What-If modernized Spruance-class DDG

[navydavesof]

Captain,

Well, this is the post I should have spent much time addressing and focusing my questions on. You obviously put a whole lot of time in on this, so I apologize for having asked questions you already answered in this and a few other posts.

In the original contract DD 963 design, which you see in USS Spruance and her earliest sisters as built (before USS Moosbrugger), the potential future update for air defense provided for the launcher configuration that existed on the DDG 993 and CGN 38 classes: 24-round Mk 26 Mod 0 forward, 44-round Mk 26 Mod 1 aft. The undersea warfare modernization option provided for a Mk 26 Mod 0 launcher forward.
--- So, does that mean that the later Spruances could not support the AAW conversion?

The original concept for VLS was to provide a plug-in successor to the Mk 26 launchers and magazines for "short" missiles only, within the same volume and utilities. The limitation for the DD 963 class would be that the total mass of the loaded VLS could not exceed the allowable mass of the Mk 26 launcher and its loaded magazine, since the Tartar-D system would put the modernized ship at its weight limits.

--- Is this to say that there was something special about the forward VLS pad in order to accept the deep cells to employ tomahawks?

If you have the weights of these various launchers and "short" missiles, which may exist in the early editions of Norman Friedman's World Naval Weapons Systems, you might be able to compute the potential number of loaded VLS "short" cells. Notice that the answer could vary depending on the mix among the different missiles. Suppose Missile X weighed 80% of Missile Y; then you could load qty 5 Missile X's in place of qty 4 Missile Y's. Since the short VLS would look the same from above as the actual Mk 41, for a model of a hypothetical DD 963 modernized for air defense you could on this basis legitimately show an aft VLS installation of the number of cells you estimate. Remember that a reload crane occupied the space of another three VLS cells per VLS, in this design.

--- Concerning this, would the aft VLS be limited to an arangement less than 61/64 cells such as 32 or 48, or would you still be able to have 61/64 just of a short/shallow cell?

--- Would the aft cells then be limited to the short missiles to which you refer?

Reagan's SecNav John Lehman put a high priority on Tomahawk, which had a nuclear version for launch in torpedo tube mode or box launcher mode. Tomahawk was a longer missile and required a deeper VLS than the VLS design for the "short" missiles. Lehman killed the VL-Harpoon to force the uniformed USN to accept his priority for the deep VLS, in order to support Tomahawk anti-ship missiles, and thus to support the naval Tomahawk program, about whose life prospects the uniformed USN was evidently dubious in the early 1980s.
sube. Whenlowading those missiles, a big rectangular box as you know, they have to be nearly perfectly nied up or else there are all kinds of jams that occur.

--- What is the difference between the TASM and the TLAM other than guidance package? Why can't the missile's brains just be swapped out from TLAM to TASM?

Three items here: 1, whether Lehman was really competing against the USSR or against the USAF, some other historian may evaluate. 2, IIRC neither a vertical-launch Tomahawk anti-ship missile nor a vertical-launch nuclear Tomahawk land-attack missile was ever developed, on Lehman's watch or ever since. 3, USN skeptics about Tomahawk could note that the USN nuclear Tomahawks were moved to storage ashore in 1989, the US Army nuclear Tomahawks or GLCMs were scrapped altogether, and the anti-ship Tomahawks were converted to conventional land attack.

The deep VLS became the Mk 41 VLS that went into USN service. Lehman did not think to tell the designers of the CG 52 series about how many Tomahawks to plan for when computing weights. The CG 52 ship designers, not operational planners, proposed 16 Tomahawks and 45 SM-2(MR)'s, which OpNav then authorized as the basis for naval architectural calculations.

The weapons community came up with an abortive antisubmarine weapon called Sea Lance, with VL-ASRoc, and with longer Standard missiles. All of these required the deeper VLS cells and increased the weight of the loaded VLS. The heavier missiles made the VLS reload crane so slow as to be useless for UnReps, since it was sized for the "short" missiles. The Standards required missile guidance systems aboard the launching ship (or aboard a ship data-linked to the launching ship, which USS Kidd and Scott actually tested in 1989, but was not implemented), which were never provided for the DD 963 class.

