Author Topic: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations  (Read 24407 times)

Offline Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
    • SketchUp 3D Warehouse - My Digital Models
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

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 #91 on: June 15, 2019, 03:55:37 AM »
I wonder about something like those shown above but with the centre section fitted with UGM-27 Polaris missiles.  The Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi was fitted with four Polaris missile launchers located in the aft part of the ship (see below photos)






A nuclear powered cruiser such as a Long Beach-class with a dedicated Polaris missile fit out and acting as a surface equivalent to the SSBNs (would this make it a CBN?) would be an interesting build.  In fact, one proposal with 8 Polaris was considered:



Now make it even more dedicated with 16 missiles (equivalent to the George Washington-class and Ethan Allen-class SSBNs) would be an interesting whiff.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

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 #92 on: June 15, 2019, 05:42:09 AM »
Strike Cruiser Mk 2.:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #93 on: June 26, 2019, 08:30:27 PM »
During the 70s the Iran had a very ambitious naval program that (if my memory serves me correctly) at one point had a notional order book of three Invincible Class carriers, six Kidd class destroyers and twelve S class frigates.  Of these only the Kidds were ordered and then the last pair were cancelled before the Iranian revolution saw them acquired by the USN instead.


The S Class were interesting in that they were FFGs (as seen on https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/complete-information-analysis-on-elli-class-frigates-of-hellenic-navy.368266/page-2) with SM-1 and 5" guns.  I assume they were the Dutch Olympus / Tyne version, not the German LM2500 MTU one, which would have fit well with the Olymus powered Invincibles.


This got me thinking, what if they decided to go Dutch and UK only and not order the Kidds, maybe going for an improved, double ended Bristol instead.  Four Olypus in a COGAG arrangment, the Ikara replaced by a second Seadart, a helo hangar and flight deck aftof the existing Seadart.  This fleet is under construction when the Iranian revolution occurs meaning three Invincibles and six improved Bristols on the stocks in 1979......... ;)
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 09:01:45 PM by Volkodav »

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #94 on: June 27, 2019, 01:56:24 AM »
I wonder about something like those shown above but with the centre section fitted with UGM-27 Polaris missiles.  The Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi was fitted with four Polaris missile launchers located in the aft part of the ship (see below photos)


Now make it even more dedicated with 16 missiles (equivalent to the George Washington-class and Ethan Allen-class SSBNs) would be an interesting whiff.
Shipboard ICBMs have been considered before and I do believe the considered opinion is that they wouldn't last long enough in any war to be a serious deterrent. The problem is they are too easy to find and too important not to take out in the very first instance of a war. Surface ships are simply too vulnerable to subs and ASW is just too difficult, especially nowadays, to invest in a nuclear deterrent that will be sunk in seconds after a war starts.

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 #95 on: June 27, 2019, 04:17:27 AM »
Bah!!  Reality sucks!
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #96 on: June 27, 2019, 10:43:50 PM »
Bah!!  Reality sucks!
Such has always been the case, of course...  ;D

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 #97 on: June 29, 2019, 02:36:09 AM »
I always thought ships did not have enough markings then I saw HMS Dragon:





Looks good - we should see more similar.

And what's best, you can get a kit in both 1/700 and 1/350:





« Last Edit: June 29, 2019, 02:40:50 AM by GTX_Admin »
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
Minor question about Type 23
« Reply #98 on: July 29, 2019, 08:27:06 AM »
Question: What is this circled item on the Type 23 class frigate?

