The Ship Model Forum

Well, guys, after a hundred posts of really informative disucssion with input from engineers, a technical author, and actual hands on experience, here are the final answers I have gathered to the original mission stipulations I assembled.

- Long enough service life to last for another 20 years
That can be accomplished with a full Service Life Extension Program. A Hull and Engineering repair and upgrade including a widening of the beam by means of a large blister on either side of the ship in the same fashion as has been done to the Ticonderoga-class crusiers. This modification would include hull strengthening that would increase the hull's strength wtihout making it so rigid it won't flex.

- Modern gunnery capable of engaging direct action in preparation for amphibious landings, NSFS, and gunnery strikes.
The Mk71 Mod0/1/2 Major Caliber Light-weight Gun would be installed in the ship's forward gun mount. A Mk45 Mod4 5"/62caliber gun would be installed aft. The current mod of the Mk160 GFCs would give the ship's gunnery an extreme capability over previous Spruance-class capability.
UAV detachment capable of designating targets over the horizon for both 8" and 5" ERGM rounds. This is not talking about the overly ambitious ERGM, we're talking about one that works similar to the Deadeye.
The installation of the 8" gun forward would result in the reduction of the forward Mk41 VLS pad forward from 61-cells to 48 or 32cells. A full 64-cell VLS pad would be installed aft in the traditional arrangment.

- AAW system capable of competing and integrating with Aegis CGs and DDGs.
The remarkable reliability and expansion of capabilities the Tartar-D AAW system fitted with the New Threat Upgrade would give the Spruance-class DDs a world-class AAW system; ideally suited for excort capabilities and the littoral environments; low and slow targets over land.

- Point Missile Defenses meeting modern demands of missiles ranging from SS-N-2 Styx/Silkworkm types to as much as SS-N-22 Sunburns.
ESSM, RAM, Phalanx Block 1B, Nulka.

- Engaging in and/or direct support of littoral combat operations (small boat swarm attacks to oil platform defense).
Point Missile Defense systems and Mk38 Mod1/2 25mm gun systems fill this job well. Infra-red cameras associated with the optical range-finders included in a new shore-bombardment suite would be instrumental in detecting and targetting small boats. Phalanx Block 1B is instrumental in this.

What do you guys think?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I think the only issue not addressed would be that of torpedo and explosive boats, (like with the USS Cole)

have always wondered why the US Navy never developed a magnetic plate that could be run outrigger style several feet from the hull to detonate any torpedos

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

Well, the blister installed around the entire freeboard of the ship is the best and pretty much only defense against a torpedo strike.
When it comes to modern torpedoes fired from submarines and modern ships like the Spruance-class and forward, torpedo strikes pretty much kill the ship anyway. Unless you can trick and decoy the torpedo to go somewhere else, the ship is going to sustain catestrophic and fatal damage. One of the things we have observed from nearly every SINKEX is that when Mk48 ADCAP torpedoes are used, they usually break the ship in half. Every once in a while it does not, but it likely inflicts so much damage that the fact that the ship has not broken up yet is kind of beside the point.
Any submarine launched torpedo, especially good ones, are going to be heavier than the Mk48 and will pretty much do the same stuff the ADCAP does against ships. All of the new neat-o mods made to make the ADCAP even capable (more ADCAPpy) are directed toward defeating submarine countermeasures and tactics involving termoclines and water knuckles. Unfortunately, the Sprucan sitting up there on top of the water is going to die even if it has a big blister around the hull or magnetic runner several feet from the ship. The shock will hammer the ship so hard its hull will rupture, and its---while more resilient than Aegis---delicate systems will be so out of alignment that any other threats will likely have a pretty easy time coming in for the kill shots.
As for the suicide boat, yes, the blister takes care of that. E-Z. The ship will sustain damage, but it will not be a kill like the Cole suffered. And YES, the Cole was dead, no question. The fact that she was still floating had nothing to do with her life but instead her awesome crew. She had to be almost completely rebuilt.
To fix the torpedo problem, we need to start building ships like we built them in 1930-1950 with torpedo compartments and blisters. The ships would benefit greatly from angled armor along the water line as well; I'm not talking 12" battleship armor, but a healthy 5-6" of very, very strong stuff, maybe even Specialy Treated Steel backed by 8" of Kevlar armor. Then we'd be talking real protection against real threats instead of justifying why we don't need passive protection on the hulls of our ships. We had an entire generation of ships luck out and not get into a naval war where they took hits. Those ships that did take hits were ruined and had to be carried back.
Please keep the comments coming!!!

