| Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/ |
|
| spruance with Mk 71 http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1394 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | acelanceloet [ June 21st, 2011, 7:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | spruance with Mk 71 |
![[ img ]](http://i830.photobucket.com/albums/zz223/acelanceloet/mk71spruance.png) I thought it was an shame this one was not represented, seeing that the entire class was even build with an reinforced bow for this gun..... anyways, please point out all mistakes I have most likely made. as there was no early spruance in the archive, I have tried to fix things up, and I might have forgotten to remove some parts. |
|
| Author: | bezobrazov [ June 22nd, 2011, 12:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: spruance with Mk 71 |
Yes, if it's an early (1970s-early 80s) representation, the commercial SatComs need to go, but the OE-82s can stay. Also, I doubt at that stage the Spruance's were equipped with the RHIB shown. I think you'll need to find a suitable personnel boat from WhyMe's collection! The Harpoons may or may not have already been fitted. If not fitted, their launcher pads with the lattice work may be represented. |
|
| Author: | erik_t [ June 22nd, 2011, 3:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: spruance with Mk 71 |
The ancient bad SPS-40 drawing should be replaced with the current version. I think the Sprucans got a hangar widening when they changed to SH-60, and I think you're using the SH-60 hangar. See here. See also older-style TACAN on the mainmast. You might want to make that change as well. The weird little random director aft should be replaced by the correct NSSM director from the US parts sheets. I don't really like the dark gray SPG-60; the SPQ-9 should be slightly shaded rather than pure white. Boat should probably be 26ft MWB. I think you have a stray pixel on the forward satcomm 'dog dish'. Generally fine work; the Spruance drawing just needs a little TLC to bring up to current standards. |
|
| Author: | Dreadnaught [ June 22nd, 2011, 4:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: spruance with Mk 71 |
Too bad the Mk71 was cancelled. The Spruances might have been in service a little longer for shore bombardment use. |
|
| Author: | bezobrazov [ June 22nd, 2011, 7:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: spruance with Mk 71 |
erik's linked photo also clearly gives evidence that no Harpoons were shipped at that time, though it appear that the ship was, indeed fitted for them. So, remove the canisters and only show the pads and possibly, again, the latticed launcher supports. |
|
| Author: | Portsmouth Bill [ June 22nd, 2011, 7:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: spruance with Mk 71 |
An excellent choice Ace, and needs to be represented. The 8-in doesn't look as odd as I'd expected (having only seen it on a smaller hull) 
|
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ June 22nd, 2011, 9:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: spruance with Mk 71 |
I knew I missed things!  well, gonna fix them this afternoon if I have time.
|
|
| Author: | erik_t [ June 22nd, 2011, 1:06 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Re: spruance with Mk 71 | ||
erik's linked photo also clearly gives evidence that no Harpoons were shipped at that time, though it appear that the ship was, indeed fitted for them. So, remove the canisters and only show the pads and possibly, again, the latticed launcher supports.
The system wasn't in service until two years later (1977). Of course Mk 71 was cancelled before fitting to any Spruances in 1978, so perhaps a 1980 (or so) fit would make more sense.
Too bad the Mk71 was cancelled. The Spruances might have been in service a little longer for shore bombardment use.
Unlikely, the hulls were not exactly lightly used by the time the Spruances were retired. And (as my head repeatedly makes sweet sweet love to my desk) NGFS is simply not a sufficiently important mission to justify entire ships with no other useful purpose. Not that Spruance wasn't good at other things, but it's a redundant capability considering the cost.
|
|||
| Author: | acelanceloet [ June 22nd, 2011, 1:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: spruance with Mk 71 |
if I'd do an 1980 version, what systems would be on? the same as an 'as build' version or would some stuff be replaced already? |
|
| Author: | bezobrazov [ June 22nd, 2011, 2:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: spruance with Mk 71 |
erik is right about the Harpoons, though, as I've mentioned before, the Tromps did ship them by mid-1976, for instance. But generally, the US Nany in these days suffered from a back-logging of delivery due to the logistics of the Viet Nam War era, and the fact that most contractors had been almost overburdened with orders pertaining US (and Australian) engagement therein. As for the pads, I think still they can be fitted, since pictorial evidence of the Tromp after commissioning, in 1975 (the same year as the USS Spruance!) clearly show those pads already fitted, so that'd be no inconceivable notion. Oh, btw, I noticed now, that you've got the wrong (too modern) ECM fitted. It ought to be changed too.It wasn't in service till, I believe the mid-1980s. ace, methink you ought to do an original, 'as built' version to begin with, as we did with the Tromp, and then you can progress through the years, say, 1980, 1990/91 (Gulf War deployment), 2000 or so... |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
