The Ship Model Forum

Thanks for chiming in Seasick. I don't know if this is common knowledge, but one of the biggest deals with radar returns from ships is railings. The "slab sided" structure of the Spurance, Tico, Perry, LHDs, LHAs, LPDs, LSDs, CVNs, and nearly every other kind of ship in the fleet only returns radar from certain angles. You have to be within a certain degree of perpendicular from the surface to get a return from that particular surface. Railings and ladders, on the other hand, bounce radar energy all over the place and act almost like light bulbs. The best way I can equate it is like when they frost designs into plexi-glass and then illuminate the glass from its edge. The smooth surfaces do not look luminescent, but where ever there is a frosted surface the light gets caught on the frost and radiates in all directions. Normal railings are exactly like that. I don't know how much radar reduction there is when you change railings, but I know it's a really, really big deal.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I guess that would be because of the curved surface of railings and ladders - you'll get a surface that's perpendicular to you no matter which way you are looking at it because the surface is curved.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

That's one of the ideas.

Also, for the absolutists out there: radar acts magically a lot of times. Sometimes it does not do what mathematical models say it should, including reflection. Pure ***ing Magic sometimes.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Well back from leave, guys!

I took Spruance down to the local Hobby Town USA competition, and it was well received. Railings are the only thing left. Now that I'm back, time to finish this pig up!!!

Here is SPG-51 #3. All that back and forth with the Mk-91 director and sea sparrow and all that BS, it goes right back to the SPG-51 again. This is the aft A/C unit where the Sea Sparrow directors Mk-91/92s were on the Sprucans. This position is also where a SPG-51 was originally supposed to go in a "DDG conversion" of the Spruance-class. This conversion was supposed to turn them from just ASW ships to AAW ships as well, and it was supposed to happen approximately 10 years into their service lives. So naturally, this is a great place for the director.

Before long, pictures of the finished beauty.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

So, is this baby finished?

Can you post a photo of the ships?

_________________
NIKOS (NICK)
ΜΕΓΑ ΤΟ ΤΗΣ ΘΑΛΑΣΣΗΣ ΚΡΑΤΟΣ
(GREAT IS THE NATION THAT MASTERS THE SEAS)

Hey, guys!

Well, I have been trying to figure out how to share the news for a while. When I was moving my belongings from Virginia to Texas I entrusted the Spruance upgrade to the US Post Office. What was I thinking?!

Well the ship was destroyed inside of its case and was unsalvageable

However...I learned a lot of lessons building this model. This was the first ship I had attempted in several years, so there were a number of things I learned and thus will do differently...but now I know how to make it So, you know what that means...

There will be another, and it will be triumphant. In meantime though, I am learning the ways and means of Japanland. Let me tell you, guys, Tokyo is a zombie time bomb.



Can you say, "all you can eat buffet?" When the inevitable zombie war comes...oh boy! Tokyo is going to be in baaaaaad shape.


All I can say is that I will be ready. Designs for survival are already underway.

More models will come from yours truly.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Rocket propelled chainsaw?!! That's awesome.

Careful, though. One of those could sink an LCS!

Preparation is key.

Respect.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

BEST QUOTE EVER!!!!!

_________________
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

My modernized Spruance will be replaced. I have continued to refine the ideas taking into account some of the inputs other have made in this thread. Specifically Seasick made a few good points. I have figured there could be 2 versions based on the (former) configurations of the ships capable of either just ASW or an AAW.

The missions would stay the same as before:
- Filling the NSFS gap
- Filling the ASW gap
- Filling the numerical ship gap for 15-20 years
- Providing a highly effective AAW capability without the prohibitive cost of 20-30 more Aegis systems over the short-term of fleet growth
- Providing an independent SOF basing and support platform

The modernization of Phalanx CIWS, RAM, radomes, and mast upgrades in the previous build would be similar if not the same as before. Instead of upgrading the aft mast to simply “look like” the Kidd-class mast, it was made clear by CAPT Potter, a Spruance-class subject matter expert, that a smaller, lighter aft mast like that of the Kidds was preferable due to weight concerns.
Regardless of which, both would have the standard modernization of:

Flight II (upper limit of the ASW but a starting point for AAW)
- SPS-49E (v)5
- SPQ-9B
- Mk160 Mod5 GFCS
- 2x Phalanx Block 1B
- 2x RAM
- 2x Mk38 Mod2
- 2x Mk95 ESSM illuminators
- NULKA w/SRBOC
- NTU electronics without the Mk74 Tartar WDS
- SQQ-89 (v)15
- Outboard (equivalent SIGNIT)
- Mk45 up gunned to Mod4 aft (ASW with both forward and aft Mod4)
- Duel RHIBs on the starboard side
- Remote mine hunting drone on the port side
ASW Unique:
- 64-cell VLS forward (TLAM, ASROC, ESSM)
- UAV communications [L-3 Communications tactical common datalink (TCDL) and/or AN/ARC-210 link]
- PCMS/radar absorbant material layered all over the ship's vertical surfaces

The ASW version was the majority of the Spruances. They had a 61-cell VLS arrangement forward. There were several (7?) that did not get the VLS modernization. Those that did not receive the upgrade still had the reserve space forward for the Mk71 MCLWG that the entire Spruance-class was intended to carry in the forward mount. The ones with the 61-cell VLS ate up some of the 8" gun's weight margin questioning its ability to carry the 8" gun forward. With the 61-cell module not in place, those 7 ships could mount the gun and be upgraded with the smaller 32-cell VLS forward with the following configuration:

Spruance FlightIIa (AAW):
- all previous in addition to:
- Mk71 Mod2 in place of Mt51 (making it Mt81)
- 32-cell Mk41 strike length VLS (in place of the ASROC magazine capable of firing TLAM, ASROC, SM-2, ESSM)
- TRS-3D radar on the aft mast if SPS-48 is weight or cost-prohibitive
- 32/48/or 64 cell Mk41 tactical length VLS aft in place of Sea Sparrow launcher (SM-2, ESSM)
- 64-128 Mk41 VLS total
- Full Tartar NTU (Mk74) WDS suite
- SPG-51D (possibly in place of Mk95)

[edit: - SQQ-89? I am not sure about this. It is an excellent ASW sonar, and the ship has the available space internally. Should the AAW version keep it just because it's there? If not, should a different sonar take its place? Should the sonar dome be removed from the ship if the sonar is deleted or would there be a hydrodynamic issue be created with its removal?]

This ship, especially the ones armed with the Mk71 and the extensive communications ability of the Spruance-class, would provide naval special forces with an excellent platform from which to operate and rely upon. The two HH-60s would be able to deliver and extract the SOF where and when needed, and with an 8"/60 forward and a 5"/62 aft, the SOF would be able to call in naval gun strikes or gunfire support when needed. With the Outboard SIGNIT system the ship could collect intelligence upon the enemy from on or over the horizon.

The only reason why all 31 ships "would" not necessarily all be converted to the heavier more formitable version is because a lot of them already had hard structual changes made to accommodate an 8 module (61/64-cell VLS) arrangement forward. Reverting back to a 32-cell would be difficult. In addition to that, the lack of a major AAW system like NTU or Aegis would focus the ship's mission on its next biggest and central mission: anti-submarine warfare. Such focus would enable refinement of the ASW skills, greatly benefiting the ASW capability.

My next iteration of this class of ship will reflect these modernizations. Does anyone have any suggestions or comments?

-navydave

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

consider this..
divide the class into thirds.

1/3 of the VLS upgrades would get the ASW upgrades only, to include what you suggested including the RMS system.. upgrades to electronics etc..
1/3 to include the non-vls platforms would receive the the AAW upgrades only.
The remaining 1/3 would get a sort of 1/2 ASW and AAW upgrade,, I understand it would be either one or the other.. but just go with the flow on this one..
As far as structural changes.. loss the forward mast completly replace it with a Burke style with the main electronic's on that platform( MAST).. Make the rear mast similiar to the current cg-47 class config for the Illumnators and remaining electronics.. Forget the KIDD config,, would safe space.. allow for more upgrades to electronics...etc...
..
If space is a consideration lose the forward VLS config to a smaller more tactal config ESSM and TLAMS like the have place on R.A.N FFGs,
keep the RAM's, bushmasters.. and one CIWS.. Increase hanger to support SH-60 and cobra's for Fire support/special ops.. additional space could be used for drones.. This is would be one BAAAAD A..S ship I.M.H.O....

ex-navy, that is an interesting suggestion.

