The Ship Model Forum

Well, I decided to bust out the tripod this time. I think the pictures turned out a little better than before!Like I said before, aside from the modernized NTU upgrade, NULKA and RAM are the greatest enhances to the defenses of the Spruance-class destroyers and have been reflected. Here they are represented as well as I can make them at this time! Hopefully in the future better representations might be possible.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

AH-HA!!! What is this?! What have I found? It would seem that the SPG-51 indeed does emit x-band frequency, (the NSSM/ESSM) so the Mk-91 illuminators would NOT be necessary! So what do we do? Do we install completely separate illuminators aboard the ship (Mk-91) VS just SPG-51Es? Oh?!

"The Mod 15 adds X-Band Continuous Wave Acquisition and Track (CWAT) capability through a new 5-channel receiver, receiver antenna, and advanced signal processor."
The most simple of extra research adds up. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-74.htm The SPG-51 does the same as the Mk-91 at a longer range. A HUGE thing in the Navy is having fewer systems so you can have fewer "specialized' skills on the ship. I can understand that, because I have heard FCs say "oh, sorry, I'm a Sea Sparrow FC" when someone came to them with a SPG-67 or an SM-2 question. (they’re b**ches)

SO: The question I would like some input on is: Should we keep the 4 director aim or reduce it to a 3 director [(the 3rd would be a SPG-51 in place of the aft Mk-91 director (aft)]? It has been stated (I cannot quote at the moment) that a 3-director Kidd-class (our ship) with NTU (especially a modernized Mk-74 WDS or greater equipped with NTU) would be nearly equivalent ans superior in MOST ways to a Flight IIA Arleigh Burke DDG. The only difference being that the Sprucan here would have rotating radars instead of the fixed the FII Burkes have. I am leaning toward a third SPG-51 on the Mk-91 post and consideration of a possible SPG-51 in place of the forward (see earlier post) Mk-91 mount.

Worth consideration. We will see.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I'm straying way out of my knowledge zone. I have no training or expertise in fire control systems beyond common sense and reading what's available to the public. Having said that, here's some thoughts for what they're worth.

As I understand it, each director (forget about type for the moment) allows terminal guidance of one missle. So, three directors - three missles, or four directors - four missles, and so on. The number of directors needed is a function of the density of threat expected. It's your WIF, you decide. In the real world today, I can't envision a realistic high density threat (waves/dozens of incoming missles). Three directors would seem quite adequate.

Having said that, in the abstract, more is always better. Four/five/six... directors offer more coverage and damage redundancy. However, real world considerations such as space, location, maintenance, weight, interference, cost, etc., all argue against more than the minimum necessary.

I would say three is sufficient for the real world. Being a WIF, if you postulate a higher than "real" threat, than go with four!

As to type, I find the commonality to be a compelling argument. I'd go with the SPG-51's.

As an aside, I have been unable to find a documented example of ESSM being controlled by anything other than a phased array based system. This includes Australian and Spanish Navies. This doesn't mean that ESSM can't be controlled using this WIF approach. Indeed, the various specs indicate that it could. It's a WIF and technically possible, so why not? I just find it interesting that one of the smaller Navies hasn't tried a "lower tech" approach such as you're proposing. Are we missing something technical?

Regards,
Bob

To add to what Bob's mentioned, one would postulate that the longer range capacity of the SPG-51 would be necessary, as the ESSM has a longer range than the NSSM, and possibly what the Mk91 could provide. Not to mention the additional redundancy for controlling SM-2 in flight and such - the commonality and the range performance would quite likely dictate the choice of using the SPG-51 instead of the Mk91. I would say that it would be folly to use otherwise.

_________________
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 no doubt that the Navy’s decision on this would be for the SPG-51.
It allows three channels farther out, minimizes manning onboard by eliminating the need for another NEC to maintain the Mk 91, and reduces onboard need for spares and support.

Gents, thanks. I appreciate the input on logic. There comes a time when over-cooking an idea starts to distract. I am glad I have a pair of Mk-91s now, but like was posted way back pages ago, a 3 SPG-51 director ship is the best and possible.

