The Ship Model Forum

You might consider half a carrier power plant with one reactor rated at 140,000 shp to the shafts plus 80 Megawatts of electrical power or with nuclear integrated power system or NIPS to four 35.000 shp Azipods which eliminate the need for shaft lines/redesigned stern thus saving valuable space which the conventional mechanical now takes up.
Gas turbines for backup power/propulsion/weapons system using a redundant electrical electrical distribution system.
Norman Palomar wrote of a CSGN Mk II that added a hangar below for 18 AV-8As with a couple of H-60 ASW helos.
Is the beam suffice for the carrier sized reactor?
USN stated in a CRS report that Ford class reactors have a 30-35 years or a life of the ship cores if used in surface combatants.

Hey y'all, I've had a rough summer, long story short....I'm getting a divorce. I've missed coming here and reading all the posts. As son as i get reestablished I'll start work on CSGN 138.

I meant to say Iowa class......not Ohio......

You are absolutly right about naming it. You could call it the USS Jeff if you liked. I kind of like the idea of state names as there are so many unused. The Navy's rules on names is that a name can not be re-used while the previous named ship is still commissioned. As long as there is a USS Constitution, (Old Iron Sides) there can not be another named Constitution. There is a George Washington, Washington Chambers, and Washington in the Navy right now. (The Washington is a Virginia class precom)
I thought it might help you to list all the current State named ships in commission, being built or planned. It was way more than I thought it would be. I note no Utah. BTW my source was Wikipedia.
1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. California
4. Connecticut
5. Florida
6. Georgia
7. Hawaii
8. Kentucky
9. Louisiana
10. Maine
11. Maryland
12. Michigan
13. Mississippi
14. Missouri
15. Nebraska
16. Nevada
17. New Hampshire
18. New Mexico
19. New York
20. North Carolina
21. Ohio
22. Pennsylvania
23. Rhode Island
24. Tennessee
25. Texas
26. Virginia
27. West Virginia
28. Wyoming
Under construction
1. Minnesota
2. North Dakota
Planned and named
1. Colorado
2. Illinois
3. Indiana
4. South Dakota
5. Washington

[quote="oldnavyguy"]Hi CSGN, BTW I have finally registered as Oldnavyguy, but I wrote the guest comment above. I really think this is a cool project and it is going in a direction I believe the Navy ought to consider. Allot of people in congress and elswhere bulk at the initial cost of nuclear powered surface combatants but what they forget is the initial cost covers the fuel expense for about 25 years. When you consider the cost of keeping the gas tanks full in a gas turbine plant nuclear becomes a more economical proposition. Nuclear ships also have no need for uptakes and stacks allowing more flexibility in design. Given an expected lifetime of 50 years for a major surface combatant you do need to plan for refueling them which means a space above both reactors which is relatively clear of obstruction. on your design I would put one just forward of the superstructure and another in the hanger.
Have you thought what you will name it? Traditionally cruisers are named for cities, but then that was done on the LA class subs too. Several of the Nuke cruisers were named for states but the Virginia class of sub is doing that now. Destroyers are typically named for Navy Heroes, and anphib's for Marine Battles or cities. Aircraft Carriers are named for Presidents, or important people.
Anyway, I think your project is great, and I look forward to seeing it.[/quote]

Thank you ONG, My name is Joe and I was a Fire control technition for the AN/sps-48C onboard the Uss Virginia (cgn-38) from 91-93. I thank you again for you complements. It really seems a little funny to me that the navy balks at nuclear powered escorts, especially since we have (supposedly) passed peak oil in the world. Untill somebody comes up with something a little better than wind and solar power, nuclear will be the only game in town once the price of oil becomes inhibitive. So it would serve national interest to stay ahead of the curve.

Onboard the Virginia, the plants were below the forward and aft superstructures. Durring re-fule the structures would be removed to gain access to the engeneering spaces. for my design i will keep them in roughly the same areas. As for a name, I'm kind of stuck there. earlier in this thread i duscussed that issue and was wondering if i could name it Virgina while there was the sub virginia in active service. I threw the idea around in my head of naming it the Ohio class, but that would probably piss alot of people off here in the forum :big_grin: . Not really sure, maybe since its my world and all I'll call it the Utah class, since i live in utah and love it here? Hummm i just dont know at this point. If you zoom in on the SeaArk in the foreground you will notice that it says USS Virginia on it. Cant see that too good unless yo have the HI-Res which I'd be glad to send anybody if they want it. Just PM me your e-mail and I'll shoot a copy your way

Welcome to the forum, and i look forward to further posts

Joe

Hi CSGN, BTW I have finally registered as Oldnavyguy, but I wrote the guest comment above. I really think this is a cool project and it is going in a direction I believe the Navy ought to consider. Allot of people in congress and elswhere bulk at the initial cost of nuclear powered surface combatants but what they forget is the initial cost covers the fuel expense for about 25 years. When you consider the cost of keeping the gas tanks full in a gas turbine plant nuclear becomes a more economical proposition. Nuclear ships also have no need for uptakes and stacks allowing more flexibility in design. Given an expected lifetime of 50 years for a major surface combatant you do need to plan for refueling them which means a space above both reactors which is relatively clear of obstruction. on your design I would put one just forward of the superstructure and another in the hanger.
Have you thought what you will name it? Traditionally cruisers are named for cities, but then that was done on the LA class subs too. Several of the Nuke cruisers were named for states but the Virginia class of sub is doing that now. Destroyers are typically named for Navy Heroes, and anphib's for Marine Battles or cities. Aircraft Carriers are named for Presidents, or important people.
Anyway, I think your project is great, and I look forward to seeing it.

[quote="Guest"]An interesting concept. Did I read you right that you were installing A2W reactors? The "A" stands for air craft carrier, and the 2 Designation is taken.[/quote]

Thank you guest. To be honest, I'm not real technical on nuc power plants and such. I actually looked up the gerald ford on wiki to see what kind of reactors it had, being that they would be the lateest and greatest. they were A4W and i was thinking to cut it in half and have two of the halves as my power. good catch. \

and thank you for your other comments as well. I worked really hard on this concept and it took about a year and a half to reach this stage. Now i need to build it.

An interesting concept. Did I read you right that you were installing A2W reactors? The "A" stands for air craft carrier, and the 2 Designation is taken. I like the concept but agree with much of the responses you have received. I disagree with the assumption that we have enough AAW. We are the only Navy to operate multiple Aircraft carriers, and Aircraft Carriers need escorts. We are also the only Navy that forward deploys the way we do requiring multiple hulls to maintain pressence. Cruisers have historically had a number of missions. Air defense is just one of them. The nice thing about a nuclear powered boat is they are not as dependant on supply resources as fossil fuel boats. Your boat could be optimized for the Cruising part of a cruiser mission. Operating in lower threat areas showing the flag and training allied navies. In a role like that you would want at least a limited ability to project force ashore using a marine contingent or Special Forces. If you put them in though you have to support them and get them back out. Things to think about. If needed a larger vessel like yours could also operate with the fleet or escort a nuclear carrier at very high transit speeds without need to refuel allowing a carrier to arrive on station faster than possible with fossel fuel ships. I like the idea, and basic design. Looking forward to seeing the model.

The Minihobby kits from the late 1990s early 2000s blah. They are Trumpeter before Trumpeter. Lots of stuff out of scale. the lines are wrong. the detail is like that on an old 1950s ripoff of a ripoff kit. Dragon and Trumpeter only from China. forget the rest. minihobby is to stay away from. I built some old arii kits of Spruances that weren't to good.

[quote="CSGN138"]On a side note, I have started building my Academy OHP model. I was going for the look of the redesigned OHP thread on this board. I mocked it up with cardboard pieces and its ok, but now I wanna build it like a modern day fletcher class. Low superstructure, no helo, two Mk-45's and two OTO 76mm, two Mk-141, possibly 2 millenium guns, two Ciws, mk-41 vls for tlam, asroc and essm. I will start a thread on this project soon. I already have a couple pictures.[/quote]

Sorry about the e-bay buy, but if you have any scale diagrams of the GDM008 35 mm Millenium gun I would appreciate it if you could share them!

complete dissapointmnet.....My two bunker hill kits finally got here, and they are complete crap....they are from a chinese manufacture called MiniHobbyModles. They are more toys than models. The hulls are one piece and have an electric motor installed. I should have known something was up when they were only $8.99 each.....lets just say the ebay ad was a LITTLE missleading.....CRAP!! :mad_1:

I'll have to do a do over....

On a side note, I have started building my Academy OHP model. I was going for the look of the redesigned OHP thread on this board. I mocked it up with cardboard pieces and its ok, but now I wanna build it like a modern day fletcher class. Low superstructure, no helo, two Mk-45's and two OTO 76mm, two Mk-141, possibly 2 millenium guns, two Ciws, mk-41 vls for tlam, asroc and essm. I will start a thread on this project soon. I already have a couple pictures.

[quote="CSGN138"]Did the explosion destroy the port rear spy panle?[/quote]Yes. It was returned to Moorestown, New Jersey, it was repaired and installed in the Cornfield Cruiser where the FCs get their C-schooling.

[quote]My nexy question is, if the HSS held up so good, why not build the entire hull with it? [/quote]Oh, no. How the Navy uses it, HSS is not a good material. HSS is the standard hull material. The good stuff is HY-80/HSLA-80 and HY-100/HSLA-100. HSS is better than "mild ship building steel", but it's not any good in the thicknesses that the Navy uses it (1/4 to 3/8"). At that thickness, it's garbage.

[quote]Is HSS the strongest steel available for ship construction? I have been thinking alot about taking an ASM right into my nuke power plant, and Im thinking i really what that sucker heavily protected.[/quote]No, if you want to protect your plant, you need to use HY-100. The NGFS ships that were being proposed and designed in the 1970s were to be built with HY-100 armor. That's heavy battleship armor type material.

[quote] Were the CGN's more protected that the NON-nukes?[/quote]Great question. The actual design specs are still classified.

[quote]I tell you, anybody that studied the meltdown in japan after the tsunami should really be thinking about battle damage on a nuke war ship. If an ASM rips the plant open, pretty much everybody on board is screwed.[/quote]I was here for the whole thing.

[quote]Anyway, so Ive been thinking about arrmor a lot lately. If I were to use HSS for the whole hull, what kind of weight would i be looking at?[/quote]There's really no change. The whole hull of the DDG-51s is HSS, and the Cole was still super broken.

[quote]How would a double hull change things up. I'm thinking the kind of tonnage not seen since WW2. Nobody does that anymore, but who cares. I want thins ship to be able to take the fight right into the enemies face, hit hard, take damage and win the fight.[/quote]Do what I did. After all kinds of designs...I discovered all I needed to do was slightly later a WWII combatant design. Chose a CLAA, CL, or CA hull that is about the right size and develop a super structure on top of it. Those ships were designed to take hits, and a Cleveland-class CL could take way, way heavier hits than a DDG-51. A Baltimore, Oregon City or Des Moines-class CA could take many times the damage a DDG-51 or CG-52 could. My "modern day heavy cruiser" carries an Aegis-like AAW system, but it it is built on a slightly modified Des Moines hull.

Keep it coming, man!

[quote="CSGN138"]this is my CVSGN concept i was tellin all y'all about. It has extended flight decks on both sides of the hanger. maybe the could fold up for going pier side?

intresting future project?

[img]http://i996.photobucket.com/albums/af89/sabotage181/csvgn3V201mk71spy-3PB.jpg[/img][/quote]With cool factor aside, what use would the F35s be? How much ordnance would be on the ship? Would any of that be better than a battery of maybe 64 to 128 VLS tubes?

I really like you last design! I hope to see it under construction. :heh:

this is my CVSGN concept i was tellin all y'all about. It has extended flight decks on both sides of the hanger. maybe the could fold up for going pier side?

intresting future project?

[img]http://i996.photobucket.com/albums/af89/sabotage181/csvgn3V201mk71spy-3PB.jpg[/img]

Very interesting info about the cole damage. Did the explosion destroy the port rear spy panle? My nexy question is, if the HSS held up so good, why not build the entire hull with it?

Is HSS the strongest steel available for ship construction? I have been thinking alot about taking an ASM right into my nuke power plant, and Im thinking i really what that sucker heavily protected. Were the CGN's more protected that the NON-nukes? I just always assumed the virginia was, to protect that plant. but the more i look into it, Im not sure it really was. I know the cores are shielded with lead to protect from radation, but does that necessarily tranlsate into better battle protection. I tell you, anybody that studied the meltdown in japan after the tsunami should really be thinking about battle damage on a nuke war ship. If an ASM rips the plant open, pretty much everybody on board is screwed.

Anyway, so Ive been thinking about arrmor a lot lately. If I were to use HSS for the whole hull, what kind of weight would i be looking at? Is HSS good enough to protect the plant? How would a double hull change things up. I'm thinking the kind of tonnage not seen since WW2. Nobody does that anymore, but who cares. I want thins ship to be able to take the fight right into the enemies face, hit hard, take damage and win the fight.

thats all for now. I thank all of you for your contributions. Some great info on our ASM, or lack there of

Joe

[quote="DavidP"]dave, does the burke class ships have as much framing(both vertical & horizontal) per foot as that japanese tanker?[/quote]No, I don't believe so. It is my impression that most tankers built since the 1980s have double and triple hulls to prevent collisions, groundings, and damage done due to regional conflicts (missile and mine strikes in particular) from breaching the interior and cargo spaces of the ship.

[quote="DavidP"]the cole explosion appears to be right against the ship wereas the tanker explosion appears not to be, am i correct?[/quote]Well, I had been wondering that, too. Perhaps there would be a terribly black scorch mark on the side of the hull, but then I compared it to the Cole's damage. While there is a little discoloration on the Cole's haze grey hull, the color change was not all the significant. The hull of the tanker was black and red, so it's nearly impossible to see a similar mark on the black that only barely left a discoloration on the grey.

It seem that since the Japanese crewmen didn't even know the ship was damaged until someone told them, the only people to know where the suicide boat (or remote controlled boat, maybe?) blew up were those who did it. Seeing how terrorists love killing themselves, we probably can't be sure one way or the other.

The DDG-51 Flight IIIs designed in 1989 were to have a double hull whereas the Cole (and possibly all subsequent ships of the class) only have single hulls. Single hull being that there is water right on the other side of the outermost bulkhead...not a void with a bunch of framing reenforcing the strength of the hull.

A new class should finally address this concern. See the CGN-42 thread http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=62172 and an expansion of the CGBL design from me soon.

[quote="Timmy C"]You may be interested to note that the NSSM was able to penetrate the hull of HMCS Huron, Iroquois-class destroyer, during her SINKEX in '07. The Sparrow was not equipped with a warhead, just a telemetrics package. Nonetheless, if an NSSM can penetrate the hull, then so can an SM. I imagine that even with the relatively small AA explosives that it contains, it can do a good amount of damage against the ship's structure. Luck will play, as usual, into how significant this damage is, of course.

(interesting to note as well that the NSSM could be used in an ASuW role...)[/quote]While the NSSM may have put a hole in the Iroquois, all of the SM-2s we have fired in SINKEXs have been live, and they detonate well away from the ship showering it with shrapnel. That's how they're supposed to work anyway you shoot them. They home in a radar reflection, they don't know if they're going for an ASCM or a ship so they're going to detonate the same way every time: stood off and away from the target.

I am not saying the SM-2 won't damage the target ship, but it's not a Harpoon by any means. Even with a 600+lb warhead Harpoons don't even sink ships.

Also, on the line of an NSSM actually being able to penetrate the hull of a "warship" is pretty bad. Sure, the Iroquois is not a US warship, so it's not a good example of the strength of US warships. What is...is the USS Cole. Something USN construction has to get away from is building our ships out of weak materials like mild ship building steel and aluminum. Even in the DDG-51s, they are built with "high strength steel", which is supposed to make it a more survivable hull, but as was shown by the attack on the USS Cole, when it's used in such thin plating (1/4 to 3/8"), it does not protect the ship from anything but water intrusion. The HY80 strake right above the hole in the hull was nearly undamaged, and the HSS was ripped away from the weld, the interior of the ship was destroyed requiring $900 million to repair.

[img]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/03/19/world/19lede_cole.533.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/images/usscole2.jpg[/img]

Right there! You see?! Right there!!! The HY80 strake held very well, and the rest of the hull, even below the water line, constructed out of HSS, was severely damaged.
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_U_vpP7GD43k/TLTx7k5___I/AAAAAAAAA0w/lo0dxIbVKFk/s1600/USS_Cole_Hole.jpg[/img]

Even a Japanese tanker repelled a USS Cole style attack:

[img]http://thesinosaudiblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/ship-hit1.jpg?w=460[/img]

[list][i]"So it turns out that it wasn’t a freak wave, an old mine or a collision with another ship or submarine but a terrorist attack...Residue from a home-made explosive was detected on the outer hull by Emirati authorities. Numerous implications come to mind."[/i][/list]

If US [i]war-[/i]ships are to be built with any kind of survivability, they need to be built out of better material. In these pictures, we see that all it takes is a strength member to resist the explosion. As we can see with the Japanese tanker, all it takes is an idea toward keeping out more than just water to greatly increase the survivability of the ship.

You may be interested to note that the NSSM was able to penetrate the hull of HMCS Huron, Iroquois-class destroyer, during her SINKEX in '07. The Sparrow was not equipped with a warhead, just a telemetrics package. Nonetheless, if an NSSM can penetrate the hull, then so can an SM. I imagine that even with the relatively small AA explosives that it contains, it can do a good amount of damage against the ship's structure. Luck will play, as usual, into how significant this damage is, of course.

(interesting to note as well that the NSSM could be used in an ASuW role...)

[quote="CSGN138"]Im thinking that the anti-ship capability of the USN has been handed over to the sub fleet. I mean our ASM's are almost laughable compaired with other navies.[/quote]They are pretty laughable, but foreign countries still buy new Harpoons from us all the time. They are not the fastest, but they still offer a pretty significant capability. I am based out in Yokosuka, Japan where the CVN-73 strike group is based, and we rack up as many Harpoons as we can on those launchers. We know we might get into a missile match, so we want to be able to shoot some back. Will they be able to penetrate the other guy's AAW system? Well, since the other guy for the most part does not have Aegis or anything like it...if we shoot a few Harpoons at them then most likely one will penetrate, yes.

[quote] The shipwreck missle is probably the best Ive read of. Those things comunicate with each other....thats just scarry.[/quote]Those are carrier killers. Yes, they are really, really mean, but they are super rare. Only two kinds of surface ships and one SSGN shoot them, and they're Russian: the Kirov-class cruiser, and Kuznetsov carrier, and the Oscar-class SSGNs. I hope we don't get into a missile match with the Russians, because we would have a lot of missile types on our plate. Aegis would get a work out, but since Russia is the only country that holds those (and who knows how many work), they are not of much consequence.

The ones of real consequence these days are the SS-N-22 and SS-N-25 missiles, and Russia is selling them to anyone who can pay. They're called Aegis killers, because they fly so fast and maneuver really well as the close on the target. Since they're so crazy on their terminal run we try to engage them as far away from the ship as possible. We have many different kinds of missiles and countermeasures to wage the fight (SM-2 BlockIV, SM-2 BlockIIIMU, ESSM, RAM, 3 types of CHAFF, and NULKA).

[quote]Seems if the USN were serious about an ASM it would be designed like that, and that is what makes me think they count on subs for the anti-ship mission. [/quote]Since I am active duty Navy, I have spent a great deal of time thinking about this. The US Navy is all about "just barely enough to get the job done." So they teach to shoot SM-2s at other ships...what a dumb idea. Sure, you will probably mess up the other ship's antennas, and if they're dumb enough to store their missiles in unarmored canister launchers above deck then they would be vulnerable to shrapnel damage, too. Their CIWS system would be out of alignment or destroyed with SM-2 hits. But really, SM-2s are only good for suppression fire so the Harpoons can show up and really mess the ship up badly. With this strategy, we could make Harpoon work pretty well within the anti-ship range of SM-2s.

SSNs are an excellent way to destroy surface ships, and I would hope in a shooting war we would send SSNs into the fight to bring the enemy surface ships down. We must keep in mind is that just like the surface fleet numbers, we don't have very man SSNs to go around anymore.

Surface ships should not rely on CVNs or SSNs to do the fighting, because CVNs and SSNs won't always be there. In actuality, they probably won't be there in time to contribute to the fight with another ship or group of ships, either.

A naval gun with a guided muntion, however, that would really solve a lot of problems (5" Dead-eye and 8" SALGP)!

Im thinking that the anti-ship capability of the USN has been handed over to the sub fleet. I mean our ASM's are almost laughable compaired with other navies. The shipwreck missle is probably the best Ive read of. Those things comunicate with each other....thats just scarry. Seems if the USN were serious about an ASM it would be designed like that, and that is what makes me think they count on subs for the anti-ship mission. That is a very good way to attack a surface ship after all. Anyway, thats my thoughts on the matter