The Ship Model Forum

Often the flight deck is re-skidded on a different cycle one tied to the certification of the aviation facility. Also, depending on the availability of time inport, the decks cannot all be done at once but must be done in intervals. Either could explain why in this photo, the flight deck is more faded than the other decks.

_________________
Charles Landrum
USNA 1983
Norfolk, Virginia

..

Bob,
I have noticed that. I have consolidated the information a few times, and it's somewhere in there but since we have had so many great inputs on this thread, it's sometimes hard to find anything !

To directly answer your question, the data processing part "New Threat Upgrade" Combat System is a combination of a few direction systems/data processing systems. Those are the Mk74 Mod12-15 Tartar-D Weapon Direction System with the AN/SYS-2(V)1 Integrated Automatic Detection and Tracking System (IADTS) and the (A)CDS - (Advanced) Combat Direction System.

The reason why I concluded this is the system to use is, because while the Kidds carried the Mk74, it was superior to all the follow-on WDS that directed VLS compatible SM-2s. The Mk74 is on peer with the Mk99 (the system that makes Aegis what it is), likes the dynamic inputs the SPS-49(V)5, SPS-48E/G, and SPS-55/67, and sailors who have used both Aegis and NTU says it has the best user interface and is easiest to understand.

On a different topic, on the side of equipment, I think I need to explain why I added the SPQ-9B to the system. SPQ-9B fixes the "fatal" problems tot he system posed by super-sonic sea-skimming missiles. NTU is the best against long and medium range targets, and operates without peer in littoral conditions. The vulnerablity was to really fast sea-skimming missiles at close range. A gap in coverage is created by single side emitting rotating radars. As is referenced on the net, rotating radars only cover about 1/3 of the sky at time. When a target is going Mach 2.5, that gap gives a super sonic missile the time it needs to get to the ship.

The SPQ-9B fills his gap of coverage. So we understand: the SPQ-9B's purpose is NOT to be part of a gunfire control system; that was the SPQ-9A. SPQ-9B is a sea-skimming missile detecting system, and it's really, really good. SPQ-9B changes the whole game, hense why the Aegis ships are starting to take it on as well. While it rotates, it offers 100% coverage out to the horizon. That capability entirely fixes the close-range blind spots you get with the rotating nature of the SPS-48/49 radars. So with the inclusion of the SPQ-9B, the only mission area NTU cannot do that Aegis can is Anti-Ballistic Missile.

In the '80s and '90s, Aegis was always threatened by NTU ships. Aegis techs think Aegis is God's gift to humanity no matter the cost, and they feel threatened by competitors. Despite lack of 100% coverage, NTU ships always outperformed Aegis ships. At less than 1/2 the cost of Aegis (adding SPQ-9B costs nothing) NTU still offers a remarkably effective cheap alternative to Aegis.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

..

Bob,
Concerning the actual radar picture management piece of the NTU system is correct. There are more elements total if you would like to know them. Wikipedia is goofy, because people can change the meanings of things, but wiki has a pretty good list of what made up the New Threat Upgrade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Threat_Upgrade Upon that, I believe you can flesh out the architecture you produced if you want to. I like the simplicity of your flow chart.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The

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

I want to thank Seasick for taking the time to lay out the linkage of NTU and Aegis. From what the system developers have told me (now the owners and operators of BechTech) NTU was the only serious competitor with Aegis and can, with the assistance of SPQ-9B could close it's gap of vulnerability. The threat of 100 missile saturation attack is very low in most threat areas. I would like to hear what Seasick thinks should be done to NTU to close it's vulnerability gap.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

AN/SPQ-9B

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

..

I am looking forward to what carr and seasick come up with. I have not found technical data concerning the SPS-48G, but people here in the Navy are saying it is going to be a huge step up in the antena performance, reliability, and maintenance. Because all SPS-48Es are scheduled to receive the upgrade kits, do you have an idea how the G version would affect capability of such an NTU system?

A second thing is to Seasick. There is an effort to add a phased array to the Perry-class FFs to make them FFGs again. I saw this system at the Surface Warfare Symposium conference in DC. It is a system that is mast mounted and typically goes where the SPQ-9A went and would have another mounting aft. Each array is arrow shaped and would scan 180 degrees. Do you know the performance of this sytem and how this could be incorporated into a lesser-than-SPY-1D system? The idea is, like carr had to say, taking a Burke and making it medium range with less than Aegis as a weapon system. There is one thing keeping the Navy from maintaining a 313 ship fleet (like its existing goal). That is ship costs. If the Navy could assume a lesser-than-SPY-1D system it could achieve its 313 goal or achieve its 400 ship target (so says CNO Roughead).

For instance the Burke DDG with an upgraded NTU instead of Aegis (or a SPY-1F instead of SPY-1D) could provide excellent defense and could be equipped with other technology superior to that which is curently being fielded (such as MK71 Mod1 or 2 and RAM) while maintaining a balance between cost and capability. It seems like we have been focused on building mega ships since the 1990s and not building any kind of middle-of-the-road "mission accomplishers" like we need to have.

The Burke hull is a great starting point. RAM incorporation would be very, very easy. It would be great if we could get a cheaper WDS on board that ship if we could so we could have more hulls, because we all know that numbers count just as much as capability.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Its

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

Now I am running on 18 year old memories since that is the year I attended the NTU course at FCTCLANT in Dam Neck prior to reporting as the Operations officer on Biddle (CG-34). I also used the system on USS Dale (CG-19) as embarked staff and I helped install it on USS Harry E. Yarnell (CG-17). As has been discussed - NTU was a triad of modules: the combat direction system (CDS) interface, the weapons direction system (WDS) which controlled the fire control system and the SYS-2. Please remember that NTU on all platforms both the SPS-48E and the SPS-49(V)5 provided sensor input into NTU, not just the 48E alone. The SYS-2 integrated these radars and the operator never saw raw video, just processed video. By clutter mapping and other techniques the picture could be optimized for the best presentation. That made NTU a better overland radar system than AEGIS with the SPY-1; I used it off Montenegro and also off Columbia (tracking smugglers). There was a test between the USS Thomas S. Gates and USS Biddle, which highlighted the weakness of AEGIS overland and was never published for obvious reasons. That test lead to many changes to the AEGIS algorithms.

As NTU warships were decommissioned the NTU computers were installed on the CVNs, LHAs and LHDs. But they only got 2 of the 3 modules - CDS and the SYS-2 (since none of these ships has a long range SAM). So when I served on USS Enterprise (CVN-65) and USS Saipan (LHA-2) we had a fabulous air picture. So NTU in one form lives on in the US Navy.

_________________
Charles Landrum
USNA 1983
Norfolk, Virginia

Probably the primary driver that made a refit Spu appealing to me was best use of available assets.

When the thoughts entered my mind while serving aboard various vessels in the early-mid 90's, Spruances were clearly not long for this world in spite of the shinny new Mk41 forward, and a massive amount of money recently put into the CGs was being wasted by decomming vessels just refit with NTU.

I always thought movement of the NTU systems from the CGs to refit/improved Spruance was the right choice. That would yield 18 modified Spruance class vessels (I regard Mahan's NTU as the EMD model, and probably not a candidate for refit). As many other pieces and parts were still available for modification and/or in production, chances are you could get the other 13 refit after showing the viability of the first 18.

In the end, by not doing this, the Navy lost BOTH the capabilities of the NTU CG and the Spruance class.

As NTU has a heavy hand in modifying existing equipment, comparison in cost between it and an entirely new-build Aegis system really couldn’t be done at any point. I do not advocate sacrificing Aegis for NTU, but NTUs capability in its time should not be dismissed. NTU was a great complement to Aegis – both filled in the others weak areas.

Naturally, I am a Big fan of the additional mods put forward here - especially the Mk 71. With it, a clear capability hole is filled, rather than just not losing either the ASW effectiveness of the standard Spru or the AAW capabilities of the NTU CGs. No way to keep the SM-2ER, as Mk 10 had to leave with the ships build around it.


I was happy to see re-utilization of some of the items from NTU ships, but it was a tragedy that the entire capability as a package was not retained.

The

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

I love watching what other people have to write! I don't know if you saw my post about the new performance of the SPS-48G or not, but scroll up a little and take a look or google it. I believe its picture resolution is to be twice as good, handle twice as many tracks, and have a larger field of view now.

As for the costs, like the NTU installers told me, and you can reference Friedman's US Destroyers 2nd Edition p.423 on your own, Friedman also makes a direct cost comparision: a new NTU system would cost half as much as Aegis. So, with the addition of SPQ-9B, the short range (and fatal) envelope of vunlnerablility is eliminated. NTU is now a viable option to Aegis in all but the highest threat (the most least likely) environments.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The

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

Excellent post, as usual. Good info on the SPS-48G.

If I understand you correctly, your upgrade suggestion represents a 100% "real" upgrade as opposed to Dave's upgrade which has a WhatIf element (the Mk71, in particular). Very nice.

Possibly substitute a Mk110 to replace the Mk29 rather than a second RAM?

I assume "land" the CIWS means delete it? Just out of curiosity, what's the rationale? Weight reduction? Or, just that it's not needed given that there's already a RAM and another CIWS?

Given the existing shape of the ship, what did you have in mind for radar signature reduction?

You stated that a Spruance would not be providing area AAW. Fair enough. That implies that it would be responsible for self-defense only. Having said that, would it be possible to provide adequate self-defense with only a -49 and -9B, thereby avoiding the -48 weight issue? Or am I way off base here? I know the -49 is only 2D but would it suffice for self-defense?

Again, good post and thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Regards,
Bob

Only

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

Mark,

At the risk of being repetitive, just another outstanding post! Very informative. Thanks for sharing.

Although you didn't quite say it explicitly, I interpret this as saying yes, that -49/-9B would be adequate given the balance of the various factors (performance, cost, weight, longevity, and operational role). Tell me if that's not what you meant.



My first reaction was that it would not be possible to reduce the radar signature enough to be worth the cost and effort. On the other hand, here is a picture of a Perry which presumably has a very large signature due to its giant, slab sided superstructure. Note the railings which appear to be angled, low observable type. If there was ever a ship that I thought would not benefit from small attempts at signature reduction, this is it, and yet the Navy did so. I wonder what impact it had?

Regards,
Bob

The

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