Author Topic: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations  (Read 15879 times)

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2015, 12:27:02 PM »
How about a slightly different USN of the 80s?  Previously the US had conventional and nuclear powered versions of their major combatants, usually frigates (as in DLGs), but in the case of the Californias and Virginias, destroyers.  The Californias were nuclear powered derivatives of the cancelled 1967 DDG, the Virginias were nuclear powered equivalents of the Spruance / Kidd classes and the cancelled CGN-42 class corresponded to the Ticonderoga class CG (initially DDG).  What if they had continued this in the 80s, 90s and through to current times?

The original real world idea was to provide one DLGN / CGN escort per CVN but this was abandoned primarily for cost reasons with the USN concentrating on constructing larger numbers of conventionally powered Ticonderogas and later Arleigh Burkes.  It was a case of priorities where not only numbers were seen as more important than individual capability but other projects were also more important, common sense really, AEGIS is AEGIS, whether its on a Spruance hull or a Virginia.  One way this could have occurred is if Admiral Rickover won his battle against the military industrial complex corruption prevalent in the 70s and 80s instead of being sacked by President Reagan at Navy Secretary John Lehman's instigation.  Quite a dirty affair and worth reading if you're into such things, Electric Boat's general manager P. Takis Veliotis (indicted for fraud and racketeering in 1983) covered up defects with SSN construction then sued the government for the cost of fixing the problems to the tune of almost $700 million in 1981.  Defence contractors, supported by the Secretary of the Navy, were able to continue their corrupt and incompetent practices for years longer than had the Executive backed Rickover in his battle against them.  Assuming common sense and good governance uncharacteristically won out and Rickover was able to hand over the reins to a suitable successor as well as the excesses of industry being reined in a decade or more earlier (I don't know the full history of what happened but I do know things were particularly bad in the 70's and 80's) it is conceivable that a new generation of DLGN / CGNs and perhaps even CAGNs (for the sake of cool whiffs) could have been developed and built.

Anyway back to the platforms, USN build CGN-42 and possibly CSGN (Strike Cruiser) and then go on the develop a nuclear powered version of the DDG-51 and a new CAGN to replace the modernised BBs perhaps using refurbished and updated 8" guns, or even complete turrets from surplus heavy cruisers.  Maybe a nuclear powered equivalent to the Invincible or the RNs Escort cruiser concept to replace the CVS type carriers.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2015, 11:48:27 PM »
That sounds plausible.  Your comments about rampant corruption at that time does explain one thing to me, how P&W got a second-source contract for the F404.  They ended up producing the first F404 to ever have a compressor stall and the contract was eventually cancelled as part of the demise of the A-6F (I'm told that P&W's problems with the F404 were one major factor in the A-6F's demise).
« Last Edit: June 29, 2015, 11:55:40 AM by elmayerle »

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #32 on: June 29, 2015, 10:58:00 AM »
Basically once a contract was awarded anyone who complained about performance was seen as a problem, or a dinosaur who didn't understand how modern projects were run.  Apparently insisting welds were completed to standard on submarines was unreasonable.  A compounding issue was the government was also the contractors insurer so even when the contractor was found to be at fault the government had to pay anyway.  ???

Same old story, if it was done properly the first time the cost savings would have resulted in more orders and greater profits.  The Los Angeles class not only had the weld issues but early boats had unknowingly been constructed from the wrong grade steel, greatly restricting their deep dive depth.

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #33 on: August 19, 2015, 08:56:01 PM »
This site is in Chinese...... not that it matters compared to the pictures.

I wonder what I need to do to cook up a WWII-era evolution of that main gun emplacement concept......
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #34 on: November 02, 2015, 09:51:12 PM »
Just had an idea on the WWII RN, RCN, RAN Tribal class destroyer.

Previously I suggested a version armed with five twin 4" instead of four twin 4.7" or three twin 4.7" and one twin 4", basically a Tribal AA, similar in concept to the HMS Lance, an L&M class destroyer completed with four twin 4" instead of the designed three twin 4.7". 

At the same time a number of nations already had larger calibres while others were increasing calibre of destroyer guns further, for example the German 5.9".  How about, in addition to the AA Tribal, there was also a scout cruiser Tribal with three or four 5.25", 5.5", or even 6" singles and possibly a 4" twin for AA, i.e. the medium singles in A, B and Y, with either a fourth in X or a 4" twin.  Could be each squadron or flotilla has a mix of Scout and AA Tribals.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #35 on: December 01, 2015, 10:27:08 PM »
Flyhawk's resent release of HMS Naiad and HMS Aurora in 1/700 have inspired some more cruiser ideas. 

Aurora was an Arethusa class light cruiser, what the RN considered to be the smallest cruisers worthwhile building which actually proved to be quite versatile and capable as well as providing the hull and machinery for the Dido Class AA cruisers of which Naiad is an example.

My thinking is these could be used for a purpose designed 4.5" AA cruiser with six (as opposed to four as fitted to two Didos) twin mounts, a batch three fitted with the improved 5.25" mounts developed for the Vanguard, post war upgrades, missile conversions, i.e. Tartar.  Export versions, licence production versions, i.e. an RAN version perhaps acquired instead of the Modified Leanders and maybe in larger numbers (smaller lighter so more were allowed under treaty).