I would also like to hear from the engineer and pracitcal Kidd experience guys what they think should be done to the NTU package in order to simply bring it up to date with fiber optics, digital computers, and any expansion of capability you see necessary.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Torpedoes nowadays work by exploding beneath the target's keel, breaking its back. I do not believe they operate by impacting the hull sides anymore. Thus, a shield around the hull would not be effective at all unless it wraps around the bottom of the hull too.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

I still have to chuckle at the "don't need passive protection" thought. It just makes me chuckle, so much. Of course, it's doubly inspired by a discussion over at Navweaps theorizing (way off the deep end) what would happen if a Nimitz CVBG appeared ten clicks off the German HSF on Death Ride, in 1918, without the Mutiny. Seriously, I would love to be standing on the side lines watching That fireworks display, as the German fleet tears up everything that isn't the Subs, because they Would be first to fire, seeing a US flag in a situation where they're already at war with the USN in Their thinking, while the US is scrambling to figure out what the hell just happened.

Realistically, modern torpedoes would kill a Spruance no matter what you prayed for. I would question ADCAP vs a Capital ship like, say, an Iowa or a Nimitz, I think their keel's a bit long to snap under one standard Mk48 ADCAP.

Still all sorts of interesting is the thoughts you can do with the Spruances and their ilk.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.

Well, come on . Of course I want to hear criticism, but I hear from you it's impossible, I hear from people who were on the Kidds with all the modifications except for VLS or Mk71 say it is possible.
The communications and C4I gear is given. I was answering my specific goals I originially posted. You and I have seen the guys in charge modify ships from CAs to CAGs when people were yelling and screaming about the removal of the aft gun would trim the bow down too far and the design was not practical. If we had retained the Boston and Canberra for instance, they would have likely been reactivated and upgraded during the '80s with a world-class weapon suite. Understand, I am not trying to compare the delicate hull of the Spraunce-class to a heavy cruiser, just the extent, which Boston CAG was a minor one in comparison to others, to which we can modify ships. Everyone but a very, very select few tell me NTU was the best. The Kidds mounted it very easily.
As an engineer I understand there are limitations to the ship itself, but there have been so many changes to ships that were already right at their weight limits that I do not understand at all why NTU is not feasible on a DD-963:
I sat down and brain-stormed a little with guys over in the NAVSEA building, and what we talked about was that the modifications are feasible for up to 64 cell aft with shifting in machinery and ballast. The best idea while not moving the ballast (either lead or concrete) around was feasible, but another deck would have to be removed to access it. So, depending on funding either the short VLS tubes you referred to would be installed aft and forward pretty much be reserved for only tomahawks. If funding to access the ballast and move it around was funded, the deep cells with a modified ballast would be arranged. Neither one said how the ballast would be arranged. The Mk71 is "free" with a reduction of the forward VLS battery to 32cells, and NTU is easy. Two of the three guys I talked to were very familiar with the system, and they said it was completely feasible. The aft mast would have to be changed, no question. The computing equipment associated with NTU now could fit inside of a compartment 11x11 but would be spread amongst different compartments. The two SPG-51 directors would be installed on top of stands similar to those aboard the Kidds.
"With the exception of strengthening the hull as you pointed out, the equipment could be modified to fit the ship instead of the other way around," he said to me. "But unless you were going to use these ships for another 15-20 years it would be a lot of work for not much use."
We talked about the cost/benefit against building another Burke with an 8" gun and agreed that a DDG-963 is a lot more lucrative and would have kept the Navy's numbers up above 300 ships instead of having fallen like we have.