--- I heave heard on the other hand that the VLS crane was usless for unrepping missiles, because every time they tired to use it, the missile would swing all over the place, and they could never line the box up right with the tube. I did not realize that the strike-down module crane was fitted for short missiles such as the Sm-1. I was under the impression that the SM-1 was doomed as soon as the SM-2 and and VLS was put into the fleet. The SM-1 was simply too short of range.

believe that much of the ballasting of the DD 963s was to counterbalance the mass forward of the VLS if filled with Tomhawk land-attack missiles. It is for that reason that I doubt that mounting a deep Mk 41 VLS aft was a possibility for the DD 963 class; and only the deep VLS entered USN service.

--- Well, here seems to the the final answer to my question. The ballasting aft was too much to accomodate the deep VLS. Is the balasting anything that cannot be removed and replaced with the deep VLS cells?

[Sauragnmon]

I know the stacks aren't standard, I just never liked the look of them so in this modified Spruance, I thought to twin up the stacks rather than have the off-kilter look. I did the Mk26 a while back, before this thread came up, thinking then that I was doing something that was neat and unthought of, on an Export Spruance, which had the guns replaced with the Oto "Compact" 5" guns. Figured I'd post shots of it here, to show it in style.









So I guess in a way this isn't so much a Spruance/Kidd as I'd thought at first, but perhaps, short of Mk71, the Maximum Spruance without VLS addition.

[navydavesof]

Interesting concept you have here. I think you would really appreciate the results an airbrush give you, Saur. Once you mask everything, you can really lay down some awesome markings. Check my Kentucky thread later. I am going to post up some pictures of my 16" turrets all painted up.

I know the stacks aren't standard, I just never liked the look of them so in this modified Spruance, I thought to twin up the stacks rather than have the off-kilter look. I did the Mk26 a while back, before this thread came up, thinking then that I was doing something that was neat and unthought of, on an Export Spruance, which had the guns replaced with the Oto "Compact" 5" guns. Figured I'd post shots of it here, to show it in style.









So I guess in a way this isn't so much a Spruance/Kidd as I'd thought at first, but perhaps, short of Mk71, the Maximum Spruance without VLS addition.

[Sauragnmon]

Airbrushes are nice, I'll own up, but with where I do my work, the compressor would be annoying, not to mention the handling, cleaning, maintenance, and such. All my work's by hand, unmasked, and I get good results with it, and plenty of practice I find. Sure, feathered edges can be a little hard, but if I do it right, not a problem for me either, as I have a large flat brush that I can use for the feathered edge look (I also use it for area painting).

[Michael Potter]

I'll show your new questions as quotes and show my answers in color.

Well, this is the post I should have spent much time addressing and focusing my questions on. You obviously put a whole lot of time in on this, so I apologize for having asked questions you already answered in this and a few other posts.

Michael Potter wrote:
In the original contract DD 963 design, which you see in USS Spruance and her earliest sisters as built (before USS Moosbrugger), the potential future update for air defense provided for the launcher configuration that existed on the DDG 993 and CGN 38 classes: 24-round Mk 26 Mod 0 forward, 44-round Mk 26 Mod 1 aft. The undersea warfare modernization option provided for a Mk 26 Mod 0 launcher forward.

--- So, does that mean that the later Spruances could not support the AAW conversion?

No, all could. I meant only that the early Spruances show the design that Litton was contracted to deliver under the original DD 963 contract. Once the early ships were in hand, the USN installed NSSMS, etc., that were developed in parallel. Again, the objective was to keep changes out of the ship construction program. Once a knowledge base was created from the USN's work, Litton was contracted to install these new weapons during ship construction, starting with Moosbrugger.

The original concept for VLS was to provide a plug-in successor to the Mk 26 launchers and magazines for "short" missiles only, within the same volume and utilities. The limitation for the DD 963 class would be that the total mass of the loaded VLS could not exceed the allowable mass of the Mk 26 launcher and its loaded magazine, since the Tartar-D system would put the modernized ship at its weight limits.

--- Is this to say that there was something special about the forward VLS pad in order to accept the deep cells to employ tomahawks?

The early design for the VLS was intended to be a plug-in replacement for the Mk 26 in terms of dimensions, access, and utilities. That design could not accommodate VL-Tomahawk. The Mk 41 VLS actually deployed could accommodate VL-Tomahawk. A naval architectural design project was involved in the VLS mod. I expect that this modified the �pad� as you put it. In USN VLS ships, the mathematical reference for weapons control programs is the base of the VLS. That is different from MEKO, which uses the upper deck as the reference.

