The Ship Model Forum

Uh... I think you boys are forgetting something - the V-22 folds quite compactly - her props fold inboard to the wings, which additionally rotate to line up along the centerline when fully folded. Her horizontal space, folded, is quite notable, as fully folded, the nacelles are horizontal, rotors folded, and the wings turned 90 degrees at the shoulder. In a Hayler size hangar, I'm sure you could fit one and still have a -60 fit in.

_________________
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/

Folded it is near the CH-46 in size- Way more than you can put into a conventional (expanded) Spru hangar, but maybe a fit for the DDH hangar, as stated.

Folded sizes:

V-22 L: 63' w:18.4' H:17.9' (top of stabilizer)
SH-60 L:41.1' W:10.7' H:13.4'

(source: manufacturers data sheets)

So that's a pretty big difference. Unmodified, even the DDH hangar would only be able to take one, and probably not an additional -60.
(asuming a 2 wide by 4 long -60 layout, the useable DDH hangar would be approx L:90' W:24' unmodified).

A 90'x32' hangar should get you 1 V-22 and 2 H-60 platforms.

I do still like the idea of playing hangar roulette "hey badguys, you're not quite sure what I've got in here..." like the boat house. Let them project the threat from the range and speed of a -60, then we have the range/speed of the V-22 to operate with, or they will be forced to assume each platform has a V-22, and attempt to defend against a much larger area with less reaction time, draining their resources/spreading them thin...either way - goodness for operations from our point of view.

With 55' of beam, MAYBE you can get two side by side in a hangar after re-arranging the current layout, but you'd also need more height, as the listed height is only to the top of the stab, and the rotors extend above that when folded (no data found how much, but obvious on stowed pictures)

From what I saw of the Hayler images, it seems her hangar was actually full beam layout IIRC as there were support beams for an overhang over the deck in the hangar area, which might suggest a little more space in the hangar possibly.

Of course, the hangar roulette is quite an interesting idea as well, I agree, especially with a Specwar support platform - keep the enemy guessing as to what's in the box.

_________________
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/

Hey, guys,

I am going to be in the field for the next 5 days or so. I would so make my day when I get back if you anyone has any suggestions on how to make the DDG-963 better OR how they would construct the modifications I have suggested (resin mouldings, styrene parts, etc).

How should we construct the DDH-997? Should it be a DDHG?

What era should DDH-997 be? I was thinking mid-'80s or '90s version.

Should she be modernized? If so, what would you prefer on her?

RAP being a given, how should we extend the range of the 8" round?

How far do we think the 8" ERGM round could/should go?

To SumGui, I was on the Carter Hall for a while as part of a small boat detachment (she was there to support US. She was merely a 15,000 ton garage for 34' boats! ). Her gym was up on top of the ship (O-4 level?) exposed to the elements. Where was the gym on the gym on the Kidds you were on?

Thanks, guys. I really look foward to what kind of suggestions you have.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I would suggest a DDGH-997 layout, likely modernized - If this is a Specwar support platform, multirole support options are the most beneficient. I'd suggest:

Mk71 Forward, 32 cells Mk41 to support TLAM, LASM and others. Three SPG-51 for defensive missiles like ESSM and SM-2. Mount 52 converted to a flat deck, or else Mk29 over a raised stern house - with the expanded sub-helo area and the aft structure, ostensibly there's more internal space, and with some adaptation, and building a raised deckhouse on the fantail with a well-deck like amphib support section, it would allow the boat operation as well.

_________________
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/

Kidd's gym was where the SQR-19 would have been on a Spru. All the way aft against the transom.
Nixie was next door.

It looks like the gym on DDG-963 will have to go above decks (as on the Ashland). If you look at the previously posted pictures, the gym will go on top of the helo hanger forward of the Phalanx booth.