Oh, boy, I agree. Nothing wants to get hit by a torpedo. Ship construction has improved in some areas but has generally degraded since we were building ships to take hits. The objective is NOT to get hit by a torpedo. The blister, which is being installed on the Ticonderogas, is only really for suicide boats, predetonation of missiles, and a minimizing of damage to the hull from a mine strike.
That is a modification that is currently being installed. The NAVYSEA gentlemen said the blister and stern-flap being installed aboard the Ticos are a must.



I will. Because these gentlemen at NAVSEA have supported my idea for NTU installation and Mk71, I will include those in the ship's design.
Please remember, the idea of keeping the Sprucans is to IMMEIATEWLY get NSFS capability in the fleet, so because the Mk71 is a proven platform, it is a must.



Could you please describe the muzzle wobble you're referring to and why internal reinforcing machinery could not fix that problem? So far, you're the only person telling me there was an actual problem with the mount itself instead of a FC computer not being linked up to the mount right.
A Mk71 project manager, one of 4 he said, told me the Hull's GFC computer was not tied into the gun, so they were having trouble at first doing anything but optical sighting. Once that was "rigged", surface engagement was dead on, but AAW was not going to work. there was no rigging they were going to be able to do. Even if it had been "rigged in", the GFC did not know how to calculate for the 8" gun at the time anyway.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

And the follow up post for Captain Potter:

I understand that over 9 pages you contributed quite a bit of recommendations as far as mods to the Spruances. Here are the things that stick out in my mind about what you have said and questions I have about them:

- The forward VLS arrangment would have to be reduced as far as 16 tubes and as much as 32 cells. Would you say 32 cells is acceptable?

- You refuse to entertain the idea of NTU. Why can't the ships be modified to the DXG armament or to the original Kidd arrangement? Is the difference between DXG/Kidd and DD-963 displacement riding that much on the threshold?

- If space and weight are an issue, why can't the ASW equipment be reduced to make room for the AAW equipment?

- I have included what I have been told about the Mk71 MCLWG above. What do you know about the weapon, and what kind of bracing around the barrel are you talking about?

- You have referred to the aft VLS arrangement being 64 cells arranged in 16x4 modules, an arrangement the US Navy does not use, set up along the Mk26 magazine tracks, because it's attrractive to naval architects and is convenient due to the underlying structure.
Why can't the aft Mk26 magazine be removed or modified to accept the standard Mk41 arrangement just like the forward position? The already did it in the bow. Why not aft? The only limiting factor is that the depth due to ballasting.

- Can you illustrate or post an illustration to what you are referring to concerning the aft VLS arrangment?

- In your opinion, what are the modifications necessary to make the Spruance-class guided missile destroyers?

Thanks, Captain. I am so sorry to have disappointed your expectations with this thread. I am just trying to understand why we cannot take a Spruance and make it a Kidd.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Yes, that's for sure. The only real defense would be a huge Montana-class type blister with in credible torpedo defense system with multiple bottoms and hulls. Even then, three or so hits would likely doom the ship unless it were the Montana or a ship of similiar size and design.

The blister I described is for surface and missile impacts.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I agree that you have too many VLS cells to be supported by the math that was shown in the earlier posts.

Or are you assuming some form of reinforcing which was not possible in the opinion of CAPT Potter?

Mk 71 Muzzle wobble is an urban myth, just like the myths that the Spruance class was somehow under prepared when they came out.

Every reference I have ever seen states the Mk 71 had predictable shot dispersion.
Here is an example:

"Test firing of conventional unguided rounds from the prototype Mark 71 8-inch/55 gun showed predictable shot dispersion that critics called innacurate"
Electronic Greyhounds, Potter, Micheal. 1995. Page 118.