If you have the weights of these various launchers and "short" missiles, which may exist in the early editions of Norman Friedman's World Naval Weapons Systems, you might be able to compute the potential number of loaded VLS "short" cells. Notice that the answer could vary depending on the mix among the different missiles. Suppose Missile X weighed 80% of Missile Y; then you could load qty 5 Missile X's in place of qty 4 Missile Y's. Since the short VLS would look the same from above as the actual Mk 41, for a model of a hypothetical DD 963 modernized for air defense you could on this basis legitimately show an aft VLS installation of the number of cells you estimate. Remember that a reload crane occupied the space of another three VLS cells per VLS, in this design.

--- Concerning this, would the aft VLS be limited to an arangement less than 61/64 cells such as 32 or 48, or would you still be able to have 61/64 just of a short/shallow cell?
--- Would the aft cells then be limited to the short missiles to which you refer?

I think that considerations of stability, hull strength, and reserve buoyancy, and possibly of electrical power requirements, too, made it impossible to install two 64-cell deep VLS�s on a combat-effective DD 963. To answer now the last question you ask in this thread, removing ballast to afford a second VLS would reduce stability by raising the ship�s center of gravity. The short VLS could in theory fit but which types of missiles would require such huge numbers? The original DDG conversion plan allowed for only two radar fire control channels (the DDG 993�s had three but again their hull strength was different from the DD 963s). Aegis generates in effect 16 channels.

Reagan's SecNav John Lehman put a high priority on Tomahawk, which had a nuclear version for launch in torpedo tube mode or box launcher mode. Tomahawk was a longer missile and required a deeper VLS than the VLS design for the "short" missiles. Lehman killed the VL-Harpoon to force the uniformed USN to accept his priority for the deep VLS, in order to support Tomahawk anti-ship missiles, and thus to support the naval Tomahawk program, about whose life prospects the uniformed USN was evidently dubious in the early 1980s.

--- What is the difference between the TASM and the TLAM other than guidance package? Why can't the missile's brains just be swapped out from TLAM to TASM?

For differences between the early TASM and TLAM, see Friedman's World Naval Weapons Systems. The Clinton administration planned a Tomahawk that could be aimed against both ships and shore targets. I last followed the Tomahawk story in detail in the mid-1990s but I think the dual-purpose Tomahawk was among the many naval casualties of the Bush II administration.

Three items here: 1, whether Lehman was really competing against the USSR or against the USAF, some other historian may evaluate. 2, IIRC neither a vertical-launch Tomahawk anti-ship missile nor a vertical-launch nuclear Tomahawk land-attack missile was ever developed, on Lehman's watch or ever since. 3, USN skeptics about Tomahawk could note that the USN nuclear Tomahawks were moved to storage ashore in 1989, the US Army nuclear Tomahawks or GLCMs were scrapped altogether, and the anti-ship Tomahawks were converted to conventional land attack.

The deep VLS became the Mk 41 VLS that went into USN service. Lehman did not think to tell the designers of the CG 52 series about how many Tomahawks to plan for when computing weights. The CG 52 ship designers, not operational planners, proposed 16 Tomahawks and 45 SM-2(MR)'s, which OpNav then authorized as the basis for naval architectural calculations.

The weapons community came up with an abortive antisubmarine weapon called Sea Lance, with VL-ASRoc, and with longer Standard missiles. All of these required the deeper VLS cells and increased the weight of the loaded VLS. The heavier missiles made the VLS reload crane so slow as to be useless for UnReps, since it was sized for the "short" missiles. The Standards required missile guidance systems aboard the launching ship (or aboard a ship data-linked to the launching ship, which USS Kidd and Scott actually tested in 1989, but was not implemented), which were never provided for the DD 963 class.

--- I heave heard on the other hand that the VLS crane was usless for unrepping missiles, because every time they tired to use it, the missile would swing all over the place, and they could never line the box up right with the tube. I did not realize that the strike-down module crane was fitted for short missiles such as the Sm-1. I was under the impression that the SM-1 was doomed as soon as the SM-2 and and VLS was put into the fleet. The SM-1 was simply too short of range.

SM-1(MR) and the original SM-2(MR) differed only in guidance. SM-2(MR) had better range because it could use mid-course guidance from NTU and Aegis. SM-2 missiles with longer airframes were developed for the deep VLS. You�d have to research which of the SM-2(MR) blocks the Mk 26 launching system could accommodate.

I believe that much of the ballasting of the DD 963s was to counterbalance the mass forward of the VLS if filled with Tomhawk land-attack missiles. It is for that reason that I doubt that mounting a deep Mk 41 VLS aft was a possibility for the DD 963 class; and only the deep VLS entered USN service.

--- Well, here seems to the the final answer to my question. The ballasting aft was too much to accomodate the deep VLS. Is the balasting anything that cannot be removed and replaced with the deep VLS cells?

See answer that followed "Concerning ..."

The model with the side-by-side uptakes is an impossible design. The hull has no width for four side-by-side gas turbines. Also any hit in the propulsion space would be a one-shot mobility kill of a major capital ship. Cute ABLs, though.

[Sauragnmon]

I full well accept that the twinned-stack layout is in all intents and purposes impossible - You say four side by side, what if there are two set aft, but not as far aft as the original - I set the stacks with the slope set aft, so if the exhausts were trunked so the port pair fed one stack, and the starboard pair the other, would that not in principle be possible? Random thought on that. The ABLs were provided from a Trumpy Missouri, thus the way they are set up.

The additional VLS cells could be used for a number of systems, including ESSM and LASM in consideration - remember, they are NSFS, so some manner of defensive armament is advisable to allow for defense of the SFSBG - Point Defence missiles like ESSM, intercept with SM-2MR, and others. 16/32 of the forward VLS could be used to accomodate the TLAM calculation for loading, assuming we are keeping the aft ballasting to support the Mk71 forward. The Land Attack Standard Missile would be a potentially useful second missile to fit in the Shorter aft VLS, for further NSFS role fitting. Of course, alternately, the NSSM illuminator radar could be removed and another SPG-60 or similar fitted in place.

[Cliffy B]

For differences between the early TASM and TLAM, see Friedman's World Naval Weapons Systems. The Clinton administration planned a Tomahawk that could be aimed against both ships and shore targets. I last followed the Tomahawk story in detail in the mid-1990s but I think the dual-purpose Tomahawk was among the many naval casualties of the Bush II administration.

Remember, TASM was pulled from the inventory because its seeker head was far from selective. It was designed to be shot en masse at Soviet battle groups where target selection wasn't a big priority. With the collapse of the USSR in 1991 (Bush I NOT Bush II) the USN didn't need such a weapon system anymore and converted the remaining TASM stock to standard TLAMs. Harpoon was developed as the replacement was given a highly selective seeker head. There have been talks lately to bring back an Anti-ship version of the Tomahawk but so far they're just talks.

[navydavesof]

Thank you for the detailed answers, Captain Potter. Speaking of a similar name, I am watching Harry Potter by the way. The series isn't as bad as I thought.
I understand a bit more now about the dynammics of the structual build of the Spruances. It sounds like if the ships were reinforced when they were first built, they could have supported two 64cell VLS pads arranged in a similar function to the Ticonderogas.
The ballasting of the Ticonderogas must have been radically different than that of the Spruances in order to compensate for the VLS we spoke about and also for the massive Aegis equipment on top of the structures.
So, Capt Potter, if we were going to take a Spruance and have it match the original stipulations:
- Long enough service life to last for another 20 years.
- Modern gunnery capable of engaging direct action in preparation for amphibious landings, NSFS, and gunnery strikes.
- Permanant UAV capabilities.
- AAW system capable of competing and integrating with Aegis CGs and DDGs.
- Point Missile Defenses meeting modern demands of missiles ranging from SS-N-2 Styx/Silkworkm types to as much as SS-N-22 Sunburns.
- Engaging in and/or direct support of littoral combat operations (small boat swarm attacks to oil platform defense).
- Capability to coordinate and launch missile strikes toward both naval and land based targets.

Also, do you think a modernized NTU would be the best weapons direction system for an updated Spruance like this?

[navydavesof]

I have a question about the mods made to the masts aboard NTU ships, the Kidds in particular. I noticed that there are large, detailed conduits that run up the masts to the carious platforms. Is that to support a bunch of more cabling associated with the new radars mounted on the masts or what?