Flyhawk also has the battle cruiser SMS Derfflinger.  My idea, it is saved from being scuttled and then granted to Australia as a war reparations, upgraded and anglicized through the 20s and 30s, going on to serve in WWII.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #36 on: December 30, 2015, 05:17:30 AM »
Random idea:  Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate (see below):



Converted into something akin to the proposed Spruance class Air Capable Destroyer:




I would probably use the long hulled version.

It would be tight to say the least...but still it might be fun to try. ;)
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #37 on: December 30, 2015, 05:56:54 AM »
What would it be operating though?

The Spruance was much larger and had four weapon stations fore and aft of the superstructure plus a helo deck , so there was a lot of scope for rearranging the latter. The Perry only has one weapon station plus a helo deck and I'll bet that just about everything in it's superstructure is the minimum neccessary for a functioning ship, so can't be easily dumped or rearranged.

Harriers are out of the question. Maybe if you dumped the Mk.13 and 76mm and pushed the superstructure all the way forwards you might get four SH-70s on board, but to what purpose?
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #38 on: December 30, 2015, 06:00:08 AM »
What would it be operating though?


Bah!  Practicality!! :icon_punal:

Maybe some Huey Cobras?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Dr. YoKai

  • Was in High School when mastadons roamed the plains...
  • A notorious curmudgeon who is partial to...hemp!
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #39 on: December 30, 2015, 09:15:50 AM »


 Suppose the QH-50 had really caught on...by the time the Perry's are available for conversion, you'd
 probably have a dash 60 or 70...

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #40 on: March 25, 2016, 06:07:06 AM »
Not sure exactly what this would be classified as - possibly a guided missile cruiser:




It is a Swedish design from 1947 for a warship that launches guided rockets instead of using normal guns.  I have seen it theorised that the plan was to use what eventually became the Rb04:



Could be an interesting idea to model.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #41 on: May 15, 2016, 11:20:31 PM »
Decided to re-post it here because, despite being called a corvette, it is essentially a bigger and badder missile boat and not primarily a convoy escort (it can do convoy jobs, in fact meant to do so more cheaply than frigates and destroyers).

Model of Republic of China Navy's planned mass-production Tuo Chiang class corvette:
« Last Edit: May 16, 2016, 08:08:14 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Spruance Class What-ifs?
« Reply #42 on: June 01, 2016, 07:21:01 AM »
Browsing through Shipbucket, I found this catching my eyes:

Click HERE!

Reminds me of what Wikipedia says of the Spruance class destroyers...... it is claimed that they could have served into 2019 if updated again and maintained, and that USS Cushing was listed for grant transfer to Turkey before ultimately being allocated to be a target hulk.

If the transfer took place, however, would Turkey have accepted the ship as is?  Or would at least some modifications be carried out to, for example, expand the AAW utility of that Mk.41 launcher?
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Spruance Class What-ifs?
« Reply #43 on: June 01, 2016, 01:30:30 PM »
Browsing through Shipbucket, I found this catching my eyes:

Click HERE!

Reminds me of what Wikipedia says of the Spruance class destroyers...... it is claimed that they could have served into 2019 if updated again and maintained, and that USS Cushing was listed for grant transfer to Turkey before ultimately being allocated to be a target hulk.

If the transfer took place, however, would Turkey have accepted the ship as is?  Or would at least some modifications be carried out to, for example, expand the AAW utility of that Mk.41 launcher?


When the four Kidd class DDGs were proposed for transfer to the RAN in the late 90s (there were offered to Australia first, then Greece, before Taiwan bought them)the assumption was at least three of the four would be progressively upgraded to permit them to serve well into the 2010s if not the 2020s as replacements for the retiring Perth (CFA)Class DDGs.  All had already received extensive NTU (New Threat Upgrades) while with the USN making them the most capable non AEGIS combatants in service at the time, improving and refurbishing all ships systems, including accommodation and auxiliaries, as well as significantly more powerful and useful than the very best that could be hoped to be achieved with the ultimately very troubles RAN FFGUP (FFG Upgrade) program.  The ships, as is could have replaced both the both the DDGs and FFGs, not received any additional upgrades or modernisations and still resulted in a significantly more powerful, flexible and capable RAN, at substantially lower cost, through until the ships could be replaced with AWD in the late 2010s early 2020s, so poorly executed was the FFGUP. 

In fact what was being discussed was a rolling upgrade of the ships if acquired.  Initially three would enter service as a direct replacement for the three existing DDGs while the fourth would begin an extensive upgrade instead of the, now unnecessary FFGUP.  Mk-26 GMLSs would be replaced with strike length Mk-41 VLS, ESSM would likely be integrated along with the SM-2 the ships already used and VLASROC and Tomahawk would have been possibilities.  Automation would also have been increased to reduce crewing, i.e. pneumatic starters on GT Generators replaced with electric, improving reliability and reducing maintenance.  The ships were large enough, with sufficient modularity to permit multiple successive upgrades, for instance the ships could easily have received a scaled up area air defence version of the ANZAC ASMD upgrade, i.e. larger longer range CEASCAN radars and CEAMOUNT directors (Dragon kit with Shapeways CEAFAR mast and Mk-41 VLS).