The whole plan forward that we crunched was 32 cells forward plus Mk71, the aft layout was the unsure question, but Mr Potter pointed out 64 was Possible by replacing down the Mk26 tracks, but the problem is, the tracks ran Under the helipad, so it's Physically impossible, unless we reorganize internals (again, Not impossible, the Ticons did it) to fit the 61/64 cells aft. If we alter ASW fit so that it can accomodate the AAW fit better, I don't see the problem.

What I'm not sure of... was the ballasting present for the Mk26 Mod 1 plan? That one I'm questioning. Did they rip out the internals in order to accomodate more ballasting when they went to VLS, to accomodate new ballasting, or was it set in the Mk26 magazine spacing?

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Sorry if I sound impatient, but I have already posted that information here, twice, or even more. So, how about: re-read all the posts here and read the May 1987 Naval Engineers Journal article, which your NavSea contacts can find in their library. They may know the author.

Your posts hint that your NavSea contacts are looking only at volumes, not at weights and the ship's center of gravity, nor at utilities like electricity.

On the 8-inch gun Mk 71 mount, my information came from my commanding officer, a future 2-star, who was directly involved in the evaluation. His message about dispersion (caveat: this was 30 years ago now) would be consistent with the situation if one Mk 71 gun mount could not drop enough shells close enough around a target point to achieve a particular probability of kill during a particular time frame. It seems possible that the accuracy limitation existed with USN WW2 8-inch gun mounts but was unnoticed until the Mk 71 mount when only one gun fired instead of six or nine. The Mk 71 mount was not revived under SecNav Lehman, possibly because he was more interested in Tomahawk and in recommissioned battleships. In indirect fire missions, by definition you don't hold the target with your own sensors. If the story now is that it was all a problem with the test ship's FC system, that sounds ridiculous.

Some CIWS guns have braces to deal with muzzle wobble. Some ground artillery, too?

The Kidds even as built were no longer a design that a DD 963 could be converted to. The DD 963s and DDG 993s continued to diverge during their respective modernizations. The Kidds never had SH-60s, SQR-19, Outboard, NSSMS, and RAM. They were not a Spruance-plus, but were instead a Spruance-minus plus their particular area air defense system. That does not mean the DDG 993s were defective. They were simply examples of necessary trade-offs to produce an alternative configuration.

Thanks for the quote. It isn't the first time I've had my own book quoted back at me!

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.

I understand, and I feel really bad about having not memorized the thread. Between tasks I am able to read the posts, try to assemilate the info and then ask more questions. Now that a massive squadron-wide exercise is now organized, I can relax and really read everything on here several times. I do appologize for wasting your time asking questions you have already answered. I also see where some of your answers hint answers to questions I have, so I clarify.



Well, I don't think that was the case, but what I can say is that they were not crunching numbers. They were brainstorming and working off their combined knowledge of the Spruances; that was all.



Why should that cause any kind of long-term problem that can only be solved by giant stantions outside of the mount? I have not been able to find many field artillery pieces with huge Phalanx-type braces.
Such errors cannot be associated with 8" rounds, they have to be with the interior workings of the mount itself. So my question is why can't the interior of the mount be braced like the Mk45 Mod4 was to keep the barrel straight and narrow until the round exits the barrel? The 16" guns bounce all over the place but not until the round has left the barrel. Why could the 8" gun not be the same way?



I have wondered about that quite a bit. As I have learned more about the rediculous favor giving in order to get the battleships reactivated, SECNAV Lehman seemed to have had to focus only on them and not on the Des Moines CAs or even the Mk71 for fleet-wide installation. Indirect fire corrected by UAVs and forward spotters with laser designators is the future of NSFS and other artillery support. There is no reason we do not field an 8" gun firing laser guided rounds designated by UAVs for guys on the ground.
I have a few answers in my head, but on topic of the quote, why not pursue the development of the Mk71 and ERGM 8" rounds now? When I asked CNO Roughead what we were doing to solve the NSFS problem, he told me pretty much nothing. The AGS and 155 are so far down the road another option is needed. He had never heard of the Mk71 MCLWG and was shocked that a system had already been produced.



