Proposed 1980 Update of FRAM Gearing class Destroyers

The mount numbers are also differentiated by caliber in inches (at least for 5-inch and below) Mount 51 is the forward-most 5-inch gun. Mount 31 is for forward-most 3-inch mount. On ships with post and starboard mounts, the starboard mounts are odd numbers, the port ones are even.
 

Attachments

  • Gun_Data_USN_Mount_numbering_pic.jpg
    Gun_Data_USN_Mount_numbering_pic.jpg
    441.4 KB · Views: 9
whatismoo said:
IMO it would be better to swap the ASROC for a Mk.13 if you want standards.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that the ASROC launcher has no real below-deck penetration, except on the Spruance class. On most ships with ASROC reloads, the magazine is in the superstructure adjacent to the launcher and loading is done horizontally.
 
TomS said:
Bear in mind that the ASROC launcher has no real below-deck penetration, except on the Spruance class. On most ships with ASROC reloads, the magazine is in the superstructure adjacent to the launcher and loading is done horizontally.
Click to expand...
I'm aware, it was a back of the napkin sketch.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Sumners and Gearings started life with 3 gun mounts. One (Y turret) went away entirely with the FRAM upgrades, and the ASROC box went amidships instead of replacing a gun mount.

I'm not sure what a Mk13 or Mk22 would do to topweight if you stuck the mount on B turret. There's technically space for a Mk13, but either Mk13 or Mk22 stands a deck taller than the turret it replaces does. IMO the better bet would be to stick said Mk13 into Y turret.
Click to expand...
Sorry, to clarify the concept I was thinking involved substantial reconstruction of the hull. It was just some napkin stuff I spitballed for a worldbuilding / alternate history project riffing off of a kind of "Final Countdown but bigger" concept, which amounted to shoving ~late 60s/early-70s kit onto WWII hulls. Not terribly serious. The gun in the Mount 52 position is a 20mm CIWS based on the 3"/50 Mk.34, and RGM-66 is an anti-ship standard.

I'm aware there's almost certainly a pile of weight and balance issues with this concept, I didn't do any stability math, it's more of a silly kitbash. Hope it's not too off topic, given that it is VERY FICTIONAL.

1776731108797.png
 
whatismoo said:
Sorry, to clarify the concept I was thinking involved substantial reconstruction of the hull. It was just some napkin stuff I spitballed for a worldbuilding / alternate history project riffing off of a kind of "Final Countdown but bigger" concept, which amounted to shoving ~late 60s/early-70s kit onto WWII hulls. Not terribly serious. The gun in the Mount 52 position is a 20mm CIWS based on the 3"/50 Mk.34, and RGM-66 is an anti-ship standard.

I'm aware there's almost certainly a pile of weight and balance issues with this concept, I didn't do any stability math, it's more of a silly kitbash. Hope it's not too off topic, given that it is VERY FICTIONAL.

View attachment 809763
Click to expand...
Nothing like taking a skyscraper to sea...

bdb9e1f484a9ce2543f808461d7d60ec.jpg
 
whatismoo said:
I'm aware there's almost certainly a pile of weight and balance issues with this concept, I didn't do any stability math, it's more of a silly kitbash. Hope it's not too off topic, given that it is VERY FICTIONAL.
Click to expand...

Most fundamentally, that midships Mk 13 is sticking down right into the forward engine room.
 
Dilandu said:
IRRC, post-refit Albany were considered very stable, because massive turrets were removed, and most of added weight (missiles, magazines) was below-deck.
Click to expand...
Yea, but the huge superstructure was to add volume to fit all the electronics and such needed. Those take up lots of space but don't weigh much. There simply wasn't enough room in the hull for much of it. The 'macks' turned out to be a bad idea. Exhaust gases caused excessive corrosion and degradation of the radar and other antennas that were mounted on them. The crew also couldn't access them when the ship had steam up.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom