Shipbucket

You're most welcome, Sir! I have to admit that I am quite impressed with the way you argue. Very factual and to the point! Now, I have to admit one error of mine: I have Norman Friedman's US Destroyers - An Illustrated Design History (which I believe is the full title - more or less...) but I didn't bother to check this design. I've got no time, alas. Anyway, I can admit the fact about the SPS-10. What I didn't think of were the ancilliary systems of SPS-67 and SPS-55 which the said California-class was equipped with. Overall, though, I believe you've succeeded in capturing the essence of this design very well.

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

Ok, the Final, Final drawing:

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

looks great!!

_________________
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

Yes, it does indeed.

A very nice drawing. Still glad that this was not the option that was decided on though

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

So much more balanced now! Although i still would prefer the platforms for the chaff/flare launchers, well, that's a trivial matter, right?!? You've captured the true essence of the design very well, Tim! kudos!!!

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

Interesting design with a ''square'' superstructure...

Greetings.

_________________
My motto:Per ardua ad astra (RCAF)
Current Drawings:
USS Midway CVB-41 and later alterations
HMCS Bonaventure CVL-22 and later alterations
Paul 2024

Her design is quite contemporary of the DX/DXG (Spruance/Kidd) and Perry designs (if not a bit of a forerunner to those designs), and as such she shares their boxy superstructure.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Indeed the boxy superstructure tends to be the standard for shipbuilding since most of the days of steel, and only recently has it been gotten away from in the interests of stealth (and not entirely so)

Primary reason being it's easier to make and maximizes volume

Even the Burkes don't get away from this entirely, the main reason really being to accomodate the SPY-1 faces although stealth is a secondary reason

As a thought exercise, I wondered what the ships would look like in an end of life configuration:



You can see several major changes:

1. Addition of the Mk-110 57mm cannon forward
2. Swapping out of the Mk-26 for an 80 cell VLS array
3. Updated Comms and radar sets
4. New, smaller mast following the removal of SPS-49
5. Mk-49 RAM launcher in place of Phalanx
6. Active Phased Arrays replacing the SPY-1 faces. This allows for the removal of the SPG-62s, which in turn gave me a place to put the SPQ-9
7. Taller hanger to accommodate a single MH-60R Seahawk.
8. Newer, more modern ship's craft in the form of RHIBs

I figure they would have been withdrawn in the 2007-2010 timeframe, if they last that long. A thank you to Erik_T for his help with this thought exercise.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