Well, I have to say that the numerous and unrelated people wo have told me a bad FCS was to blame are pretty numerous. On the pther hand, the ballistics of barrel wobble iare very interesting. I understand that, and it wounds like a pretty heay consideration. Other than barrel braces, what kind of reinforcing could be used? We can be sure that there would not be external bracing to naval deck guns like what's on Phalans Block 1A or 1B.

The other gentlemen on the post have concluded that 32-cells foward and 48 aft is a good idea withthe 8" gun forward.
It sounds like you, Catapin, are only a proponent of 16 cells forward with the following stipulations:

Forward:
Mk71
16 VLS cells

[Whereas the number crunching leads to 32-cells forward)

AFT
VLS 64 cells arranged in 16cell modules
Mk45 Mod4
RAM
NSSM
Phalanx Block 1B
Satcom antennas (other than the standard trash-cans al the Spruances have what are you referring to?)
SH-60 upgrade.
Is this correct, and what kind of BIG additions would you add?

What would you employ to make the DD-963 into DDG-963?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Been pretty quiet for a while now, the one thing I'd like to add, is the 8" was never finished, thus never put on the DD-963's, the CG-47's, the DDG-993's and the DDG-51's which are still in production. I think that's where it became a bring them back for a bit, versus a what if we could thread, that being the case I'd figure that a reactivated and or modernized Spruance is not going to motivate the powers that be to bring it back, maybe update the 5"ers with the latest and greatest, or replace one or both of them with a different weapon system, but a 30 year hull even with the forward mount setup for the larger gun is not a likely scenario even if the Marines were cheering for it, or the ballon goes up and the Foster and Radford head for the yards tomorrow.
I think this thread was a great, lot's of fun to track everyone's thoughts and wants.

NEXT

Alright. Captain Potter, now I understand.

- The DD-963 as they were at decommissioning could not be converted to a Kidd with their existing equipment configurations. DD-963s did not have the Mk-74 WDS, so the NTU would have nothing to upgrade. So, IF we were to do that, the entire Mk-74 WDS would have to be installed, a little more structure would have to be added and directors installed on top of the structure and the aft mast modified and lightened up to accept the SPS-48E. All of the hardware would have to be added to the ship, including the tiny little emitters, emitters smaller than a SPS-67 radar, you pointed out.

- I can only assume from your posts that all this equipment would have to go in place of the sonar hardware, or at least the sonar's weight would have to be swapped for that of the AAW package.

- The Mk71 MCLWG would have to be modified to not suffer so much from the muzzle wobble as you describe.

- The Kidds' hulls were more reinforced than those of the Spruances. As a result, the hulls were not strong enough to support as much of a displacement as the Kidds were. The Kidds' increased displacement might be why in so many pictures where the Spruances and Kidds are moored side-by-side that the Kidds sat deeper in the water.

- The Mk71 up forward would cost at least half the VLS foward. A maximum of 32 deep VLS cells foward and possibly the maximum 64 short VLS aft. I understand that for the aft VLS, you suggest the 16 cell arrangement is preferable and more lucrative to naval architects. In such an arrangement, the Mk26 Mod1 magazine would facilitate 64 cells in the 16 cell arrangement, which suggests 64 cells in any kind of arrangement. It has been suggested, however, that the magazines for the Mk26 Mod1 extend underneath the helo deck, limiting the full 64 cell capacity.
A limiting factor in any kind of modernization/modification you have stated is the ballasting material aft.
Here is where our center of gravity comes in to play. It sounds like you're suggesting that the hull of the DD-963 was not supported well enough to support 61 cell VLS forward and aft like the Ticos (without the Mk71 forward of course). Could it be that all the extra structure up top on the Ticos is why their hulls were reinforced so much. The DD-963s on the other hand, were two (?) decks shorter and thus lighter. Wouldn't that mean that such height and weight, thus center of gravity might be directly swapped with the VLS at the main deck level?

