Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

1995 bombardement ship: spruance refit
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1432		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  acelanceloet [ June 25th, 2011, 8:35 pm ]
Post subject:  1995 bombardement ship: spruance refit
after all the stuff with CATZ about bombardement ships, I had a good talk over IRC with TimothyC, about what really would be an good idea for an bombardement ship. I was planning to scratch-draw one, but as my fave time era is 1990-2000 we decided that the best thing would most likely be refitting an spruance. based on the plans for the AGS USS Thorn, I put the gun aft for an extended magazine size.

the idea of this ship would be an shore bombardent ship that could also do (some of the) normal destroyer duty's. while she wouldn't be as capable as the others, she would not be useless when there was no need for bombardement, something that some other concepts I saw would have more problems with.
[ img ]

well, I'd like to know what you guys think of the concept and the ship ;)
keep in mind that I do not think that there is an real gunfire support gap, but IF there was, IN 1995, then this would (IMO) be the best answer. maybe an class based around this, or an follow on would even be an good alternative for the zumwalts.... but that is another story, that I would like not to be discussed here ;)
Author:  TimothyC [ June 25th, 2011, 8:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1995 bombardement ship: spruance refit
One thing that Ace didn't touch on is that while a refit, she would have had her stern almost totally rebuilt to take the shock and stress from firing the gun. I'm envisioning that 6-9 ships would be refitted to this standard to provide two or three ships either deployed or on standby around the world. Thanks to Erik and Sea Skimmer for reality checks with this project.

Also she's got a 250-300 round capacity, which while lower than her 5" capacity is a welcome addition to any MEU.

Edit: The ships has a reduced VLS load (48 as opposed to 64 cells). This was done to address weight rather than volume concerns. Nominal load out would be 16 TLAMs, 16 VLAs, 8 NSSMs (single packed), and 32 POLAR (quad packed).

Edit 2: You will note that the AN/SPS-40 on the standard Spruance was replaced with the Planar array AN/SPS-49. This improves air search and tracking by virtue of being a 2.5D as opposed to a 2D set, and by being 20 years newer. This did however requires a change to the aft mast (moving the pole forward and the radar aft). This gives the radar a clear view aft, and puts all of the obstructions in one general direction. I considered a deployment of the Advanced Enclosed Mast / Sensor [As seen on DD-968 U.S.S. Arthur W. Radford], but this was not chosen because I couldn't confirm that the currently drawn mast would support and contain the planar AN/SPS-49 (potentially a future upgrade or later versions of the ship will use this).
Author:  Portsmouth Bill [ June 26th, 2011, 2:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1995 bombardement ship: spruance refit
The difficulty would be in moving the 8-in to the stern position, as I've read that this would not have been possible on that hull, which is why it was positioned forward.
Author:  acelanceloet [ June 26th, 2011, 6:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1995 bombardement ship: spruance refit
well, we decided to put it on the stern, based on the AGS modified USS thorn plans. but this is indeed the reason the entire stern would have to be rebuild.
Author:  Carnac [ June 26th, 2011, 7:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1995 bombardement ship: spruance refit
You might want to expand the landing pad aft, it look tight imo. But idk.
Author:  acelanceloet [ June 26th, 2011, 7:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1995 bombardement ship: spruance refit
the landing pad is the standars spruance pad ;)
Author:  TimothyC [ June 26th, 2011, 7:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1995 bombardement ship: spruance refit
Portsmouth Bill wrote:
The difficulty would be in moving the 8-in to the stern position, as I've read that this would not have been possible on that hull, which is why it was positioned forward.
Yes it would have represented a unique challenge, hence my statement about a serious rebuild effort on the stern.

The reason I placed it on the stern is that fundamentally, this design was based on the proposed AGS Backfit to U.S.S. Thorn. If I placed the Mk-71 forward the ship would probably be down to 32 VLS cells forward, while by placing it aft I only am down to 48, with 8 dedicated to NSSM. Another issue was magazine space - if I place the Mk-71 on the bow, you are for most purposes stuck with the existing 5" Magazine space. By placing it aft, the deck is extended granting the ship a larger magazine.
Carnac wrote:
You might want to expand the landing pad aft, it look tight imo. But idk.
The Mk-71 does interfere with helo ops to a certain degree, but that's an acceptable downside for the gain of an 8" gun.
Author:  swin_lad [ June 26th, 2011, 9:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1995 bombardement ship: spruance refit
Why Isn't NSSM Quadpacked???

Nick
Author:  acelanceloet [ June 26th, 2011, 9:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1995 bombardement ship: spruance refit
because it is NSSM, not ESSM ;) NSSM can not be quadpacked, while ESSM can.
Author:  swin_lad [ June 26th, 2011, 9:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1995 bombardement ship: spruance refit
I see, Also I have found this after a quick google which could be used in a similar role and is based on MConrads work

[ img ]

EDIT - Hes a tw*t as he says his SB work is copyrighted

Nick
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/