Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 3  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 »
Author Message
acelanceloet
Post subject: spruance with Mk 71Posted: June 21st, 2011, 7:28 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
[ img ]
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.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: spruance with Mk 71Posted: June 22nd, 2011, 12:30 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
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.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: spruance with Mk 71Posted: June 22nd, 2011, 3:05 am
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Dreadnaught
Post subject: Re: spruance with Mk 71Posted: June 22nd, 2011, 4:57 am
Offline
Posts: 71
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 6:17 am
Too bad the Mk71 was cancelled. The Spruances might have been in service a little longer for shore bombardment use.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: spruance with Mk 71Posted: June 22nd, 2011, 7:05 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
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.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Portsmouth Bill
Post subject: Re: spruance with Mk 71Posted: June 22nd, 2011, 7:55 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
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) :)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: spruance with Mk 71Posted: June 22nd, 2011, 9:41 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
I knew I missed things! ;) well, gonna fix them this afternoon if I have time.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: spruance with Mk 71Posted: June 22nd, 2011, 1:06 pm
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
bezobrazov wrote:
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.
Dreadnaught wrote:
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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: spruance with Mk 71Posted: June 22nd, 2011, 1:44 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
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?

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: spruance with Mk 71Posted: June 22nd, 2011, 2:29 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
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...

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 3  [ 30 posts ]  Return to “Never-Built Designs” | Go to page 1 2 3 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]