To be honest, I have never seen that sort of base on the forward CIWS. The aft one was raised, and put in such a mounting because they relocated the SLQ-32 to a position beneath it. (At the time it happened, nobody in discussions here knew precisely why they had decided to do that.) But, the forward one was left alone, I thought. I started to post that in my earlier message, then decided to go look at photos. Only saw blurry ones, or at a distance, and did not look exhaustively. It does seem like the area around the gun got more built up, but I am not sure if they modified the gun base itself, or just added other gear around the mount. You are right, it is difficult to see, and that may be because it isn't there. Cushing was the last to decom. Find good, clear, closeup images of her late in her life. If she has it, then that is part of the "final fit." Otherwise not. It is basically that simple to determine.
I will go with your reasoning for the 25mm gun. I would have given the kitmaker a pass, but a majority feel it should have been included, but is not. So, it is a kit flaw. The consumers rule. No gun equals a mistake.
If there is the hangar extension on starboard, it should not be flush with the funnel. You could be right and it is there.
What do you think about the Arleigh Burke-like "base" of the Phalanxs on the Spruances?
It is clearly visible on the hangar, but much more difficult to see on the bridge.
I would add the Bushmaster, because they were on forward deployed ships.
Responses