The Ship Model Forum

What about this design. I was doing some internet search for a through deck cruiser design. An behold this long forgotten design popped up. I think this would make an interesting subject to update using the NTDS, some harpoons, NSSM/RAMS, CIWS and some SH-60's and Cobra's. Your thoughts?

I will casually add my inputs :D

[quote="HvyCgn9"]1/ A new cruiser class should be nuclear, two S8G reactors as used by the Ohio class should do it...these are reportedly very quiet reactors too, have them driving turbo generators hooked up to big brushless electric motors rather than steam turbines (but not in azipods). With Nuke power it will be able to get to target areas inn a timely fashion. (with out dragging a tanker along for the ride)[/quote]A CGN would have to be a capital ship. It would need to take the place a battleship.

[quote="HvyCgn9"]2/ Primary weapons: I would go with 3x 61 cell mk41VLS (2 fwd 1aft)with mixed AAW,ASW,TBMD/ASAT and some Tomahawks, resurrect the mk71 8" (with updates in electronics and mechanicals from the later block mk45) with forward and aft mounts, plus 4 quad harpoons ((16 missiles)or replacement type if they build one...)[/quote]If we are this far and this much investment, I would imagine that the ship could embark 160 Mk41 VLS with 2x Mk71 Mod2 8"/60caliber guns, perhaps 3-4 76mm SR guns.

[quote="HvyCgn9"]3/ Secondary weapons:(ie self defence stuff):throw some quad packs of ESSM in the VLS's, a pair of fore and aft mounted RAM launchers and a pair of port and stbd Block 1B or better CIWS, plus 4 20mm remote mounts and assorted crew operated mini guns....[/quote]I would suggest 6 CIWS stations, 4 port and starboard 2 fwd and aft.

[quote="HvyCgn9"]4/ Air assets/ships boats: Hanger for 2 helos up to SH60 size (anything bigger is not required) plus space for small UAV's, a pair of std size 26'? Rhibs port side and a larger 35'ish Rhib stbd no fancy boat hangers, just a couple of decent size/capacity extendable cranes.[/quote] Depending on what the mission would be, from 11m RHIBs to CB-90/RCBs embarked.

A ship like this would also have to function as a flag ship for area operations.

[quote="HvyCgn9"]5/ Sensors: either some form of SPY1D (or what version they are up to..) or drag out some spare NTU sensor packages (all the gear which an NTU ship such as CALIFORNIA had before she was decomm'd and a decent sonar[/quote]Depending if you wantd it to be a strike ship or an area AAW ship, that would dictate NTU vs Aegis.

[quote="HvyCgn9"]6/ Ship size/design: look old skool: some thing nearly as long (say 700') as CGN9(721') but with the style of compact superstructure of an Arleigh Burke (sans stacks) with weapons layout similar to California (a double ended design) add in some hull armor sufficient to take hits from up to say 100mm AP rounds or small missiles. I would scale up California's hull design by 100' to 696' long with beam increased to 70'(ish)...[/quote] WOW! That would certainly make it a CAGN!

Best of luck!

What no comments at all!! I am deeeply ticked off !! I will now proceed to take over the WORLD! (once I finish this case of beer.....)

MERRY BEERMAS to U all!!

Bruce

I think the key to designing a cruiser be it "CSG or CSGN" is to ditch the "Strike" emphasis in the designator call it a guided missile cruiser, I feel that the current craziness with the LCS's and the DDG1000's would transfer directly across.....!! (the tendency to design a ship with weapons that aren't available yet) It should be the heavy hitter you send in when a DDG simple won't cut it!

1/ A new cruiser class should be nuclear, two S8G reactors as used by the Ohio class should do it...these are reportedly very quiet reactors too, have them driving turbo generators hooked up to big brushless electric motors rather than steam turbines (but not in azipods). With Nuke power it will be able to get to target areas inn a timely fashion. (with out dragging a tanker along for the ride)

2/ Primary weapons: I would go with 3x 61 cell mk41VLS (2 fwd 1aft)with mixed AAW,ASW,TBMD/ASAT and some Tomahawks, resurrect the mk71 8" (with updates in electronics and mechanicals from the later block mk45) with forward and aft mounts, plus 4 quad harpoons ((16 missiles)or replacement type if they build one...)

3/ Secondary weapons:(ie self defence stuff):throw some quad packs of ESSM in the VLS's, a pair of fore and aft mounted RAM launchers and a pair of port and stbd Block 1B or better CIWS, plus 4 20mm remote mounts and assorted crew operated mini guns....

4/ Air assets/ships boats: Hanger for 2 helos up to SH60 size (anything bigger is not required) plus space for small UAV's, a pair of std size 26'? Rhibs port side and a larger 35'ish Rhib stbd no fancy boat hangers, just a couple of decent size/capacity extendable cranes.

5/ Sensors: either some form of SPY1D (or what version they are up to..) or drag out some spare NTU sensor packages (all the gear which an NTU ship such as CALIFORNIA had before she was decomm'd and a decent sonar

6/ Ship size/design: look old skool: some thing nearly as long (say 700') as CGN9(721') but with the style of compact superstructure of an Arleigh Burke (sans stacks) with weapons layout similar to California (a double ended design) add in some hull armor sufficient to take hits from up to say 100mm AP rounds or small missiles. I would scale up California's hull design by 100' to 696' long with beam increased to 70'(ish)...

