Spruance-Based AEGIS Destroyer (DD 999)

[Pirate Pete]

May be. But you chose to present your artworks here for comparisons sake so people here could compare the available space on the bow of the Kidd, Spruance and Ticonderoga classes, while the artworks are not actually accurate in that regard. If you choose to not do thorougly check the available sources for your drawings, that's fine, they are just artwork after all. But when you present them like this, as actual information in an interesting discussion, you are actively spreading disinformation on the internet with them. Please don't do that.

Consider them artist impressions or make them accurate. Please. Because in this case I spotted it because I studied these ships, but another time somebody takes wrongs like these as the truth because no better information is available to them.

Whilst I understand the point you are making, I have to say, considering all of the hard work that Tzoli puts into his artwork and his seemingly encyclopaediac knowledge I think you are being somewhat harsh.

Just an observation

 

[TomS]

Regarding the Kidds, I do not believe they were dimensionally any different from the Spruances, though there may be minor changes in things like bow coamings.*

However, they do have significantly enlarged refrigeration and air conditioning systems due to their planned operating environment. (the Spruances were designed mainly for the North Atlantic). And they gained a lot of weight over their service lives, especially with New Threat Upgrade. By the time the RAN was looking at them, there was insufficient margin for the full VLS fit like a Ticos or even the 61-cell block forward like the VLS Spruances. As I recall from the trade press at the time, the most likely RAN VLS refit would have been 80 cells (32+48). In hindsight, the aft block might well have been Tactical rather than Strike Length due to height issues.

* That's why the Ticos are nominally longer OA than the Spruances -- the bow coaming is extended to provide more reserve buoyancy, offsetting their increased displacement.

 

[MihoshiK]

Whilst I understand the point you are making, I have to say, considering all of the hard work that Tzoli puts into his artwork and his seemingly encyclopaediac knowledge I think you are being somewhat harsh.

Just an observation

He might be slightly undiplomatic in his remarks, but he's absolutely correct in the facts of his critisism.

The basic structure of the ships, including their superstructure size and location of all major components such a weapons and drives, was identical.

 

[BlackBat242]

Tzoli, may I know your references for the Kidd superstructure being longer on a shorter hull then the basic Spruance? Also the gun being further forwards? Before we make any assumptions based on size of things based on them, let's make sure they are accurate.

Looks to me more like the superstructure is about the same length, but is moved forward a bit on the Kidd plan... along with the gun.

 

[TomS]

Looks to me more like the superstructure is about the same length, but is moved forward a bit on the Kidd plan... along with the gun.

And that didn't happen in real life. The gun and superstructure land on the same frames in the Kidd as the Spruance.

 

[acelanceloet]

I apologise if I am being too harsh. However my intention was to be harsh. Tzoli's drawings are something that "rivals" shipbucket style as images that allow for comparison of ships in a standardised style. It is amazing that Tzoli can do that on his own. And having knowledge is great, especially when sharing that knowledge.

But when you share information while knowing it is wrong, having knowledge becomes the curse of responsibility. I would not have said a word about these drawings (even if there are many more errors on them) if they were not suggested to be used for something they cannot be used for.

 

[Christopher Wang]

If we accept the U.S. General Accounting Office's argument that no escort warship has more than one 5"/54 gun (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1980, pp. 9, 14), then perhaps the Spruances' aft gun turret could be removed and the Mark 29 Sea Sparrow GMLS relocated to the former turret position to make room for the projected aft Mark 26 Standard-MR / ASROC GMLS. Since the Spruances and Kidds have mostly the same internal arrangement as explained on this thread, a similar conversion could be done with the Kidds by replacing the aft gun turret with the added Mark 29. The removal and replacement of the gun turret with an 8-cell SAM launcher would be similar to the Italian Navy's modernization of its Audace class DDGs.

 

[TomS]

If we accept the U.S. General Accounting Office's argument that no escort warship has more than one 5"/54 gun (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1980, pp. 9, 14), then perhaps the Spruances' aft gun turret could be removed and the Mark 29 Sea Sparrow GMLS relocated to the former turret position to make room for the projected aft Mark 26 Standard-MR / ASROC GMLS. Since the Spruances and Kidds have mostly the same internal arrangement as explained on this thread, a similar conversion could be done with the Kidds by replacing the aft gun turret with the added Mark 29. The removal and replacement of the gun turret with an 8-cell SAM launcher would be similar to the Italian Navy's modernization of its Audace class DDGs.

That report is missing one key word. Everywhere they say "escort" they really mean "ocean escort." That's the Navy's term for destroyer escorts/frigates and the reserve FRAM DDs that were no longer viable as Battle Force Escorts. So when they talk about no escorts having more than one gun, they are talking about the Brooke, Garcia, Knox, and Perry classes.

Also, note that the Mk 29 in the Spruances class has no deck penetration, so relocating it does not give you any room in which to install VLS. It would have been perfectly feasible (and more likely, IMO) to relocate the Mk 29 to the hangar roof, as planned for the DDHs.

 

[Christopher Wang]

That report is missing one key word. Everywhere they say "escort" they really mean "ocean escort." That's the Navy's term for destroyer escorts/frigates and the reserve FRAM DDs that were no longer viable as Battle Force Escorts. So when they talk about no escorts having more than one gun, they are talking about the Brooke, Garcia, Knox, and Perry classes.

Also, note that the Mk 29 in the Spruances class has no deck penetration, so relocating it does not give you any room in which to install VLS. It would have been perfectly feasible (and more likely, IMO) to relocate the Mk 29 to the hangar roof, as planned for the DDHs.

I believe you and acelanceloet have explained that the Spruance modernization plans were to install the aft 44-missile Mark 26 Mod 1 GMLS, not the Mark 41 VLS.

If the Spruances did have space for the 61- / 64-cell Mark 41 VLS as speculated by me and ancelanceloet, they would likely be the shorter tactical-length VLS, although it would stretch the Spruances' available weight margin.

 

[TomS]

Sorry, yes, Mk 26 aft was in the AAW conversion plan. But if you're doing that, why keep Mk 29? No USN ship ever had both.