Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

bath iron works spruance concept
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3060		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  acelanceloet [ May 11th, 2012, 7:04 pm ]
Post subject:  bath iron works spruance concept
if Bath Iron works had won the DDX competition instead of Littom/Ingalls, this is how the DD-963 might have looked.
[ img ]

as you can see, the weapon systems are more or less the same, except for the CIWS: weird enough the reference showed an system that I could only recognize as an goalkeeper or an very similar system. this is weird, as the GK was still in early development at that time, but as the NSSM was shown as well with an different then final launcher....... speaking of the NSSM, I have placed the mk 29 launcher on board, while it looks like nothing as in the drawing. in that case, and the other cases were I could not identify certain systems, I have just looked at the real build spruance and took what she had. I also went with the rubber cover over the sonar: while the model predates the deployment of it in the fleet, the RDW experiments would have been done before the ships entered the fleet, and thus the real ship would, just like the real spruance, be fitted with it.

I left her a bit undetailed, as the only reference was an pic of the official model, which I have included below. my knowledge of these ships is not enough to accurately show the details, so to keep the ships as accurate as possible I left her a bit bare
[ img ]

interesting to see is the difference in about everything, except one thing: the main weapons, the aft part of the underwater hull and the offset funnels. by this, we can see what was solidly specified and what was left to the shipyards..... always interesting to see.

well, please comment, discuss, alternate ideas of what systems are.... and hope you guys like it.
Author:  RP1 [ May 11th, 2012, 7:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: bath iron works spruance concept
Interesting. I think the SeaSparrow launcher is the original BPDMS launcher, derived from the ASROC launcher, IIRC.

RP1
Author:  Hood [ May 11th, 2012, 7:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: bath iron works spruance concept
A very interesting what-if, personally though it looks uglier than the ships the Litton design, certainly less clean looking and perhaps more 60s era in appearance.
Author:  acelanceloet [ May 11th, 2012, 7:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: bath iron works spruance concept
RP-1, you are correct! I was about to post that the launcher could not be defined as any type, when timothyC showed me that it was actually the mk 25 from the front instead of the side! it is fixed now. you might have to hard reload to see the new image.

@ Hood: the apparent 'uglyness' of the design is IMO mainly from the higher hull. I agree though that she looks a bit outdated on some points, but on first sight I thought she was based more on the CGN's instead.
Author:  Morten812 [ May 11th, 2012, 9:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: bath iron works spruance concept
Asroc pointing backwards on the model?
Author:  erik_t [ May 12th, 2012, 12:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: bath iron works spruance concept
The system that turned into Phalanx was not well defined when the Spruance competition was active, if indeed Spruance was even intended to ship Phalanx at the time. It appears from my sources that self-defense against incoming weapons (what would eventually evolve into the CIWS concept we know today) was an important factor in the design, but Sea Sparrow was the only system explicitly involved in the Spruance preliminary design process.

What they definitely aren't are Goalkeeper, which didn't even begin the design process until DD-963 had already been commissioned. I suspect the artist intended them as a stand-in gun-based CIWS mount, rather than a particular system already in design. If you felt the need to replace them with an actual thing, I'd use the US Army M163 Vulcan Air Defense System, which was sort of the great uncle of Phalanx. The fact that there's a deck below each one, and that the mount as shown is very low, supports this. I believe M163 is already on my USN parts sheet; if not, I've drawn it and I can hook you up.

The ASROC box launcher is probably shown backwards in this drawing to indicate that it reloaded from below, an approach that I believe to be common to all of the Spruance preliminary designs. It was essentially mandated by the fact that the ASROC box launcher was to be replaceable with a Mk 26 Mod 0, which forced the box launcher magazine to be in that space.

Note Electronic Greyhounds gives an overall length of 571'6" for this design, which was actually a Bath Iron Works / Gibbs & Cox joint proposal. This source is beyond reproach for all matters Spruance.

This is another picture, also from Electronic Greyhounds. The quality of the print in the book is relatively poor; I don't think this will tell you anything you don't already know.

[ img ]
Author:  erik_t [ May 12th, 2012, 1:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: bath iron works spruance concept
I'm incorrect -- I drew something similar to M163, but not close enough for your use.
Author:  klagldsf [ May 12th, 2012, 4:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: bath iron works spruance concept
acelanceloet wrote:
and the offset funnels
The offset funnels weren't a USN mandate per se, but were a consequence of what was: LM2500-based propulsion.
Author:  Thiel [ May 12th, 2012, 6:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: bath iron works spruance concept
I don't think that overhang between the funnels is an overhang at all. Looks like some sort of beam structure. Replenishment gear possibly?
Author:  erik_t [ May 12th, 2012, 3:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: bath iron works spruance concept
There are actually three funnels, to be clear. Two forward and one aft. The CIC was between the two forward uptakes, which was intended to protect it to some degree.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/