- What kind of process did you have to go through to get your book published? It seems like getting a book of any kind, novel or reference, would be remarkably hard to get published unless you were commissioned. What was your experience like?

- To your knowledge, how deep would the cuts in the ASW capability be to support any kind of DDG package, not necessarily NTU?

Anyone else's input into this would be greatly appreciated as well.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Hmm, well. I guess this one is dead now. The next post I will make is one with pictures of the model itself!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I still support the config you originally posted three back, Dave:

Forward:
8/55 Mk71 MCLWG
32 Cells Mk41 VLS

Aft:
64 Cells Mk41 VLS (internals could still be shifted - there's space to move things into, in the original long space for the Mk26 tracks.)
Mk45 M4

Center Block:
WSC-3 SATCOM (the Ticos have it too, other than upgrading if there's anything on a Burke, stick with it) - Forward WSC-3 to center of structure.
RAM (I might suggest putting it on the structure, counter-cornered to the Phalanx)
Phalanx Block 1B in original positions.
SH-60 - though didn't the Sprucans already get them? I know the Kidds save one didn't.


Not sure of the merit, but it might be a concept to upgrade the structure with some of the additions from a Kidd? Maybe the bow flare extensions from a Tico? I'm not entirely sure why structural reinforcement upgrades couldn't be added, as if we're bringing back a Spruance upgrade, most of them are already scrap, this concept would have to be a ground-up build to begin with. I'm not saying specifically a situation of scratch it and start over, but a fresh-base hull with lessons learned incorporated into it. It would make more facility in the case of modifications.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Yes, I agree with the additions to the structure. They will be a little different for sure, but mostly the same.
I agree a keel up Spruance like this would indeed have all of our modifications including all the lessons learned from the Kidds and Ticos. This produces a ship that would cost probably half that of a Burke with nearly the same capabilities, but still a lesser ship, but capabilities more suited to the amphibious demands today.
Thanks for the additional input. I am on vacation now and will get back home in a week. Then, I will finish up the Bunker Hill for a friend and then proceed onto Spruance.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Not a problem, Dave. Always happy to share the thoughts.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Consider: Lose TLAM. The original Tomahawk idea was the extinct TASM, which the ships could aim. The ships had no capability to aim TLAMs. DD 963s were only a platform of opportunity for them. The last occasion when TLAM strikes are associated with a victory for the United States and its allies was the Clinton administration's Kosova campaign.

TLAM conflicts against air defense for expeditionary strike groups. The tactical need to carry TLAMs away to launch points takes the DDGs (and their sonars) away from the ESG high-value units. The timing for the TLAM strike is or was likely to be a crisis (albeit usually a crisis contrived for domestic PR purposes by fascistic "conservatives" who by their own accounting have never won a war) when therefore the tactical threat becomes highest to the HVU. As Clausewitz wrote, the opponent reacts.

The DDG air defense capability is for high altitude, bad weather (enough to close the CV flight deck), and saturation attacks. Point defenses, which you need anyway, are better for other situations. In realistic and relevant tactical conditions, NSSMS had a higher SSPK than the FFG Standard system.

Consider: Lose the forward VLS and replace it with the electronics for the lightweight export SPY-1F. As a modeler, you can figure out where to mount the SPY-1F arrays and Aegis illuminators. An aft VLS would hold VL NSSMS, VL ASRoc, and Standards. You wouldn't need SPS-40/48/49/SPG-51/60/NTU.

Also consider a UAV capability for OTHT but not to interfere with the helo capability. Since DDG 51s make do with one gun mount, you could also lose Mt 52 if you need more space.

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.