That my version....

Cheers Bruce

Edit: Also this would be my CG47 replacement design too.........

[quote="Seasick"]All of the GAO reports are done with the cooperation of the Department of defense. The GAO acting in the roll of outside auditor. Also they evaluate material from outside sources.[/quote]

Almost - cooperation and audit work does not always go hand in hand. :big_grin:

GAO on GAO:
http://www.gao.gov/about/index.html

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the "congressional watchdog," GAO investigates [i]how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars[/i][emphasis added]…

Our Work is done at the request of congressional committees or subcommittees or is mandated by public laws or committee reports. We also undertake research under the authority of the Comptroller General. We support congressional oversight by

[list]o auditing agency operations to determine whether federal funds are being spent efficiently and effectively;
o investigating allegations of illegal and improper activities;
o reporting on how well government programs and policies are meeting their objectives;
o performing policy analyses and outlining options for congressional consideration; and
o issuing legal decisions and opinions, such as bid protest rulings and reports on agency rules.[/list]

Note the emphasis on oversight (a key responsibility of Congress), and the lack of mention of strategy formulation (Executive branch responsibility). The closest they get is analysis of alternatives. Also note the hook - budget execution!

All of the GAO reports are done with the cooperation of the Department of defense. The GAO acting in the roll of outside auditor. Also they evaluate material from outside sources.

[quote="Sciquest2525"]I plead the shortages of human memory with regards to the GAO report, please don't shoot the messenger.
[/quote]
No shooting of messengers - just clarifying the point that GAO is not the be all end all fountain of undying wisdom. Their role is audit work, not design work, and definitely not strategic planning.

I plead the shortages of human memory with regards to the GAO report, please don't shoot the messenger.
This jack of all trades and master of none makes viable surface action groups which apart from a CVN, have no OTH air warning or OTH air defense capability.
With SM-6 and a tilt rotor platform that can equal the E2-D Hawkeye in survelliance and tracking with the ability to data link that info to the strike cruiser and it's consorts, the SM-6 could be used to it's full designed range as planned for the CVN/DDG/CGs of a CVNBG which is beyond the limits of Aegis but perhaps not the AMDR but true OTH air defense engagements would be possible.
Does SM-6 have a full diameter throughout it's length like SM-3 Blk II or is the 21 inch diameter portion pertain only to the booster? A full 21 inch diameter SM-6 could have additional ranges well beyond 200 nmi, I think.
Anyways, we have the option of greatly more effective SAGs that give an option other than CVBGs or nothing as pointed out by another poster.
Does anyone want to characterize their hybrids? Perhaps do a drawing?

To Dave's Missions I would add:

Crisis Support: Extraction of US Personnel (like Embassy personnel) from a threatened environment, Search and Rescue during disaster, etc
Presence: Mid to low level integration operations with smaller militaries,
Sea Lanes/Trade protection: presence and monitoring of choke points (Straights of Malacca, Horn of Africa, etc) and transit of non-belligerent trade in a conflict area, Convoy duty

I would imagine the base idea is to get capability where today we do not have it due to the cost/availability of a large deck (CVN or LHD/A), which can release the LH or CVN to more duties requiring their more in-depth capabilities. Of course, if this platform is 'first on scene' it could always be later reenforced by a CVBG or ARG, then this may be freed for specific sub-mission of that task group (go take out the converted oil platforms, take/perform strike on a secondary target, etc)

Since no one else is doing it, let me build what may be appropriate missions for this American Kiev CVV.

Tactical Missions:
- Sea Control (ASuW/VBSS/HVBSS)
- Land Attack (larger caliber guns and TLAM)
- Tactical Air Support for troops ashore (by embarking F-35Bs)
- Air Superiority in limited threat environment
- Potential for ASW (embarking a large number of SH-60s)

Administrative Missions:
- Controlling and coordinating the entire battle group (C2/C4I)
- Coordinating with troops ashore
- Intel/SIGINT gathering
- Flagship/Tactical Flagship (not seen since the CAs)

Just a quick idea. :heh:

[quote="Sciquest2525"]It may be interesting that years ago the GAO recommended that ...
The GAO said this and not me. I believe that the report came out around 2000 but that is based on my memory. Presumably, the GAO report is archived somewhere and it included force stuctures that favored submarines, the current force or carrier based forces as options to be chosen from.[/quote]

Folks,

The Comptroller General of the United States does not wake up and think: "Gee, we could solve national defense if we do "Y" or buy "X"."
:roll_eyes:

GAO is not a "think tank," they generally review programs/issues that Congress tells them to look at; and similar to the CBO, they are constrained within the parameters of the mandate they are given.

I can see where Congress would send GAO a mandate to compare the cost/performance of a hybrid cruiser to a the cost of a carrier, and that study would likely produce some ugly points.

Mission: Look cool?