The Ashland had a surprisingly complete PT set up atop the ship and below the main mast. Being a physically minded guy, I will add pull-up bars, dip bars, weight racks, and a few benches. Storing iron plate weights outside isn't the best idea, but sometimes the Navy has to do with what it has. I don't think that will push the topside weight over the limit

If you noticed, I added the extensions on either side of the helo hanger for the SH-60 accomodations.

I really look forwad to getting more work done on this model, and I look forward to any drawings or pictures of what you guys have in mind of this DDG-963 or DDH-997.

Thanks.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I would like any an all input you guys have on the following topic. I would like to know why you subcribe to the belief you do.

What would be better in your opintion? The Mk71 is equipable with either teh 175mm or the 203 (8") gun. Which do you think is better for an upgraded DDG-51, the 175 (like AGS) or the 8"?

Thanks guys. I appreciate your input.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I'm of the opinion one should "Get big or go home" and in light of the situation, the 8" is the only option I see. But then, that's just one fellow's opinion.

_________________
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/

I had asked earlier about the Mk45 Mod2 or Mod4 installation. I have learned that the 62caliber gun does not need the signature gun shield that the Mod4 has, all blocky and such. The Bunker Hill and Mobile Bay were both upgraded through the HM&E modernizations with the 5"/62caliber gun, but still have the same sheild as their original Mod2s. If that is the case with the crusiers, I dare say it would be the same case with this DDG-963 program. The internals of the gun would be upgraded. The only thing you could tell was different is the length, and to the trained eye the thickness, of the gun barrel. So, the aft gun will bear the looks of the Mod2 but have a slightly longer barrel attached.

I built the SPQ-9B for the forward mast, and I modified both masts a little to accommodate the additional gear that will be installed on it, mainly a reflection of some of the great pieces on the Foster (the SDTS) and RPV antenas. The RAM mounts are about as finished as they will get, and it's almost time for paint. We're getting work done!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

SumGui,
I read a little of it on google books. I was interested enough, so I got a copy off Amazon, and it's great. Fire Support Revisited is a pretty cool chapter. I had no idea how many different variants of support ships they had made and how the battleships' classification from "battleship" to "interdiction ship", and that's all it took to get them considered again. I think such partisanship is ridiculous. That is pretty incredible. It surprises me that there is such a political notion that battleships were bad.

I have begun assembling the SPG-51Ds and pimping out the radar masts and deck. I will be in the field for the next 8 days, so I will not get to do anything significant on it until after then.

Keep up any ideas, guys! I appreciate the input.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Mk45 - interesting knowledge there, that the whole turret does not need to be replaced. That makes things simpler.

Battleships - go bloody figure, Dave. The Carrier Humpers are all over the place, alongside the Tin Can Sailors - They've hammered it deep into any head they can find that Battleships are a Dead Concept, that Battleships can't do anything anymore, that they're just dinosaurs that belong in a museum. BFG's are dead weight, useless, aircraft and submarines are the future. Repeat it after me, and keep your eyes on my watch as it swings back and forth... back and forth... now drink your kool-aid and it'll be allll better Mister Senate Oversight Commitee Director.

Keep up the good work, Man.

_________________
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/

I have posed this question to a couple people already. As I am upgrading the most advanced DXG version of the Spruance, a VLS version of a Kidd, I am trying to convert the Kidd's aft mast to accomodate the fact that a newer GFCS, the Mk160, the choice GFCS, does not incorporate a dedicated director, such as the SPG-60. Instead, it uses one of the available directors, a SPG-51. So the question is, do we keep the SPG-60 for some reason, do I put a SPG-51 in its place, or is the DXG-type completely limited to a two-director design? If it is restricted to the two-director design, what would go in SPG-51's place...maybe the Army's fire-finder?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I would suggest a SPG-51 instead of the 60 - the more operational targetting you have, the better. Update Spruances lost their SPG-60, as it got replaced with the SPS-49. If there's a new acommodation for the SPS-49, another SPG-51 is a good idea. Additionally, there was the SPG-51 above the structure on the bridge of Kidd, and the Kidds in NTU update lost their SPG-60 for SPS-49.