Also, why did they build an entirely new aft mast on the Kidds for the SPS-48? It looks it might be lighter than the original aft mast. Is that what it's about?

Thanks, guys.

[Michael Potter]

if the exhausts were trunked so the port pair fed one stack, and the starboard pair the other, would that not in principle be possible?

That was the actual arrangement on the DD 963s and is so on all subsequent CG/DDG types. Without a diagram maybe I am missing the arrangement you are describing. The horizontal separation of the main engine rooms (MER�s) needs to be such that one torpedo hit cannot take out both, short of blasting the ship in half.

The Land Attack Standard Missile would be a potentially useful second missile to fit in the Shorter aft VLS

The short VLS died long before the land-attack Standard missile project. No idea about theoretical compatibility but maybe you could research it. Bush II killed the land attack Standard missile.

The ballasting of the Ticonderogas must have been radically different than that of the Spruances in order to compensate for the VLS we spoke about and also for the massive Aegis equipment on top of the structures.

Yes. Instead of ballasting the VLS series of Ticonderoga�s, equipments were rearranged internally. I covered this in Electronic Greyhounds, based mostly on a paper in the Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987.

So, Capt Potter, if we were going to take a Spruance and have it match the original stipulations:
- Long enough service life to last for another 20 years.
- Modern gunnery capable of engaging direct action in preparation for amphibious landings, NSFS, and gunnery strikes.
- Permanant UAV capabilities.
- AAW system capable of competing and integrating with Aegis CGs and DDGs.
- Point Missile Defenses meeting modern demands of missiles ranging from SS-N-2 Styx/Silkworm types to as much as SS-N-22 Sunburns.
- Engaging in and/or direct support of littoral combat operations (small boat swarm attacks to oil platform defense).
- Capability to coordinate and launch missile strikes toward both naval and land based targets.
Also, do you think a modernized NTU would be the best weapons direction system for an updated Spruance like this?

Interesting selection of missions. NTU was mostly for high-altitude engagements and modernized systems that the DD 963s did not have. It was unclassified information that Sea RAM and Nulka were examples of useful weapons against threats as foreseen six years ago.
"- Engaging in and/or direct support of littoral combat operations (small boat swarm attacks to oil platform defense)." Those would be very risky prolonged missions for a large surface ship, regardless of armament. Notice that you will be dealing with a very murky RoE situation that a potential other side may try to exploit.

I noticed that there are large, detailed conduits that run up the masts to the carious platforms. Is that to support a bunch of more cabling associated with the new radars mounted on the masts or what?

They look like waveguides. They may be enlarged from armor, if armored they are. The new mainmast was to get the SPS-48 out from between the original masts. Controlling topweight is always an objective in watercraft.

[Sauragnmon]

Alright, I'll try and show a diagram concept, via the wonders of ASCII:

In essence, I mean two tandem turbines, similar to this from the top:

/\
||
||
XX
XX
||
--

I know, it's kinda crude, but in essence, the two turbines are sitting side by side, roughly, and all four are somewhat close together, so the stacks can be centralized, with probably the first two turbines forward a little more so the exhaust only slightly comes up at a forward angle, while the aft turbines come up at an angle just forward of the Harpoon deck using the slant of the stack to compensate. I just have an aversion to the aesthetic of the two off-set stacks like that. I'll probably modify the next one with centerlined stacks.

From what I read, the LASM was different from other Standard Missile series in its guidance package, being that it carried pure GPS/INS guidance, aside from that it was a regular Standard Missile. So, I would surmise it could be converted to a VLS arrangement without much problem.

Dave's probably going to ask, but it would go to figure that a full Deep VLS could be employed in the 963's in the aft position with a similar rearrangement of some of the internal equipment.

[bearcat]

When i learn that Spruance class was to be history, i hoped US Coast Guard would take them, remove all missile capability and expand medical facility, maybe they could have reactivated up to six ships for home secutity, But then i didnt know that they where in such bad condition when decom.

Those good looking Sprucans would look very good in USCG colours.