[quote="Busto963"]Near 20 posts and I am still waiting for a mission description for this ship! :whistle:

What are we trying to do here?
-Bring more aviation to the fleet?
-More ship to shore fires?

I find the mix of guns and reactors and air wing in this hull form to be the subject of future CRS and GAO reports (not a good thing).

Just saying...[/quote]
Indeed! Standing by smartly!!!

[quote="Sciquest2525"]...GAO recommended that 60 such ships be bought at the expense of more carriers, amphibs, cruisers and destroyers....[/quote]Quickly, while the GAO may have stated this, unless the entire mission of the USN is going to change, this is a remarkably debunkable theory.

Jack of all Trades "able to do everything a little bit, but able to do nothing well" aside, the singular biggest problem with this is that with a 60 ship Navy that can't do anything well, the Navy could not do [u]the most basic of basic missions[/u]: [i][b]Presence[/b][/i].

Despite all of the problems with cost, weapons, sensors, vulnerability etc, etc, etc....all of that aside...this type of ship cannot do the most basic of functions: Presence.

So, no. The GAO presented a terrible idea. Making a fleet of ONLY 60 ships based around this would be catastrophically expensive and catastrophically ill equipped. However, 15 of more properly equipped ships like the Kiev types added to our modern fleet with CGs and DDGs, would supplement our amphibious groups reasonable well.

It may be interesting that years ago the GAO recommended that a force structure option be a variant of Vice Admiral Owens Littoral Supremacy Ship or LSS. GAO recommended that 60 such ships be bought at the expense of more carriers, amphibs, cruisers and destroyers.
The LSS featured accomodations for 700 marines, vehicle stowage, supplies for the embarked marines, a well deck, large VLS and NSFS guns forward with hangar for an increased force of JSFs compared to a big deck amphib and V-22 and helos for embarked marines.
This all singing ship could threaten a potential enemy or enemy in wartime with a choice of air strikes/air superiority, land attack or antiship cruise missile attack, long range gunfire, 700 man marine landing force or throw all three at the bad guys.
Presumably, these ships would have operated together in groups so as three might equal the capacity of an LHA/LHDs with 2100 man landing force, provide mutual self escort, a credible JSF force, massed VLS and very long range gunfire.
These vessels, independantly or in groups (squadrons?) could show the flag or act as building blocks for cruise missile stikes, landings and air strikes/air superiority as needed (I'm guessing here based on what was offered by these ships.
In essence, these 60 ships would displace all other surface combatants that would be retired at the end of their service lives and not replaced.
Presumably, an Aegis type FCS on these ship would have replaced the Aegis destroyers and cruisers, these ships being mutually self escorting and ASW would have been included.
High Seas by Vice Admiral Owen was out in 1996 from USNI Press and contains an illustration and description of LSS showing helos, VLS and LCACs from docking well.
The GAO said this and not me. I believe that the report came out around 2000 but that is based on my memory. Presumably, the GAO report is archived somewhere and it included force stuctures that favored submarines, the current force or carrier based forces as options to be chosen from.

When I first saw this topic, [url=http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Strike-class_medium_cruiser]here's[/url] what came to mind.

Sounds like something that would still be useful in an ocean-going naval vessel. Design an armored shell of a hull that can accept modular components of varying size ranging from a simple VLS housing to something that can hold a large-caliber NGFS turret and magazine.

I mean, talk about thinking outside the box... ;)

Near 20 posts and I am still waiting for a mission description for this ship! :whistle:

What are we trying to do here?
-Bring more aviation to the fleet?
-More ship to shore fires?

I find the mix of guns and reactors and air wing in this hull form to be the subject of future CRS and GAO reports (not a good thing).

Just saying...

A large caliber gun has a lot of over pressure when it fires. I would like to see what happens to airplane being fueled on the flight deck while the the 8" fires, or when a plane is being armed with the 8" firing.

This discussion continues to amaze me. Why does a ship with this role need a large gun?
For What-if purposes then go for it but if you are trying to bring real world thinking into a topic.

.No large caliber weapons.. period . Look at the practices of what is being done by any navy that has a ship of this size and/or role.
What do they all have in common? The answer is weapons for defensive purposes only such as CIWS, RAM, ESSM's ..etc No large caliber weapons.. period.
Because you are not going to be one of the ships so close to the danger area to use/have need of such a weapon.

If you continue to suggest a large caliber weapon then re-consider updating the Hybrid Iowa Design.. That gives a platform that would fill all the bell and whistles/toys you could ever want.. Just my two cents..

Thanks
Major-B :thumbs_up_1:

I would not put much effort into a large gun if I were to develop an updated version of a hybrid today.

Were I to start today, I may look at something like an American version of the Italian Cavour, new Japanese Hyuga, or larger Izumo with more VLS cells and Aegis. Which really, turns this into a CVL with strike and AAW capabilities. Slippery slope.

Its not hard to look back at the Invicible class CVLs as near hybrids, when equipped with Sea Dart and AAW radars, Sonar, etc.

Large caliber gun would not be high on my list, as I believe that is better placed on a platform which would be a better fit for getting close to shore.