So, I'm guessing it's a possibility to just drop SPG-60, the question is, if you've got the space/weight/etc to spare if you want to mount another SPG-51 - it's probably a good idea, as frankly you can't have too many weapons directors.

_________________
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/

Well, they still had the SPG-60. It was just moved to the aft mast. We can tell the ships retained a GFCS that needed the SPG-60, such as the Mk86, because they kept but moved the illuminator.

In any cause, the area I am talking about is the platform just below the SPS-48 on the aft mast. That holds the SPG-60. Well, if she has the Mk160 GFCS, why keep a SPG-60 if any illuminator will work? Another SPG-51 would be far more useful; thus I have considiered the SPG-51 more than anything else.

Anyone else have a suggestion? I still wonder if the SPQ-9B takes the place of the Army's AN/TPQ-37 fire-finder radar. If not, that would be worth consideration.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Considering from what I hear, the Mk160 GFCS can direct off SPQ-9, I would imagine that in some degree it is a fire finder radar. Take from that what you will.

As to the director, I would say that yes, quite to the point, it's not a bad idea to just move to an omni-director rather than retain the SPG-60 in the case where the system is no longer needed for a pure gun director. The more directors, the better.

_________________
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/

Indeed I agree. The SPQ-9B might indeed be the answer to the fire-finding radar issue. That would carry over to the battleships as well. How interesting.

I have fitted my DDG-963 as a 3-director (SPG-51 depening on CAPT Potter's reply) ship for the moment. It looks good. If I could find my camera (the Langoleers took off with it) I would post pictures, but I cannot find it at the time being. SOON though!!! Pictures will arrive soon!

Alright, next is the mission I have in mind for the ships:

The best employment from what I have read is that DDG-963 would be assigned as Marine Amphibious Ready Groups (MARGS) escorts in addition to a CG or Burke DDG. Two DDG-963s would accompany every MARG with one CG-52 or DDG-51 and would provide pre-invasion bombardment and NSFS once the troops are ashore. In addition to such a main mission, they would be great for special operation basing, intelligence gathering, and fire support platforms.

Here is a logistical issue I have come across: the Mk71 as configured aboard the Sprucans would only carry between 336-400 rounds of ammo. There were provisions for 1000 rounds aboard other ships. So, to SumGui and CAPT Potter, do you think that there was enough internal volume to accept a magazine greater than 400 rounds or 1000 rounds like the Aegis version of the Long Beach in the forward mount of the Kidd/Spruance-class DDGs?

Thanks to all the true-believers out there. Keep the comments coming and questions rolling. I am pleased with the progress on this model!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Roger your PM's. Time is short so forgive the brusqueness. The NTU Kidd is not a feasible conversion of a DD 963 owing to the DD 963's lesser hull strength by design and by weakening from service. The conversion weapons systems could also cost more in electrical power and cooling than the DD 963 can provide. More or larger directors cost utilities and stability that may not exist. The higher (and heavier?) antenna may have limitations from vibration of the mast, more so on an aging aluminum superstructure. Removing the high SPG-60 removes a microwave reflector and thereby slightly lessens detectability at long range compared to the SPG-60.
Extra 8-inch rounds were not provided for in the design of the ship and of the original magazine space forward. IIRC the trade-off was 600 5-inch rounds or 225 8-inch rounds (probably unguided rounds, smaller than guided rounds would be). You could calculate volumes for whether more than 225 (IIRC) 8-inch rounds could fit. You would still have limitations from the trim of the ship, protection of the magazine, displacement, and maybe other factors.
In both cases the risk increases to the ship of a cheap kill at all times and provides only marginal increases in combat capability and then only in specialized scenarios.
I'm interested to see the model.

_________________
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.

DDG-963 is starting to come together.

Here is the work so far on the super structure and masts. I still have some things to fabricate, but those should not be too hard. Still to fabricate are the NULKA launchers, the SYS-2 mid-course correction antennas, enlarge the top platform on the aft mast for the SPS-48, a lot of deck details, and the duck-tail/hydrodynamic wedge.

Thanks to CAPT Potter for answering a couple questions. From what I have been reading in Norman Friedman's US Destroyers and Amphibious Ships and Craft, it looks like because so many ships of the Spruance pattern DX (what turned into the ASW version) were going to be procured, when funds came available, expected to be 10 years into their lives, the ASWs would be converted to DXG (what turned into the Kidds), because the threat was suspected to change significantly in the coming years. This was all capable, because the ships were so modular in their weapon systems.

This leads me to believe that the ASW Spruances could have been turned into the base-line DXGs at the very least if their hulls were too weak to accept the NTU equipped Kidd capabilities. They could be converted from the ASW package to the AAW package during their lives.

US Amphibious Ships and Craft quotes that the prototype Mk71 equipping Hull only had 336 rounds of 8" and the Spruances could accommodate a 400 round magazine. There was desire for the support-ship version of Spruance to equip two Mk71s with 1000 round magazines. It looks like 400 rounds is what the Paul Foster could take right now as she sits.

On the Mk71 note, in Amphibious Ships and Craft, Friedman states that the inaccuracies in the gun were mainly caused by the USS Hull’s hull flexing too much due to the ship’s light-weight construction, and the Mk68 GFCS did not incorporate all of the 8” gun’s parameters. I can’t put my finger on it now, but I read complementary information that it was expected that the more rigid hull of the Spruance would hold the weapon steady, and the Mk86 GFCS would accommodate the parameters of the weapon.

It sounds like the dispersion observed in the 8” rounds fired by the Mk71 was due to several factors. 1. The weapon was a prototype so it had kinks such as internal strengtheners and bracing that held the barrel in place needed to be stronger. 2. The barrel needed to be a little more fortified to reduce whipping. 3. Even though the deck and frame work was braced against the shock the gun would produce, the ship itself bent and flexed too much. 4. The ship’s GunFire Control System was did not have the programming necessary to accurately aim the weapon with its unique ballistic performance.

It sounds like today the weapon would be pretty reliable, especially with guided munitions.

Anyway, here are some pictures of the ship!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Nice work. Your correct alignment of parts is not easy in a scratch-build model.

Thinking more about this subject, you could suggest a situation where your ship could be acceptable as a modern combatant, despite being overloaded if it were a new ship. As an escort of MSC ships and other mercantile ships, it would be tactically acceptable if this DDG were little more survivable than the ships escorted. Since MSC ships will support the first wave of an amphibious assault, this doctrine would not take the DDG out of the action.

Since it is not a new ship, you could leave zero margin for future upgrades, on the ground that any newer equipment must have a very high priority to warrant installation at all, so that it would be acceptable to take off some of the installed equipment to allow it. This policy would free margins in hull strength, stability, and utilities to use now.

Since you could expect the converted ship to be retired in say ten years, you could posit that this ship would not be critical for some potential threats that might develop in that time. In particular, you might assume that during the next ten years a potential North Korean attack against South Korea or Japan would be detectable (indicated) in enough time to bring in other ships suited for cold weather, or that an attack on short notice would be necessarily small enough to handle with relatively nearby assets. Then you could reserve this converted DDG to operate only in warmer and normally calmer waters. That would reduce the potential demand for electrical power to de-ice the ship, and could allow for damaged stability in lesser wind velocities.

You could even accept damage on the basis that an elderly ship would not be worth repairing. Instead the policy could be to strike the ship immediately in the event of severe damage. Then you would need less margin to allow for damaged stability, such as from high wind after a torpedo or mine strike. DC equipment could be reduced to that to protect life during abandonment, with little need for shoring, emergency power cables, towing gear, etc. That has long been the policy for MSC ships and is one reason why their crew complement is smaller in numbers (and older in average age) than when the same ship was USN.

Some of these policies, including zero margins and acceptance of vulnerability similar to a merchantman, were the RN's actual practice in converting war-built destroyers to frigates in the 1950s.

_________________
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.