[Charles Landrum]

I have been enjoying this thread, despite some fanciful plans! I served on USS KIDD from 1983-1986, even before TICONDEROGA arrived in Norfolk. Those ships were great and packed a punch. We still had label plates in Farsi and there were Baxter bolts throughout the flight deck (which the USN covered over with the non-skid) to accommodate a large ceremonial awning. Later I was the Operations Officer (Overhaul Coordinator) on USS HAYLER 1991-1992 during her conversion. It was quite a re-work, the conversion the only decks not affected were the Sea Sparrow deck and the Harpoon deck. HAYLER was unique because she enjoyed many of the engineering improvements designed for the TICOs.

Regarding LASM. I attended several briefings on the program as it moved forward. The program office removed the blast fragmentation warhead and replaced it with the older continuous rod warhead. It was much more effective against the soft targets the missiles were intended to attack, having the intended buzz saw effect; it was detonated above the ground with a proximity fuze. The pictures were quite impressive. The range was intended to be up to 200nm and although the web sources do not mention a booster, I recall mention of a short booster, so it would need longer VLS cells.

[navydavesof]

Oh, wow, what a request. No, the Coast Guard has absolutely no capability to purchase nor man ships like these. It is way, way, outside of their training, and removing "all missile capability" does nothing but strip the ships. You would at least need to keep point defense missiles for a ship that size, and one that would likely be part of the USCG's "Deep Water Fleet".
Homeland Security...yikes. I guess they would look okay in USCG colors, but man, the poor Coast Guard is so stretched that if the Navy had a hard time keeping the Sprucans from corroding away, the USCG would likely not be able to answer the challenge. The ship would be less capable than when she were delivered to the Navy. When the Navy accepted the Spruance, it was accurately described as "the largest, most expensive, and most under-armed destroyers the Navy ever bought".
They could not even use the PHM Pegasus-class hydrofoils, ships that in my opinion were possibly the best ships the USCG could have had.
I look foward to you making a model of a so-modified Spruance from you!

When i learn that Spruance class was to be history, i hoped US Coast Guard would take them, remove all missile capability and expand medical facility, maybe they could have reactivated up to six ships for home secutity, But then i didnt know that they where in such bad condition when decom.

Those good looking Sprucans would look very good in USCG colours.

[navydavesof]

Thank you for contributing Mr. Landrum.
I feel like I don't have enough hours in a day to get work on my NSFS DDG Spruance done quickly. But, as my Blackwater instructors have said so many times, "slow is smooth, smooth is fast," and that's why I'm such a good shooter.
You said that the Hayler took great advantage of the building practices of the Ticonderogas. So, I wonder if CAPT Potter is watching, if Hayler would have been a good candidate for an upgrade I have suggested.
You said you were aboard Hayler during her conversion. Are you referring to the VLS installation or was there other stuff going on at the same time?
What was the installation of the VLS like? I am very curious about the structural modification that had to take place with chopping up the deck and creating the void for the tubes to be lowered in.
Thank you, sir!

I have been enjoying this thread, despite some fanciful plans! I served on USS KIDD from 1983-1986, even before TICONDEROGA arrived in Norfolk. Those ships were great and packed a punch. We still had label plates in Farsi and there were Baxter bolts throughout the flight deck (which the USN covered over with the non-skid) to accommodate a large ceremonial awning. Later I was the Operations Officer (Overhaul Coordinator) on USS HAYLER 1991-1992 during her conversion. It was quite a re-work, the conversion the only decks not affected were the Sea Sparrow deck and the Harpoon deck. HAYLER was unique because she enjoyed many of the engineering improvements designed for the TICOs.

Regarding LASM. I attended several briefings on the program as it moved forward. The program office removed the blast fragmentation warhead and replaced it with the older continuous rod warhead. It was much more effective against the soft targets the missiles were intended to attack, having the intended buzz saw effect; it was detonated above the ground with a proximity fuze. The pictures were quite impressive. The range was intended to be up to 200nm and although the web sources do not mention a booster, I recall mention of a short booster, so it would need longer VLS cells.

[Sauragnmon]

I don't know so much about the fact LASM would require a deep VLS, Charles. All of the VLS Standards are given a small booster on the tail to get them out of the cell. Interesting that the LASM would use a Continuous Rod warhead, very interesting with an airbursted warhead to generate the buzzsaw effect against soft targets. I would imagine the LASM could have been fitted with a number of warhead packages to deal with different tasks and targets. LASM would be great for NSFS ships, in thought.