There was a, using modern teminology, Flight II variant of the Spruance ASW designed. The USS Hayler was supposed to be fitted as this ship. The design was to carry "no few than 4 SH-60 ASW helicopters". As referenced from CAPT Potter's book: Electronic Greyhounds: The Spruance-class Destroyers, these bad boys would have been a formitable ASW ship.

So, with this in mind, a question is: If the majority of if not all of the 31 Spruance-class DDs were still around and ready for reactivation would it be desirable...or possible (calling CAPT Potter ) to convert a certain number of them to this DDH configuration?

Flight II
- SPS-49E(v)5
- TRS-3D
- SPQ-9B
- Mk160 Mod5 GFCS
- 2x Mk45 upgunned to Mod4
- 2x Phalanx Block 1B
- 2x RAM
- 2x Mk38 Mod2
- 2x Mk95 ESSM illuminators
- NULKA w/SRBOC
- SPG-60
- NTU electronics without the Mk74 Tartar WDS [AN/SYS-2(v)1, IADTS(v)2, (A)CDS, AN/SYR-1 Communications Tracking Set[3], and RESS - Radar Environmental Simulator System]
- SQQ-89 (v)15
- Outboard (equivalent SIGNIT)
- Duel RHIBs on the starboard side
- Remote mine hunting drone on the port side
- 64-cell VLS forward (TLAM, ASROC, ESSM)
- UAV communications [L-3 Communications tactical common datalink (TCDL) and/or AN/ARC-210 link]
- PCMS/radar absorbant material layered all over the ship's vertical surfaces

As stated in a few posts before, by nearly perminant alteration (the 61-cell Mk41 VLS) the Spruance-class was primarily an ASW ship. Situated as an ASW ship, the addition of an enlarged hanger and 4 SH-60 ASW helicopters would benefit the mission of the ship. The Navy would benefit from extremely capable ASW ships with a further life span of 15-20 years (a plenty good long life). They would only need marginal electronic upgrades to be "on par" with the rest of the fleet.

So, what do you think about a certain number of the ASW versions being "upgunned" to a full fledged DDH with 4 helos?

Perhaps a little like this?

HAHA!!! This shipbucket thing is so cool! It keeps me from having to draw ships over and over!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

NavyDave:
Sounds great,, I know that VLS can not be changed.. But go with the flow of it can be.. you have 31 ships.. you don't want all to be ASW only.. So let just say we can do a plug and use approach to this upgrade( MODULAR).. ie remove the ASW/TLAM tubes and replace with either AAW, ASW or a hybrid (smaller version of the TACTICAL package, ESSM,TLAMS,ASROC>>).

Next look at what areas you have to cover Atlantic, PACIFIC.. Middle EAST...

So take a Percent of the class an do the math to cover the areas.. ie have 2-3 DDH on each coast.. have 6-8 ASW only,
6-8 AAW and 4 Hybrid ( sort like a burke Flt IIA but smaller in number of tubes).. Keep the CIWS, RAM, Bushmaster... NUKLA..etc.. upgrade all electronics to be equal with CG-47 class.. but be able to add maybe some additional modules (think modularly for upgrades) SEAL boats, COBRAS, UAV.. RMS..ETC... look at these I agree shipbuck is great


This a great project, that could be done with either the KIDD or Spruance.. I also think it needs to lose the KIDD style Rear mast and deck structure, move the forward mast if it must stay, place your illuminators, radars on the platform, I really think the Burke style would be better for the Forward mast,, keep only your navigational, and smaller surface systems on the forward.. By removing that deckhouse would open up space for maybe some more harpoons, electronics what ever...
think about it.. This could also be a very interesting group build.. each take a specific ship and doing one of these options..
that would be sooooo cool

If considering conversion post-VLS refit, there are 7 ABL ships and 24 VLS ships.

My previous inputs are based primarily on a replacement for the VLS refit actually performed, and I’d make the case that more AAW was not really needed by the time the DDG-51s started coming off the line. What was needed was the helicopter capability the DDG-51 Flight I/II lacks, and NGFS the Navy lacks.