Thanks in advance.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2019, 10:09:47 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 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 #99 on: July 30, 2019, 01:26:33 AM »
Not sure but I believe it is the exhaust for the two diesel generators - here is a better view:

« Last Edit: July 30, 2019, 01:29:35 AM by GTX_Admin »
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 #100 on: August 18, 2019, 06:32:44 AM »
I'm not sure if it's actual R&D or just intellectual exercise in Iran.
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 #101 on: August 20, 2019, 05:58:20 PM »
A thought on Naval Gunfire Support (NGS).  The US initially developed the 8" MCLWG, the Mk65 and Mk66 single and twin high rate of fire 5" to replace the NGS capability provided by the WWII vintage 6" and 8" cruisers but these projects were cancelled in the late 60s early 70s.  My thinking is to fill the gap the USN selected their best remaining all gun heavy cruisers and gave them an intermediate rebuild and modernisation to serve into the 80s and possibly 90s.


This rebuilt would be aimed at economically retaining their 9 x 8" guns, while improving their self defence capability, reducing manning requirements and reducing obsolescence.  The Mk38 5" twins would be replaced with Mk13 fore and aft, and with Mk45 port and starboard, four missile fire control channels, 3D radar, additional power generation and upgraded 8" mounts.

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #102 on: August 21, 2019, 02:00:28 AM »
A thought on Naval Gunfire Support (NGS).  The US initially developed the 8" MCLWG, the Mk65 and Mk66 single and twin high rate of fire 5" to replace the NGS capability provided by the WWII vintage 6" and 8" cruisers but these projects were cancelled in the late 60s early 70s.  My thinking is to fill the gap the USN selected their best remaining all gun heavy cruisers and gave them an intermediate rebuild and modernisation to serve into the 80s and possibly 90s.

This rebuilt would be aimed at economically retaining their 9 x 8" guns, while improving their self defence capability, reducing manning requirements and reducing obsolescence.  The Mk38 5" twins would be replaced with Mk13 fore and aft, and with Mk45 port and starboard, four missile fire control channels, 3D radar, additional power generation and upgraded 8" mounts.
So, you're really looking at a more modern version of the Boston-class CAGs?

The Mk 13 was a single arm system and the cruiser conversions all used the twin armed launchers to provide a better PK. The Mk 45 is a submarine based launcher for Tomahawks. Did you mean the Mk 25 BDMS Sea Sparrow box launcher, the Mk 26 twin-armed launcher for Standard Missiles, or the Mk 41 VLS, perhaps?

One of the biggest concerns with the conversions of the old cruisers were the high crew counts translating into brutally high operating costs, even by 1970s standards.

For a nominal 1975 major refit conversion of an American heavy cruiser hull that was meant to retain significant shore bombardment capability (and disregarding cost entirely) might I suggest the following?

A Baltimore hull.
Re-engined to gas turbines - 3 x P&W FT4s would provide the equivalent 120,000 HP needed to retain a 33 kt top speed and greatly reduce the engineering crew required to run the ship
Deletion of all twin 5" mounts
Deletion of the aft and B-turret triple 8" mounts - Modern gunfire support really doesn't need nine 8" guns. Three is more than enough.
Retention of the A turret but modified to use the autoloader of the 8" Mk 71 system for each gun in the old turret.
Addition of two Mk 26 twin-arm launchers aft in X and Y positions with 80 rd magazines for each launcher along with target designation radars on the main mast.
Addition of two Mk 25 Sea Sparrow box launchers amidships firing to each beam and being rearmed from magazines aft in the rear deck house.
Addition of two 5"-54 cal Mk 45 turrets forwards abeam of the bridge in the old forward twin 5" mount spots.
Addition of four Mk 143 quad armoured Tomahawk box launchers right aft
Addition of two Mk 141 Harpoon launchers on the old 8" B-turret mount.

By the late 1980s they would have undoubtedly picked up a CIWS or two, one right aft and one on top of the bridge.

By the early 1990s they would have had the Mk 25 and magazines replaced by a reduced superstructure amidships and probably 32 Mk 41 VLS cells holding VL-Sea Sparrows. The rear Mk 26s would probably be retained as they would already be firing SM-1s and probably SM-2s by the 90s. But any refits in the 90s would possibly change out the Mk 26s for a much simpler 48 cell Mk 41 farm with a selection of SM-2ERs and Tomahawks, replacing the Tomahawk deck box launchers.

Replacement of the engines, gun turrets and crews and other WW2 era manual systems with the more automatic systems of the mid 70s through 80s would have undoubtedly reduced the crew from the unsupportable 1150 of a wartime heavy cruiser to a much more reasonable 300-400 of the then-new Tico-class cruisers.

These would have been very heavily armed for cruisers in the 70s and 80s and you could save a ton of money if you were to designate them purely as gunfire support vessels. In which case you could get rid of the aft Mk 26 mounts and magazines and radars and electronics as well as the 8" turrets and possibly added another four Mk 143 Tomahawk launchers right aft, possibly freeing up enough space for a helo pad and hangar for a Blackhawk or the like in the aft superstructure/Y-turret space.

You'd keep the two Mk 25 box launchers and their designators as self defense. A 1990s refit could still replace them with a VLS farm, but possibly bigger, say 60 cells adding back the SM-2 missiles and adding area air defence capability for the 90s and beyond.

Big ships provide a big canvas upon which to WHIF...

Paul

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #103 on: August 21, 2019, 08:22:19 AM »
Just a note on NGS:

During the Gulf War(s) I remember hearing that US & British soldiers were requesting RAN NGS in preference to either of their own navies because, even with their smaller guns (I think we're talking OHP's with their 76mm guns vs 4.5" & 5" of the RN & USN), they were getting more metal on target faster when required.

This was because the RAN trained for the NGS role as one of their primary functions.

Immediately after the Gulf War(s) the RAN announced that they were reducing the focus on guns & their Weapons Operators were now focusing on missile-based systems training (almost to the exclusion of anything else) in line with their RN & USN counterparts.

With modern gun systems being highly automated (yes, I know the old WW2 systems aren't - but they could be) the crews supporting the guns can be, & are, greatly reduced. With naval gun shells being extremely cheap in comparison to a single missile, NGS is, still, a much more cost-efficient means of effectively supporting ground forces than precision-guided munitions when carried out by properly trained crews.

Gunfire is not only highly effective at breaking things, it also has a much better psychological effect. The scream of salvo after salvo of time-on-target naval gunfire vs one or two guided missiles which are only ever going to be aimed at HVT's? As a troop, gimme the enemy firing missiles any day!
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations
« Reply #104 on: August 21, 2019, 09:24:42 PM »
A thought on Naval Gunfire Support (NGS).  The US initially developed the 8" MCLWG, the Mk65 and Mk66 single and twin high rate of fire 5" to replace the NGS capability provided by the WWII vintage 6" and 8" cruisers but these projects were cancelled in the late 60s early 70s.  My thinking is to fill the gap the USN selected their best remaining all gun heavy cruisers and gave them an intermediate rebuild and modernisation to serve into the 80s and possibly 90s.

This rebuilt would be aimed at economically retaining their 9 x 8" guns, while improving their self defence capability, reducing manning requirements and reducing obsolescence.  The Mk38 5" twins would be replaced with Mk13 fore and aft, and with Mk45 port and starboard, four missile fire control channels, 3D radar, additional power generation and upgraded 8" mounts.
So, you're really looking at a more modern version of the Boston-class CAGs?

The Mk 13 was a single arm system and the cruiser conversions all used the twin armed launchers to provide a better PK. The Mk 45 is a submarine based launcher for Tomahawks. Did you mean the Mk 25 BDMS Sea Sparrow box launcher, the Mk 26 twin-armed launcher for Standard Missiles, or the Mk 41 VLS, perhaps?

One of the biggest concerns with the conversions of the old cruisers were the high crew counts translating into brutally high operating costs, even by 1970s standards.

For a nominal 1975 major refit conversion of an American heavy cruiser hull that was meant to retain significant shore bombardment capability (and disregarding cost entirely) might I suggest the following?

A Baltimore hull.
Re-engined to gas turbines - 3 x P&W FT4s would provide the equivalent 120,000 HP needed to retain a 33 kt top speed and greatly reduce the engineering crew required to run the ship
Deletion of all twin 5" mounts
Deletion of the aft and B-turret triple 8" mounts - Modern gunfire support really doesn't need nine 8" guns. Three is more than enough.
Retention of the A turret but modified to use the autoloader of the 8" Mk 71 system for each gun in the old turret.
Addition of two Mk 26 twin-arm launchers aft in X and Y positions with 80 rd magazines for each launcher along with target designation radars on the main mast.
Addition of two Mk 25 Sea Sparrow box launchers amidships firing to each beam and being rearmed from magazines aft in the rear deck house.
Addition of two 5"-54 cal Mk 45 turrets forwards abeam of the bridge in the old forward twin 5" mount spots.
Addition of four Mk 143 quad armoured Tomahawk box launchers right aft
Addition of two Mk 141 Harpoon launchers on the old 8" B-turret mount.

By the late 1980s they would have undoubtedly picked up a CIWS or two, one right aft and one on top of the bridge.

By the early 1990s they would have had the Mk 25 and magazines replaced by a reduced superstructure amidships and probably 32 Mk 41 VLS cells holding VL-Sea Sparrows. The rear Mk 26s would probably be retained as they would already be firing SM-1s and probably SM-2s by the 90s. But any refits in the 90s would possibly change out the Mk 26s for a much simpler 48 cell Mk 41 farm with a selection of SM-2ERs and Tomahawks, replacing the Tomahawk deck box launchers.

Replacement of the engines, gun turrets and crews and other WW2 era manual systems with the more automatic systems of the mid 70s through 80s would have undoubtedly reduced the crew from the unsupportable 1150 of a wartime heavy cruiser to a much more reasonable 300-400 of the then-new Tico-class cruisers.

These would have been very heavily armed for cruisers in the 70s and 80s and you could save a ton of money if you were to designate them purely as gunfire support vessels. In which case you could get rid of the aft Mk 26 mounts and magazines and radars and electronics as well as the 8" turrets and possibly added another four Mk 143 Tomahawk launchers right aft, possibly freeing up enough space for a helo pad and hangar for a Blackhawk or the like in the aft superstructure/Y-turret space.

You'd keep the two Mk 25 box launchers and their designators as self defense. A 1990s refit could still replace them with a VLS farm, but possibly bigger, say 60 cells adding back the SM-2 missiles and adding area air defence capability for the 90s and beyond.

Big ships provide a big canvas upon which to WHIF...

Paul

Umm no, not really what I was thinking.
 
Mk13 40 round launcher as it (and the Mk11 that preceded it) were designed to fit in the same footprint as the Mk38 5" twin, this make it ideal for for replacing the centreline Mk38s on a USN standard cruiser type.

The Mk45 I refered to is the 5" naval gun.

The thinking behind keeping all three 8" gun houses is to permit two to be used for NGS with the third in reserve / maintenance.  This is how HMAS Vendetta conducted NGS off Vietnam, providing greater avaialbility and redundancy than the Charles F Adams DDGs.

My selection of the Mk 13 and Mk 45 (or possibly one 5" and a Mk75 3" on each beam) was for their reliability, supportability, commonality and lower manning.  Increased power generation is a no brainer, but the large hulls of the USN standard cruisers would mean volume for the new sytems wouldn't be an issue.  In addition the Mk13 permits the deployment of Harpoon and SM-2MR at a later date without any major structural canges being required.  The systems I could see being used would be those in production for the Oliver Hazard Perrys and Spruances during the 70s and 80s.


Modern (well 70s current) secondary and teritary weapons, sensors, generators, switchboards etc. would reduce manning requirements, improve reliability etc. The object would be to upgrade several cruisers for the same capital outlay as a dozen FFGs, the hit would be in manning as the steam plants and 8" armament would still require more than modern ships.