Interesting that the Kidds had such an awning fitting. I'd be tempted to do a model with the awning in place, it'd look pretty sweet in hindsight.

[Charles Landrum]

The Spruance Class modernization as you are doubtless aware was not common across the entire class. HAYLER in her 1991-1992 refit received extensive modifications. They included:
- RAST system on the flight deck (a major tear up of the spaces below)
- Improved visual landing aids
- An increase in hangar capacity by a port side bump out which extended to the gunwale. The starboard side was bumped out as well and new storerooms added for increase stowage of helo spares and sonabouys
- Installation of the SQQ-89 system
- Better processers
- upgrade of the SQS-53
- SH-60 datalink
- SQR-19 towed array
- A rebuild of CIC for SQQ-89, vertical launch ASROC and Tomahawk
- Removal of the ASROC and the installation of the VLS and the Tomahawk computer room aft of the launcher
- Addition of the CIWS maintenance enclosures including the raised deckhouse aft (we called it the pagoda)
- Upgrade in electronic countermeasures
- Upgrade to the SLQ-32 V3 with the Band 2 and 3 antenna enclosure moved to the aft superstructure
- SLQ band 1 antennas moved from the mast to the old foundations for the SLQ Band 2 enclosures
- Fabrication of a new SLQ-32 maintenance facility on the 04 level aft
- Addition of SRBOC magazine aft
- relocation and increase in SRBOC launcher

At the same time both shafts were removed almost to the reduction gears to realign them and replace the bearings. The propellers were reworked as well. This was due to the 1988 collision with the German oiler. We also changed out one of the propulsion turbines (due to wear not the collision) - this was done solely by ship's force using a special fly away maintenance container. It was a rare moment that it was not done by the fly away team of techs but they were busy elsewhere.

The refit was done at the Bath Iron Works facility in Portland, Maine. We spend a lot of time in the 9 section WWII era ABSD purchased by the State of Maine in the bid for the BB modernizations. The dock was used by BIW to install the sonar domes on the Ticos since it could not be done on the slipways in Bath. The blocking arrangement was retained as a cost saving measure and so our bow hung out during the conversion. This cause consternation during the ASROC cut out, because NAVSEA fear a bend in the keel and drooped bow. We had laser alignment gauges for the entire ripout and install for VLS and the bow never experience deflection. This was the same dock that Samuel B Roberts had been repaired in. It still had the 20mm and 40mm foundations on the sidewalls and reportedly all of the machine shops and living areas in the pontoons.

To install VLS the entire internal area forward of the superstructure to mount 51 was cut out, side shell to side shell, with just enough deck left as a catwalk. BIW then installed prefabricated sections back into the hull to form the shell of the VLS magazine and the control spaces aft. The magazines then had foundations installed to handle the modules.

The hangar extensions were also prefabricated and were waiting on the quay when we arrived - sort of a sculpture garden. Litton Industries (Ingalls) could not provide "as built" drawings for HAYLER. So BIW did the fabrications based on design drawings. What they found was Litton had built the 04 level aft 6 inches below design! No "as builts", no proof - typical of the Litton. None of the special maintenance and calibration tools needed for the RAST were available from the Navy. So armed with the drawings, old cold weather clothing and coffee we had them fabricated to spec on the back shift at the yard!

That was my odyssey of 13 months in the yard. I only a had two months on the ship after the yard before I became the Ops on USS BIDDLE. Everything worked great during systems testing. I took lots of photos and documented the ship before, during and after conversion. I have the builders flag too! To be honest a hard luck ship but a good experience.

[carr]

..

[Michael Potter]

All of the VLS Standards are given a small booster on the tail to get them out of the cell.

Not so. The original SM-2(MR) series of missiles for Aegis was developed before the deep VLS was conceived, and did not have boosters.

[Sauragnmon]

Yes, but let's not forget, the original fit on the AEGIS warships was the Mk26. Most every VLS-launch missile is fitted with a booster to clear the launcher prior to motor ignition, generally compensating for the difference of being launched off the arm which already has a launch angle, to the extra time needed for course correction in the vertical launch method. Original SM-2MR for AEGIS were given no booster, as they were fired off the Mk26 launcher arm. I would imagine even the Short VLS would have seen boosters so fitted to the missiles planned for launch.