In a year 2000-2005 update, I’d enhance the close-in capability of the 24 VLS ships by adding ESSM, perhaps SSDS, upgrade the Mk45s to Mod 4 if I couldn’t get the Mk71 forward (and I’d give back up to 32 of the VLS cells to do it, perhaps moving them aft, if that would help) and enhance shallow water ASW where I could. The aft deck where the MK 29 was becomes trade space – either UAV deck, or VLS cells moved from forward (in which case the UAVs need to share with the Helos..). This would generate a vessel that can get closer in, to use both NGFS and support helo ops and boat operations in brown water. I see a DDG-51 Flight I/II working in tandem, providing longer range AAW and additional strike (Tomahawk) if needed. Maybe 12-16 fit this way.

In another option, I’d look into adding SPS-49, expanding the Helo deck over the legacy Sea Sparrow deck, and subsequent expansion of the helo hangar along with ESSM and electronic upgrades. These DDH’s would be a perfect fit for battle group ASW, adding four SH-60s and using Flight I/II’s as FOBs. Maybe 8-12 fit this way. It would be interesting to consider what this would have done to the urgency of getting hangars on the Flight IIA’s.

The 7 ABL ships I would fit a comprehensive AAW suite (NTU-based), 32 cells forward, 48 aft, Mk 71 forward, boat deck aft, etc – essentially like my earlier proposal. These I would use on independent operations or with amphib groups, having the ability to both support amphib operations (NGFS, Tomahawk), and provide AAW both at sea and on the most likely threat axis – the beach you are hitting.

If costs prevented the AAW fits on the ABL ships, I’d go large on Mk71 an add a second mount in place of VLS cells.

ex-navy,
I agree with the multi mission capability is desired, but there is no need to remove the strike length VLS that is already there. The modules just needed to be modified to the Mod12 version so they can fire more than just TLAM and ASROC. The muli-mission nature of the strike length VLS is soooo wonderful.

In practicality, the majority of the HM&E upgrade the Ticonderoga-class is currently receiving would have been almost all that is necessary to bring the Sprucans up to speed and have extended their life spans. They are getting the VLS upgraded to fire ESSM, SPQ-9B, Mk-160 GFCS. The Mk-160 is pretty important to accurate NSFS, anti-ship, or anti-boat 5" fire. If the Sprucans were to be utilized, this system would be pretty essential for both the 5" or the 8".

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The Ticonderoga HM&E modernized Spruances would have seen improvements of a Mk71 MCLWG and a Mk54 Mod4 guns. In this case they would have had an 8"/60 caliber gun forward and a Mk45 5"/62caliber gun aft. Both would have fired semi laser guided projectiles (SALGP).

The 8" round would have provided a laser guided round with a 30nm range. In this day and age of NSFS to SOF personnel, 8-inch rounds reaching as far as 30nm without rocket assistance it would be invaluable.


With a greater than 82% chance of first time acquisition, and a 2 meter(6.56 feet) accuracy, the 5" semi active laser guided projectile (SALGP) would provide the 5"/62 caliber guns an immediate ability to fire existing precision guided rounds up to 20nm. No ERGM necessary. If such a round were combined with the ERGM booster developed for the ERGM, the range would be extended quite a bit with existing technolgoy.


With such equipment, the Spruance-class would have been able to provide a reliable, accurate, and sustainable fire support capability in addition to all of the other missions in its responsibility.

Both the AAW and ASW ships would have been valuable SOF platforms.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

SMARTROC: MK82 LBG as payload to an ASROC booster, fired from the Mk112 (ASROC pepperbox).

Laser designator added as part of the FC radar. (I Imagine terminal control could be passed to a forward laser designator, with development)

24,000 yd range after development in 1975-1978. Accuracy is noted as a CEP of 20ft.

Ref: Sumner-Gearing Class Destroyers, Robert F. Sumerall, Pg 142

I realize this is an artifact which may not match the time frames we have discussed in this thread, but provides a technical reference point for what could have been done for a land attack weapon from the ASROC box.

Interesting that its advanced development was a contemporary of the Mk 71 MCLWG - a Spruance theoretically could have been commissioned with the MK 71 and the ability to mix this weapon in with the ASROC as actually fitted.

More frustrating than ever that surface fire support was abandoned when weapons existed and could have been rather simply fit to vessels under construction.

///

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

////

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

I am not saying you are wrong, but http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk71.htm says there were plans. Navweaps was the first place I had heard that the Tico's were, but Navweaps is a very reliable source for information.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance