The Ship Model Forum

I haven't been able to find it in the kit, so I think I'm going to try my hand at scratch building.

If anyone has one I would appreciate if you could shoot me the dimensions.

_________________
God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.
~ Chester W. Nimitz ~
My Builds ~ http://ussnorthcaroilna.shutterfly.com/

You might try asking navydavesof - he made a similar platform for the Phalanxes on his upgraded Iowa and Spruance models:
viewtopic.php?f=67&t=43658&start=240

They are a little different from the ones on the Burkes (sloped top on the Burkes verses stepped top on Dave's), but it should be useful anyway.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Ok, I have sort of a solution for you - use G1 and G2 instead of N16 and N18 for the rear stack/exhaust. G1 and G2 includes the sides of the CIWS platform, so you'll only have to scratchbuild the top of the platform (which is in sprue C, which is not included in the Momsen kit).

If you do this, though, you will have to flatten the top of the funnel - thus, you might have to do a little surgery.

For reference, here is the Lassen's (the FIIA kit that has the CIWS structure sans stealthy funnels) instruction page for this area: http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10078111z7/70/7

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Great idea! I will have to start laying everything out. I know I can scratch build the CWIS deck, that doesn't look that bad, and with everything else my kit has it should be a breeze.

Thanks for the help and the reference.

_________________
God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.
~ Chester W. Nimitz ~
My Builds ~ http://ussnorthcaroilna.shutterfly.com/

Today I found a fantastic picture of the aft of the Momsen showing the CWIS mount, and on the port and starboard sides of the ship I see these. . .



Does anyone have a clue of what these are? It looks like a high tech chain gun, but I've never seen them before.

_________________
God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.
~ Chester W. Nimitz ~
My Builds ~ http://ussnorthcaroilna.shutterfly.com/

They are the 25mm chainguns - installed in somewhat hard-to-see (every once in a while someone asks where they are located ) locations on various USN vessels.

Navweaps' page of pictures:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_25mm_mk38_pics.htm

I'm guessing the one in your picture is the remote-controlled version, mod2, around halfway down the navweaps page.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

The 25mm gun goes back to the tanker war in the 1980s. The Navy originally had 4 0.50 caliber M2 machine guns as light armament. They proved inadequate against the Iranian speed boats, The Navy had to pull WW2 era 20mm Okies, and 40mm Bofors out of storage and fit them to ships if the gulf willy nilly. The 25mm was procured because the old guns had problems. The 25mm are fit to vessels before deployment to hot spots. There is stabilized mounting that is being purchased now. A second generation 40mm stabilized mount has been tested, but grew into the current 57mm being fit the the LCS and new USCG vessels. The 57mm (2.25 inchs) has a very high rate of fire and high muzzle velocity.

Phalanx being built or refurbished now are the Block 1B variety. They have many improvements over the Earlier Block 0, 1, and 1A models. The barrels are longer and have a brace added The radars in the dome have been improved. On the side you will see a visual/IR camera. The Phalanx can now attack surface targets, and light aircraft as well as missiles. The software has been upgraded and the gun made smarter, this is because of the Cole bombing and the Gulf One incident where a Phalanx gun decided to fire at the chaff launched by the USS Missouri rather than the Iraqi anti-ship missile. The Phalanx is expected to remain in service for a considerable amount of time, and will most likely out live Goalkeeper. Its mission evolve to be more of an anti-surface than anti-missile weapon.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝

Hello, ladies and gets!

I am going to be starting an advanced Burke-class DDG (as if the Flight IIAs were not advanced enough). I am looking at either using the Lassen or the Momsen kit to build what the future Burke-class DDGs should be. The difference is that the Lassen has no UWV deck hanger and the Momsen does. IF memory serves correctly, the Lassen type, the Flight IIA without the UWV hanger is the one that is the model we will continue with. Please let me know. I would appreciate it.

I know that this is something that Seasick and a few others would have input on.
Thanks, guys! I look forward to your input!

navydavesof

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

If you want a kit of the latest Burke variant (flat funnel tops, no RMS hangar), then get the Forrest Sherman (DDG-98) kit. We'll have a review posted tomorrow.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

fo shizzle!Most totally awesome. I look forward to the review. Is it safe to assume it is simply additional parts to the Lassen kit?

I can't wait. Other than the UWV not really working too well, does anyone know why the UWV shelter was removed from future ships?

I know what I am going to add to the ship! It's going to be great!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

..

Bob, in looking at your comparison again, I must say that I disagree. The photo of the actual ship is clearly take from a point forward of the midships point (you can see the surface of the front of the aft funnel), whereas the photo of the model is taken from behind the midships point (you can see a bit of the rear surface of the fore funnel and quite a bit of the back of the bridge). If you mentally adjust these perspectives, I think that the line for the hangar doors will line up.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Bob,
Thank you. I bought the Lassen and actually butchered it terribly to make a modern CAG. I like how it is laid out, but I have not really any detail comparisons yet. I have a Warships Pictorial on the Burkes, and I will be reading this post and asking questions of you guys for such comparisons. That has been of good help. I am looking forwad to getting my hands on the Forrest Sherman model and doctor it. I am interested in the Momsen, too with its UWV hanger.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

..

I think this shot of the kit's hull has a more perpendicular angle than the one in the comparison:
http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... ull-02.jpg

I would also suggest using the kit's painting guide as the point of comparison, assuming it is rendered from the CAD that made the model:
http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... /color.jpg

Attached below is a comparison using the paint guide - sorry for the craptastic quality, but I can't figure out how to save an Autodesk file as a .jpg or .png decently. As you can see, Line 7 is much more acceptable with the paint guide as the comparison. Other proportions are off, but can be explained within reasonable bounds by parallax in the photo of the actual ship.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Do you guys realize that we are all dorks concerning ourselves with tiny differences like 2mm gaps and certain angles on stacks?

Who has OCD? This guy!

Keep it up, guys. Here are the projects I am going to need some extra help on. My USS Iowa/Modernized Iowa I am consulting THE guy who designed the '80s modernization for New Jersey which dictated what the other Iowas got later on, and he has been an incredible base of knowledge. I think I will stick with him for modernization tasks.

What I will need help with is one of the Flight IIA Burkes, Bizmark/Tirpitz, and Yamato. Thanks, guys!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

One more question.


is the part next to part 11. Should those be painted as windows? I can't find any pictures to show this area, but they sure look like windows to me.

_________________
God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.
~ Chester W. Nimitz ~
My Builds ~ http://ussnorthcaroilna.shutterfly.com/

I guess that's what it's supposed to be, but I don't see any evidence of them on that surface:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/05019228.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/05019503.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/05019514.jpg

Nice closeup of DDG-99's:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/05019917.jpg

As you can see, absolutely featureless except for some dishing-in of the surface.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

..

The forward-facing surface of the exhaust structure (?) on top of the hangar roof.

Part N10: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... ons-10.jpg
The kit as viewed from forward: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... ons-12.jpg

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?