all things, it came in in excess of that target weight.

BUT (confused yet?), the Brooke class DEG/FFG was the Garcia class FF with the amidships 5"/38 SINGLE replaced with the Mk 22. So...

Essentially there is real-world evidence to the Mk 13 being a close swap for the Mk 42 5"/54, and there is real world evidence for the Mk 22 being able to be a near direct swap for a 5"/38 single, and there is real world documentation for the Mk 22 intending to be a swap out for a 5"/54....so there you have the confusing information.

I do believe is is reasonable in a WHIF to replace a twin 5"/38 with Mk 22 without much modification (say, replace the B mount on a Gearing FRAM - but note the ship still needs the other components such as computers, 3D radar and FC radar) - not with Mk 13 unless you found more weight somewhere - the second ring of the Mk 13 would certainly make it overweight.

some other references:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk42.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm

Outstanding work, I love it all.


[quote="Cliffy B"]Alrighty folks, here's [i]Hawaii[/i]!

Weapons:
6 Mk-8 12"/50 BLRs in 2 triple turrets (1,000 rounds) with 1 Mk-34 Director with Mk-13 Radar.
6 Mk-32 5"/38s in 3 twin mounts (2,500 rounds) with 1 Mk-37 Director with Mk-25 Radar.
12 Mk-33 3"/50 automatics in 6 twin mounts (9,000 rounds) with 2 Mk-56 directors.
2 Regulus II Surface to Surface missiles launchers with 8 missiles.
2 Mk-13 Mod 0 GMLS (80 Tartars) with 4 SPG-51s.
1 Mk-16 ASROC "Pepper box" (24 ASROCs).
6 Mk-32 SVTTs in 2 triple mounts (18 torpedoes).
2 SH-2 LAMPS I ASW/Utility Helos in below deck hangar in stern.

[/quote]

I note an issue with the nomenclature of the weapons listed and depicted.

Looks like a fit similar to the Albany/Chicago/Columbus

The Talos system should be Mk12,
http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/Mk-12-missile-launcher.htm

and the depicted twin-arm Tartar launcher should be the Mk11
http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/Mk-11-missile-launcher.htm
Mk11 had a magazine capacity of 42, as opposed to 40 for its replacement - the Mk13

The Mk13 GMLS was the Tartar "Single Arm Bandit" used on the Adams and Perry classes.

So, I recommend it reading:

6 Mk-8 12"/50 BLRs in 2 triple turrets (1,000 rounds) with 1 Mk-34 Director with Mk-13 Radar.
6 Mk-32 5"/38s in 3 twin mounts (2,500 rounds) with 1 Mk-37 Director with Mk-25 Radar.
12 Mk-33 3"/50 automatics in 6 twin mounts (9,000 rounds) with 2 Mk-56 directors.
2 Regulus II Surface to Surface missiles launchers with 8 missiles.
[i]1 Mk-12 GMLS with 52 Talos with 2 SPG-49.
2 Mk-11 GMLS with 84 Tartar with 4 SPG-51.[/i]
1 Mk-16 ASROC "Pepper box" (24 ASROCs).
6 Mk-32 SVTTs in 2 triple mounts (18 torpedoes).
2 SH-2 LAMPS I ASW/Utility Helos in below deck hangar in stern.

Note the add of a Talos launcher and correction to the Tatar launchers


On Hilo, the GMLS could be Mk22 (16 rounds, as found on the Brooke class DEG/FFG) or Mk 13 (with 40).
Difference between the Mk 22 and Mk 13 is either one (inner = 16) ring of missiles in the magazine, or two (inner+outer, or 16+24).
The decider is in rather the ship could take the extra weight in that position for the outer ring of missiles.
I'd note that the California class CGN's main missile armament was two Mk 13 - 40+40 for comparison purposes.


Other reference:
http://www.okieboat.com/GMM/GMM%203%20and%202%20CHAPTER%205%20Guided%20Missile%20Launching%20Systems.pdf

Well done. Nice little bit of creative writing. I've paid good money for books that did not read that well. You seem to have a flair for it. It also triggered something in my long term memory. IIRC, when the reactivated World War II cruisers and battleships that the USN employed off Vietnam used their main battery guns they had to get in relatively close to shore and the term applied to it was "goin' to Surf City".

Bob M.

MK 13 GMLS - would this weapon be a "drop in replacement" for forward 5" 38s (weight and size)?

I really like both of your ships. They would truly make great models.

Bill

A very interesting thread.

Scott

Alrighty folks, here's [i]Hawaii[/i]!

Some stats for the Hawaii

LOA: 808'
LWL: 790'
B(wl): 90' 9"
Disp: about 26,000 tns (LT) and 32,000 (FL)
170,000SHP for 32 kts
Range: 12,000nm at 15 kts.
Crew: about 1900 plus about 45 Flag Staff

Armor:
Belt: 9.5" (angled 10 degrees)
Bomb Deck: 1.4"
Armored Deck: 3.25" and 2.8" on 1" STS
Conning Tower: 6.5" sides and 4" roof and tube. "Protected Pilothouse" of a CA-134 class cruiser.
Main Battery: 12.8" Face, 5" Roof, 6 and 5.25" Sides, and 5.25" Rear.
Secondary Battery: 1" Face and 0.75" other sides.

Weapons:
6 Mk-8 12"/50 BLRs in 2 triple turrets (1,000 rounds) with 1 Mk-34 Director with Mk-13 Radar.
6 Mk-32 5"/38s in 3 twin mounts (2,500 rounds) with 1 Mk-37 Director with Mk-25 Radar.
12 Mk-33 3"/50 automatics in 6 twin mounts (9,000 rounds) with 2 Mk-56 directors.
2 Regulus II Surface to Surface missiles launchers with 8 missiles.
1 Mk-12 GMLS with 52 Talos with 2 SPG-49.
2 Mk-11 GMLS with 84 Tartar with 4 SPG-51.
1 Mk-16 ASROC "Pepper box" (24 ASROCs).
6 Mk-32 SVTTs in 2 triple mounts (18 torpedoes).
2 SH-2 LAMPS I ASW/Utility Helos in below deck hangar in stern.

SPS-10 - Surface Search
SPS-43 - 2D Air Search
SPS-52 - 3D Air Search
SQS-23 - Sonar
ULQ-6 - ECM
URN-25 - TACAN
Fanfare - Torpedo Decoy (mounted internally in the stern)

..

Interesting that they went super firing on the turrets, when the Worcesters didn't. Lighter guns made the difference I suppose.

Hey Jason, there's a write up and sketch in Friedman's Cruiser book as well as this alternate design sketch from the USN Spring Styles Book.

[url]http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/s-file/s511-66c.htm[/url]

I was reading about proposed FRAM upgrades for the CL-51s and DL-1, saw this design and just ran with it! Glad you like it :thumbs_up_1: