Model Fleet

Work In Progress: 07/26/14

Posted by Don Murphy on August 1, 2014, 8:42:43

Work in progress this past weekend. Trumpeter USS Baltimore and Dragon HMS Invincible. The Baltimore is one of the better 700th scale US Navy heavy cruiser kits. Pretty simple build with great detail and few fiddly parts. Invincible is one of Dragon's commemorative series and the box art commemorates her during the Falklands action (Operation Corporate). I will be doing her as an HMS Illustrious what-if with tons of sensors and test-bed F-35's.

Aoshima heavy cruiser kit of IJNS Maya. The kit's plastic is that nasty, thick, navy blue plastic. Amazingly, Aoshima gives you the option to build Maya in ANY of her configs. So as my spares box has a ton of AAA, I decided to do her in early 1944. This is how she has sat for about five to six years. So I'm redoing the black, fixing little bits of railing here and there and adding missing gun turrets. I was also never happy with the bridge windows so I'm redoing all four levels. Additionally I'll be doing the red/crimson linoleum on the flight deck. Then she'll be done.

I was gonna do her as Ark Royal but I want to buy the larger 'Royal so Illustrious it is. This kit built easily in a few hours. She's completely done at this point minus photo etch and airgroup. My photo etch radar fret has what I need for modern Illustrious so that kinda settled that...

A ton of 1980's Skywave Spruance Class destroyer kits bought way back when they first came out. You can see yellowed decals, dust and years of basic neglect. The top two are unchanged. The third one has modifications and repairs and the bottom one is fully repaired and primed. Then the final paint and photo etch will be applied. I have three more in addition to these guys! Why? Well...I'm doing a Cold War 7th Fleet diorama, so I'll have two carrier battle groups which each need two Spruance Class destroyers, plus a surface action group and an amphibious squadron.

Ah! The new Dragon Virginia Class nuclear cruiser. The Ferrari's of the fleet! The kit is cheesy simple and builds easily in a few hours. Started adding photo etch. Painting will be cool as these ships were kept "showroom finish" as they were - at the time - the most powerful surface warfare ships next to the carriers. I'll be doing mine as USS Texas.

Here's Texas next to an as-yet unnamed Spru-can.

This coming weekend's work in progress will center on some Fletchers and Gearings and an oiler or two. Oh and a submarine or two.

Cheers,

Don

GREAT Posts, Donny!

Posted by Matty on August 2, 2014, 10:13:13, in reply to "Work In Progress: 07/26/14"

Rather than make you chase 3x responses around the board, let me sing your praises on all your latest posts: the above, your Kinu and your Akitsuki - right here, Don. For all 3 of which, let me say first off, I really enjoyed your writing style - dramatic, often humorous and increasingly graphic/metaphorical (even poetic) - all of which only improving with the years, including the way you (have always been able to) blend ship's history seamlessly with review of the model kit/build.

Thus, after reading your post on Kinu - even about so lackluster a(n historical) player, as well as (IMHO too) small, 700-scale kit - I am nevertheless inspired to build one. (Albeit in a larger scale, where details could be done (relatively) more finely. And also the USN subs which seemingly constantly stalked her, along with all the other IJN ships throughout the war.) I appreciate your keeping the sweet little aircraft and particularly your "scratch-bashed" PE catapult, as well as the job you did on the guns/turrets, too!

Likewise for your Akitsuki post - this one a far more historic subject - this model crying even louder of finer-detail, IMHO, particularly regarding that over-thick railing which (especially on the main deck level) you might could just leave off. Among larger-scale alternatives other than expensive/difficult resin, don't forget also the 200-scale Nichimo kits, recently repopped (though I don't know what the prices are up to) wonderfully at- or near the same scale as several USN Fleet Boat kits. Again overall, great writing and kit/build log, in a thoroughly enjoyable post, buddy!

All of which just provides further inspiration (Thank You!) for me to complete my similar-themed subjects of IJN DD Natsushio and her nemesis, S-37

Now, returning to your current/SLEP refits - amazing (for someone who has an actual job

) - and some quite interesting (more) modern subjects. I particularly enjoy the visual comparison between VA-class CGN and Spruance-class "DDG" - to which, as always I say, both CRUISERS: the latter a helicopter-carrying cruiser, and the former a missile-escort cruiser. The irony being, of course, that the "DD" is the one better-suited to patrolling alone - the original "cruiser"'s task - while the CGN is clearly designed to escort the Carrier Battle Group! (

Am I right?)

Anyway, this is again a much-appreciated post (though I must say the pics - all these latest pics, especially with the blue-gray IJN camo - look rather dark, on my screen, and I do Thank You for these submissions, Don!

And looking forward even more to the next ones - on your WWII USN subjects, buddy!

Cheers,

- Matt

Re: GREAT Posts, Donny!

Posted by Don Murphy on August 2, 2014, 22:45:44, in reply to "GREAT Posts, Donny!"

Firstly, yes, it's the plastic; they ARE dark. The Kinu - even through her coat of paint, is dark. Kinu is based on the Royal Navy turn of the century cruisers and so considering that you could practically build the entire RN WW1 battle line with a few Kinu's - I'm surprised a larger scale one wasn't done.

Blue Water Navy, then Yankee Modelworks, did a 350th version of the Akatsuki which is a stunning little kit but - resin and nasty white metal.

As for the cruisers, only Long Beach was a cruiser. The Truxton, Bainbridge and California's were Destroyer Leaders (DLGN) and that "elevated" status was due to flag accomodation only. Reagan/Lehman hadn't been elected yet, so keeping the word "cruiser" out of the dictionary allowed the Navy to squeeze four Virginia Class nuclear "destroyers" out of President Carter. Likewise with taking four of the Spruances and stretching them (Ticonderoga) but continuing to call them destroyers.

Once Reagan got elected and the Navy successfully sold him on the Cold War, names were changed and all DLGN's became CGN's and all Tico's became CG's. The CGN's all had basic sonar, but nothing spectacular. After all, that's what the SSN was for that was attached to each carrier battle group. Therefore, it was an easy decision to plate over the hanger door on the Virginia's, use the hanger as a gym/basketball court and mount Tomohawks on the hanger roof. As built, the Virginia's had three Seasprites.

In the early days of Sparrow and short range Sidewinder, the carrier was left with only crap Sea Sparrow for defense. Terrier was too maintenance intensive which was the equivalent of putting a cruiser into each air craft carrier. Once SM-1 cleared the 20nm mark, every carrier skipper wanted a cruiser for defense. SM-2 was around 75-90 miles and that was carried by Adams Class DDG's, Coontz/King Class DLG's, John Paul Jones Class DDG's and of course the Brooke Class FFG's and all cruisers.

The add on upgrade was known as SM-2ER (extended range) and that bird on a bad day was capable of over 150nm and over 100000 feet ceiling. Oh and...at Mach 3.5. All the CGN's and CG's could carry it but only the Coontz/King's could carry it in the destroyer world. This left the cruisers pretty much stapled to the carrier's side. This is why I always laughed at Exocet and Kestrel. Those missiles only had a 60nm range. The attacking plane would be wiped out before it could get in range.

Cheers,

Don

Yeah, but back in the '80s in the Falklands...

Posted by Matty on August 3, 2014, 11:51:31, in reply to "Re: GREAT Posts, Donny!"

...in its early days, Exocet - even as delivered by so unremarkable an aircraft as the SuperEtendard - was plenty good enough to take out the frigate Sheffield (and others). Even A-4 Scooters got close enough - that is, ZERO nm - to use dumb bombs with lethal effect against multiple RN frigates, among others, at the Falklands.

I surfed WikiPedia briefly and got the clear impression it wasn't so much the range of the RN (Sea Dart) SAMs which was the problem, so much as their radar's inability to lock onto wave-hopping aircraft. Apparently - despite being a fairly short-range system - Sea Dart racked up a very good record at altitude against all Argentine aircraft - downing even more of them than claimed at the time - but just couldn't lock onto surface-skimming attackers. (So much so, that in the later engagements they apparently took to firing them off, unguided, for whatever distraction effect it might provide.)

Interesting that, fully 20 years (at least) after their first development, when put to the acid test of actual combat, shipboard SAMs proved still incapable of full anti-air protection - not against real, thinking human-beings at the controls, anyway - even when those aircraft were the very same, by-then obsolete models dating from those same two decades earlier! The above would appear to explain the obviously heavy emphasis on radars, in the decades since - notably on the Arleigh Burkes and (especially the) Aegis cruisers.

And it makes you wonder seriously how all the latest systems - clearly by now far more complicated and seemingly dicey than a simple, radar-guided SAM - really would hold up, in an actual, conventional-war sh**-fight, today. GPS in particular, it seems to me, remains a weak and highly vulnerable link: take out (probably less than) 10x of the right satellites - either with ASAT missiles or just a couple well-placed nuclear EMPs, out in space - and it seems to me all the "smart" bombs, drones and who knows what-all else will then just begin to wander aimlessly, and/or fall to the ground. These things have never proven themselves combat-capable and in fact only "work" because they are being deployed (>95%) against utterly defenseless civilians.

Which, of course, is the real problem with these latest-generation weapons: our So-Called "leaders"...

Cheers,

- Matty

Britain's problem was ill preparation

Posted by Don Murphy on August 4, 2014, 12:52:19, in reply to "Yeah, but back in the '80s in the Falklands..."

The Hermes was a commando helo carrier and was on her way to retirement. Invincible was an ASW cruiser on her way to Australia as part of a sale. Both ships had not trained as carriers for a while. World naval thinking at the time, put attacking aircraft armed with missiles at long stand-off ranges. Plus, the UK allowed herself to be neutered by the USA and NATO and she settled into her role of ASW queen and just planned/trained for the USA's carriers taking the naval air route. Britain then found herself without several key naval components:

1. air superiority sensors
2. air superiority aircraft
3. air superiority weapons
4. close in weapon/defense systems
5. coordinated land-based fall-back scheme

The USA hurriedly sold/gave the Royal Navy a boat-load of AIM-9L Sidewinders to arm the newly embarked Sea Harriers and Royal Air Force Harrier GR-1's. But once the UK realized that the USA was not going to take her side against Argentina, the UK realized it had been truly and royally fu**ed. RN contingency plans had toyed with the idea of a conveyer ship embarking Seakings and Harriers and serving as an ad-hoc carrier and that worked out great. However, once the Atlantic Conveyor got sunk (by Exocet), it was back to the drawing board.

The UK's NATO role was watching/patrolling/defending the GIUK gap and to that effect, Tornado's, Jaguars, Nimrods and Shackleton's could hammer any WARPACT effort to breach it. But those same - successful - assets could not be rallied/marshalled and sent overseas to another UK hotspot. Tornado had not been fully accepted yet and the other three didn't have the legs to accomplish the mission. This meant that the carrier task force would be unable to rely on the RAF's massive aerial strength. The RN then publically berated the RAF's continued historical fu**ing of the Fleet Air Arm and basically - again publically - left all RN deaths in their hands. "Had we possessed a large carrier such as HMS Ark Royal, the Falklands could easily have been retaken in a matter of days" quoth the RN talking heads.

Thatcher and Defense Secretary John Nott, went on the defensive to smooth feathers and get a task force as quickly as possible. Shoulder fired Stinger (which worked) was "borrowed" from SAS units and Blowpipe (which was untested) were littered all along the carrier and troop ship decks with ad-hoc gun stations appearing. The also-untested-but-available-in-large-numbers GAMBO-1 twin 35mm gun mount was mounted everywhere. Last but not least, Rapier was rushed onto the troop ships.

The RN had wisely shut down all instances of the Sea Dart in their database. This meant that if the two Type 42's in Arg service launched Sea Darts, any RN unit would pick them up as "hostile." The French assured the UK that the same thing would be done with Exocet. It wasn't. British built Sea Wolf was onboard two Broadsword Class Frigates and two Leander Class Frigates. Sea Wolf was like Phanlynx: once turned on it did its own thing, found its own targets and engaged 'em. Problem was the RN only had the 24 that the task force went down with (6 per ship). So what happened?

1. Despite RAF protestations, RAF Harrier pilots came under FAA control and using USAFE AIM-9L's actually performed higher than expected. The RAF birds tho, had no AAW radar. Only ground attack.

2. RN Harriers *HAD* AAW radar but there weren't enough of them. Or missiles.

3. Sea Wolf performed as advertised and had a 100% success rate shooting down two bombs, one Exocet and the rest, Arg jets.

4. GAMBO-1 performed as advertised but was targeted using the old MK-1 eyeball. Once a fighter plane gun sight was put on it, it was unstoppable.

5. Because France dropped the ball (read: refused) to disable Exocet, the UK disabled all Thompson Air Search radars which meant they couldn't use Sea Dart or Exocet but then, neither could the Argies. With no air search radar, the RN were blind, but the Etendard's (being French planes) were snooping for the signal and once the radar was off, they were blind. Attacks then dropped.

Lessons learned:

1. Put a metal plate in front of torpedo tube warheads so that stray bullets hitting a ship don't detonate the torps.

2. Put gunsights on all GAMBO-1 twin and single 35mm gun mounts.

3. Put Sea Wolf reloads on all ships so-equipped.

4. Dump Exocet in favor of Harpoon or a home-grown weapon (Sea Wolf).

5. All RAF aircraft to have air-to-air refueling capability and Sea Wolf capability. At the time of Operation Corporate, only the Vulcan was capable of the long range and as many misses as the bomber had, it was hardly worth the effort, which leads to...

6. Press ahead with precision guided weapons.

7. Dump French electronics gear and press ahead with a British built suite of sensors.

8. Put an air to air radar in the nose of all Harriers.

9. Tell NATO/USA to f**k off and stop patrolling the GIUK gap and actually start defending the UK. Re-order the fleet to support four carrier battle groups centered around the three Invincibles and Hermes. Re-do the Type 42's and re-arm the Batch 3 Broadswords to be carrier escorts.

10. Rapier and Blowpipe performed as advertised. Fleet wide acceptance followed.

And that's how today's RN came to be.

Cheers,

Don

Yes, well that's exactly why Argentina struck

Posted by Matty on August 7, 2014, 10:30:31, in reply to "Britain's problem was ill preparation"

Clearly in retrospect, Argentina correctly assessed the UK's naval/global power had lapsed to the point a decent shot at taking the Falklands had opened up. Specifically, that even the Arggies' ridiculously old, "Bananna Republic" air forces - if deployed correctly - could (at least sometimes) get through the RN's air defenses. Which they did: your Atlantic Conveyor episode being yet another (perhaps the best) example - again involving Exocet, as you note.

And - in contrast to the 50-150nm ranges for the SM-series SAMs we were initially discussing - RN successes at the Falklands, particularly Sea Wolf, were apparently all for Point Defense systems. But Point Defense, I'm sure all of today's commanders would still agree, is still 'way too close for comfort - the bottom line remaining just exactly as at the end of WWII: the only real air-defense is thorough Air Superiority, at considerable range. Which (until proven otherwise) still adds up to but one thing: aircraft - piloted by human beings, I would again add - and, in turn (particularly at so remote a location as the Falklands), to the absolute necessity for a serious Carrier Task Group - if not a Fleet Carrier(s), then at least a bunch of Escort Carriers. (Which only adds to your Sea Control/Recon and ASW capabilities, at the same time.)

Maybe the RN at the Falklands could (for the first time in history) have gotten around the above if they'd had not just a containership or two but every ship in the task force capable of operating its own Harrier. The fact they couldn't reflects a shortcoming IMHO remaining with the Harrier: that it still cannot be operated from exactly the same platforms as helicopters. (Which clearly was - or certainly should have been - the paramount design objective.)

In any case, I'll stand by the basic point that for air defense you still need manned aircraft...

Cheers,

- Matty

Oh hell yeah

Posted by Don Murphy on August 7, 2014, 14:40:28, in reply to "Yes, well that's exactly why Argentina struck"

Thats what lead Britain in the direction of building two full-size carriers. CIWS is indeed "too close for comfort." And even if Phalynx/Meroka/Goalkeeper gets the missile (which it will/does) theres still explosion damage. Kinda like Patriot which "hit" the SCUDs, but the warheads and other missile pieces still fell to earth and caused death/damage/destruction.

Cheers,

Don

Correction:

Posted by Don Murphy on August 4, 2014, 16:25:15, in reply to "Britain's problem was ill preparation"

British anti-ship missile should be Sea Eagle.

Cheers,

Don

« Back to index

[ Model Fleet ]