Captain Potter made the point that every director you put up vastly increases you chance of being discovered. The shape of the dish used in illuminators is designed to reflect radar energy, so like a mirrored rotator in a police light bar, it will reflect if you want it to or not. So, the balance I have to determine is the worth of another illuminator (AAW) or reduction in cost and possible detection. I think the 3rd illuminator is worth it, because like SeaSick said once, the Spruance is radar reflective anyway. If it gets close, you will see it anyway. Over the horizon fires is going to be part of shooting for this ship until you need to get closer. Then you begin relying on the radar systems, SPQ-9B specifically, and you start to give away your position anyway.

I look forward to getting some more work done in the next few days. Pretty soon this ship will be done. There is going to be an Osprey contest going down in 1 month's time at Hobby Town USA here in Virginia Beach, and I am looking forward to taking it. I don't expect to win anything, but Navy guys will be there, and I am all about planting the seeds of ideas.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

In addition for watchers, a single Mk38 Mod2 will be installed on each side of the ship. Placement is to be determined. Clarity and arch of fire is the idea. Any ideas are welcome.

In a future model I will scratch build an expanded helicopter hanger. How the kit has it, the interior of the helo hanger is rather small. I did not realize when the model went together that it would be so small. The future may hold a USS Hayler in the DDH configuration with the two variants of ASROC/ABL configuration and VLS/Mk71.

I am interested in what people might think, if they want to input, of variants of small boats aboard, SATCOM placement, and anything else that might go on there.

Any ideas or input? The time is growing short. I am almost done!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I have begun painting the railings on the Spruance-class here. The problem I am seeing is that even though I am using a spray primer that throws a really fine mist of paint, the super fine gratings still collect the paint as if you are using a brush. Are there any ways around this as far as people know? Is the answer just super fine coats?

If one needed to get the paint OFF the brass railings or gratings, what would you suggest to do in order to keep from damaging the pieces? Is there a strong enough solvent to dissolve the paint off?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Dave,

What kind of paint are you using (acrylic or enamel)? Regardless, I've sprayed lots of railings and mesh and never had a problem with them holding too much paint. Maybe just a case of too heavy a pass? For acrylics, you might try Windex to remove at least some of the paint. Let it soak a bit. I've had decent success removing acrylics with that, though you can't usually get 100% off like you can with enamels and paint thinner. You can also try acetone but that's a bit nastier to use if you're not comfortable with handling chemicals.

Just a thought... You might try laying the railings on a paper towel while you're spraying. The towel might soak up any excess paint since it's largely water. Basically, it would wick away any "puddles" that form? I haven't tried this; just thinking out loud.

Good luck!

Regards,
Bob

I am using enamels. I will let them soak over night in standard Lowe's Paint Thinner.

Bob, it looks like you are using straight out-of-the-bottle Neutral Grey for your build. Is that the case? What do you think about scaling the paint, lightening it, so it mimics actual Haze Grey at a distance? Do the Russians use the same colors?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Are you talking about my Kirov build? If so, I'm using FS36320 straight for the hull and lightened 10% with white for the superstructure. The color photos (there aren't that many and most are pretty suspect as far as being "true color") that I've seen indicate that the Soviets used a darker gray than the US Navy with some blue in it. That's my visual interpretation, at least. Who knows what they really used? The FS36320 seems to fit fairly well. I'm a big believer in scale paint, meaning lighter than the real thing. So, if I were doing a US Navy ship, I'd use Haze Gray and lighten it 10-30%. The FS36320 seems to me to be a reasonable "lightened" match to what I see in the photos of the Kirov.

As an aside, the hull and superstructure of the Kirov were two different colors. Also, even allowing for photo and lighting differences, there seem to have been multiple shades of both the hull/superstructure gray and deck brown/orange over time. Again, that's my opinion only. I have no proof.

Regards,
Bob

Very interesting, Bob. Maybe it's a camo pattern, or maybe it's just that the crew didn't paint one part of the ship at the same time as the other. Thanks for the scaling tip. I have used a lightened Intermediate Blue for my Spruance build. I am looking forward to using a lighter shade of Neutral Grey(?) for the vertical surfaces of my Iowa build. I am curious to hear what others might say about proper hull color for US Navy ship builds.

Does anyone have a suggestion for proper US Navy Haze Grey with scaling? I believe I heard Neutral Grey was the one to use. Is this right?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Depends on whose Neutral Grey. A Tamiya Neutral Grey is sadly not the same as a Model Masters Neutral Grey, for example.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Model Masters please! ... or just the right one.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

FS 36270 for Haze Gray and FS 36118 for Deck Gray which is MM Neutral and Gunship Gray. Looks close enough to me. Haze Gray hasn't been a blue-gray since WWII era 5-H Haze Gray. I "believe" that modern Haze is more of a green-gray but I've heard more than a few arguments that it's close to neutral gray and more that support the green-gray so I dunno. Not really sure the exact shade of gray. Unless someone can get a paint chip to put the argument to rest that's all it will be.

Word to the wise though, be careful trying to match Haze Gray to photos. It can take on a tint based on the natural lighting. Just look at a modern USN ship photographed near dusk, it'll look almost like it was painted a pale orange; at least to my eyes. Remember every yard mixes the paint differently causing more than one shade to be in the fleet, different parts of the ships can be re-painted at different times causing even more, not to mention weathering adding another endless amount of shades. So....if it looks right to you I'd say run with it. Neutral and Gunship looks pretty darn close to me so I'm going to stick with it until I find some conclusive proof otherwise.

A thought though, I know WEM has modern USN Haze and Deck Gray in their Colourcoats line. Anyone compared those to MM colors? I know WEM matches their paints to paint chips so they might very well be the closest thing to the real shades we can get. Can anyone verify?

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

Haze Gray is actually a semi-gloss out of the can FS26270 which is the same color as Neutral Gray (I verified it against the MILSPEC when I was on active duty). it looks to have brown in it. However, in a marine environment it quickly goes to flat. It also has a tendency to bleach with time. Also like any paint it will vary by lot number, so good Boatswains mates will mix lots to even out the color - I have seen ships that did not. In modeling there is also the issue of scale effect to factor in. I will not use 36270 in 1/700, it looks too dark; I shoot Light Ghost Gray (FS36375). In 1/350 Light Ghost Gray looks like a faded Haze Gray and works in scale effect.

Hope this helps.

_________________
Charles Landrum
USNA 1983
Norfolk, Virginia

Charles,

Any insight onto a match for Deck Gray, Non-skid, and/or Flight Deck Gray? FS36118 or MM Gunship Gray seems to do the trick for deck and with a few drops of black works for Flight Deck. I might try the Light Ghost Gray on my Hayler build which is nearing ready for paint, at least the hull anyway.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

Try as I might I never could find an FS number for Deck Gray - 36118 is what I use. Non skid is another issue...

There are/were two forms of non-skid in the 1980s and 1990s. The older style was epoxy and came in can - add the hardener, stir and roll on. This was used in magazine, internal wet spaces and the walkways on the upper decks. The flight deck and main weather decks received an epoxy skid that bonded with a rubber under-layment membrane. The rubber was red-orange and laid waterway to waterway or to a prescribed point. Fittings were masked off and had to be cut free later. Once the rubber cured the epoxy was rolled on. markings were then painted on. This gave a good flexible profile and water tight seal (mostly - but water intrusion could occur)

The can epoxy was darker than the rubber membrane epoxy. The former was grayish black when fresh, the latter was similar in color to deck gray. However, both types would bleach out to a dark gray lighter than deck gray. Since non-skid was not to be to-coated (painted with a wash) it would be lighter than the surrounding metal.

The older ships (Knox, Garcia, Brooke, Leahy, Belknap etc) had the standard non-skid and you would see walkways for high traffic areas. The newer gas turbine ships (Perry, Ticonderoga, Spruance, Kidd, Arleigh Burke) received the rubber membrane skid.

So for Hayler the fantail, flight deck and 01 level decks would be uniformly one color (unless your authentically weather!) either a deck gray color or a lighter dark gray. Her 03 level (Harpoon deck) and 04 level (fore and Aft) would be deck gray with non-skid walkways (lighter or darker, again your choice).

I hope that this helps.

_________________
Charles Landrum
USNA 1983
Norfolk, Virginia

Neato. That is some cool stuff. I have noticed that different ships have different non-skid patterns. Some have non-skie over everything horizontal and some strictly have the walk ways like you're talking about. There is always a tired sailor chipping or painting. Needle gunning is some incredible stuff. If you want to let a submarine know you're around, needle gun.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

You probably already have this or an equivalent but, just in case not, here's a nice overhead shot showing the various shades of deck color. The flight deck is quite a bit lighter.

Regards,
Bob