Unfortunately the Australian government was wary of ex USN equipment following the poor standard of a pair of Newport LSTs bought in the 90s, completely missing the fact that the initially surveyed and selected ships had been fine but because of delays in processing the acquisition they went to other navies and the pair the, considerable less experienced, follow up team selected were in nowhere near as good a condition and required very substantial rectification work before they were even considered seaworthy post delivery.  The government was also concerned that manning issues would force the retirement of the eldest pair of the RANs six FFGs to free up sufficient crew for the much larger Kidds, resulting in the RAN reducing major surface combatant numbers even further below the still officially planned 17.  The other major issue was the fear in some quarters that four such capable ships would see a down grading of plans to acquire three new AEGIS destroyers (assumed at that point to be US or locally licence built Flight IIA Arleigh Burke class destroyers) as well as to upgrade the ANZAC class patrol frigates with AEGIS and SPY-1F through the ANZAC WIP (Warfighting Improvement Program).  There was also the industrial side of things where people were becoming increasingly concerned that buying ex USN ships would result in a local shipbuilding blackhole and loss of the skills so expensively (and successfully) built up through the 80s and 90s.

The irony is all of these legitimate concerns ended up occurring without the acquisition of the Kidds for various reasons relating to government policy, economics (an extended boom unbalancing the economy and the labour market), poor planning, lack of vision, faulty and failed procurement, illogical cuts followed by strange procurement choices, cancellation and replacement of projects with inappropriate (cheap but incapable) alternatives.  Failure to promptly replace the Perths with anything at all saw a reduction in the number of hulls and hence sea going billets, further compounding a cost cutting inspired gutting of the RANs engineering capability.  Technical issues saw a cost and schedule blowout on the FFGUP which was reduced from all six ships to only four, further cutting hull numbers and compounded by the fact that the ships never achieved the intended level of capability and were unavailable for years longer than planned.  The procurement of a replacement for the AWDs became a convoluted politically inspired process to reshape defence procurement and project management that didn't even kick off until some years after the urgent need for the ships was demonstrated by operations in East Timor and stated in the delayed Defence White Paper.  So long was the project delayed that the new destroyers became the replacement for the FFGs, not the DDGs, meaning a reduction in actual fleet size from 14 to 12 major combatants and an eventual planned 11, instead of the long required (since the retirement of the carrier Melbourne) 17.  The convoluted process that should have seen three CFA/Perth class DDGs replaced with three Flight IIA Burke AEGIS destroyers (or three Kidd class DDGs as an interim) in the late 90s, early 2000s will see three DDGs and six FFGs replaced with three AEGIS FFGs two decades later.

Fitting AEGIS and SPY-1F to the ANZACs proved impractical and combined with the issues with FFGUP saw a massive reduction in both numbers and capability from the retirement of the Perths that continues today.  The decision to neither build Arleigh Burkes or stretch ANZACs (from my understanding would have been similar in size and capability to the South Korean KDXII) as well as to cancel the missile corvettes intended to replace the fleets in shore patrol boats as well as to convert a commercial tanker into a fleet oiler (that never met capability requirements) and to upgrade/double hull the existing AOR overseas, instead of building the long required two new ships ensured that there would be a ship building blackhole and the loss of strategic capability that would literally cost billions to rebuild.

In an ideal world Australia would have acquired and progressively upgraded all four Kidd Class DDGs in the late 90s.  Three would be hot transfers using the Perth Class crews and the fourth would have served as the prototype for an upgrade for the rest of the class.  Only the newest pair of FFGs would be upgraded, where possible using systems common the upgraded Kidds, while the older ships would continue in service as is until replaced post 2010.  Shipbuilding would be kept going through this time by local construction of patrol boat replacing helicopter equipped missile corvettes (the proposed Transfield OPC), two new AORs, two or three helicopter carriers or LHDs and possibly up to several small LPDs.  ANZAC WIP would not even start with the ship remaining as patrol frigates due to the Kidds and two upgraded and four standard FFGs being available.  As the corvette program winds up the first new AWD would be completed to begin replacing the FFGs with the Kidds finally being replaced around 2020 by something really interesting, possibly a DDG-1000 based AWD or cruiser, or a JMSDF helicopter escort (Hyuga/Izumo)

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #44 on: June 03, 2016, 12:58:57 AM »
From my perspective (since I was from Taiwan), I can see combat system upgrades and LAMPS Mk.III compatibility done to the Kidd class DDGs; Mk.41 launchers replacing Mk.26 GMLS, maybe; outright combat system replacement (for example, 3D AESA radar)...... likely not.  Since the ROCN plans to build up to four AAW frigates within the next 15 years, I expect them to do just enough to keep the Kidd class DDGs serviceable.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2016, 01:01:50 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?