The Ship Model Forum

Aviation has both flight deck level hangars and a below decks hangar deck. The mix of aircraft provide space for additional STOVL strike fighters to an ESG or SAG and tiltrotor AEW/ASW/ASuW aircraft which are not embarked on LHD/LHA.

My air group is just a starting point, it can go down to something more affordable.

MAJOR-B wrote:...Kiev. That platform was built as a strike cruiser. In my early military career; I was a naval officer who served on various platforms and deployed in the early 80's. I saw this ship in person several times it was a beast.

That's what initially seems right to me, because it allows the ship greater than 22 knot speed. Fleet speed (33 knots) is unnecessary now. It's only necessary IF you MUST get somewhere fast...like really fast.

MAJOR-B wrote:But to get back to your discussion if this platform was to be built today it would not have the number of aircraft or vertical Aircraft (Osprey/helicopters). Because the navy already has the LHD's and LHA's that are design to handle that specific mission. As far as hull's mostly likely it would be based on a variation of the LPD-17 hull (for length and width and ability to handle various vertical type aircraft and UAV�s).

Indeed a wonderful idea!!!

MAJOR-B wrote:The well deck and vehicle storage areas could be re-design to handle storage and maintenance of these various aircraft platforms as well as ammunition needed (missile, torpedoes..Etc.).

As soon as I read the previous quote, that is exactly what I thought!

IF you still wanted the Mk71 gun, there are accommodations forward where you could have the gun and a large magazine. However, I would not include it on this platform. Instead, I would have 2 76mm Super Rapidfire guns for defense against small craft, aircraft, UAVs, and missiles. Then the CIWS would be my married SeaRAM/Millennium Gun pair providing CIWS and C-RAM.

If you want her to go faster, you could just say she has LM-2500MRs which would give the ship about twice the LPD-17 SHP. That might make 31 knots.

You're not a modeler?! WTF NOT?! Get to it! Learn a new trade and make some cool :censored_2:!, and yes, censored 2 means sh!t

Here are two different views of what you stated in post. One is prototype model built in late 70's/early 80's in response to the USSR Kiev. It was to have aircraft, Aegis MK-71 (8 Inch) Guns, but instead of VLS it has the Mk26 system. Not sure which hull it was to be built on and/or from but mostly likely it appears to be an extended CGN-38 Class Hull. As David who is more of an expert stated use a Kiev. That platform was built as a strike cruiser. In my early military career; I was a naval officer who served on various platforms and deployed in the early 80's. I saw this ship in person several times it was a beast. But to get back to your discussion if this platform was to be built today it would not have the number of aircraft or vertical Aircraft (Osprey/helicopters). Because the navy already has the LHD's and LHA's that are design to handle that specific mission. As far as hull's mostly likely it would be based on a variation of the LPD-17 hull (for length and width and ability to handle various vertical type aircraft and UAV�s). The well deck and vehicle storage areas could be re-design to handle storage and maintenance of these various aircraft platforms as well as ammunition needed (missile, torpedoes..Etc.). Another platform would be the JMSDF DDH class it could be modified if the U.S had pattern rights. However, I was reading that India and the U.S are working on new Carrier development that might also be a possibility. The days of ships with large guns have always been discussed but in the end they never get funding. Now the navy is paying for mistakes with their plug and play designs and getting rid of platforms that still had service life left in them specifically the Spruance Class DD. Hope this helps.
Major B

Regretably, I am not a modeler and I hope you will not hold that against me.

I used to have a copy of The Hybrid Warship, which recounts various hybrid proposals of the 20th century up through the 1990s. According to the book, these proposals all suffered from trying to pack both big guns and aircraft flight/hangar decks on ships such as Treaty cruisers of 10,000 tons (which were designed but not built by the USN in the 1930s) and that resulted in the lessor aviation facilities such as short flight decks that could not operate the rapidly evolving high performance aircraft, small air groups and few big gun armament as opposed to building a separate 10,000 ton cruiser and aircraft carrier. A decent hybrid required a larger ship to deliver adequate aviation facilites

Big guns had blast problems for aircraft as well.

The book concluded that with the advent of STOVL aircraft such as the Harrier, Aegis CDS to counter saturation air attacks with standardized vertical launch systems firing AA/ASW/ASuW/land attack missilles instead of big guns for the main armament, the hybrid
might be a viable today for independent cruiser operations.

I was wondering if there is a role for such a ship now that we have supersonic STOVL aircraft, helos and tiltrotor technology with the flexible loadouts of Mk 41/Mk 57 VLS firing missiles covering all warfare areas might make the hybrid Mk 2 CSG/CSGN viable today.

Feel free to change or put forth your own versions of a hybrid or argue against it.

I just want to start a discussion.

I think you need to get your hands on a Kiev model and get started!!!

I was doing research on the Mk 2 version of the proposed 1970's nuclear strike cruiser or CSGN. It was difficult finding info on the web. In particular I was looking for data on the Rueven Leopold variant that added a second eight inch gun and featured a below flight deck level hangar deck. This version would have displaced over 26,000 tons and carried the small 18 AV-8As. It was hoped this would improve the chances of Congressional funding. Only able to find one reference to this version which, like the earlier flight deck variant resembled the Soviet Kiev class aviation cruisers that combined missile/gun/torpedo armaments with V/STOL aircraft and helos.

Usually people think of the a smaller ship of 18,000 or so tons with with a port side flight deck and flight deck level hangars in a long deck house or island structure holding six individual hangars for fixed wing STOVL aircraft and two smaller individual hangars for helos. Or they think of the conventional version that looks like a very enlarged Spruance DDG.

Today, displacement in a naval vessel is not the big cost driver but the electronics, propulsion, missiles, helos. Ship steel was and still is cheap.

I wonder what a MK 2 CSGN would look like if we built today.

The F-35B is a bigger and costlier replacement of the AV-8B+ for the Marines. It would have a 450nmi radius and carry two JDAM 1000lbs bombs/eight SDBs and two AMRAAM internally in stealth mode or a greater bomb load, drop tanks and outer pylon mounted Sidewinders for a greater range when drop tanks are finally integrated into the design. As the F-35B is bigger, fewer a/c would be carried. AEW/ASW helos or tiltrotors based on the V-22 or the in development V-280 which has a naval variant would further cut the total strike fighters carried.

For gun armaments, either two of the Mk 71 or perhaps the Advanced Gun System turrets up forward. Eventually they would be displaced by railguns and lasers. Missile armaments might be three 64 cell VLS modules for a total of 192 cells. Missile armaments that comprise AA, ABM, ASW, ASuW and land attack would be supported by bow and towed array sonars, ESM and full size 22 foot AMDR S and the smaller five by four foot AMDR X installation. SEWIP ECM, IR/radar decoy launchers and acoustic torpedo countermeasures such as Nixie, acoustic decoys and the in development antitorpedo torpedo system to destroy wake homing torpedoes that are unaffected by acoustic decoys or torpedoes that are straight running or ignore the acoustic countermeasure systems. Armoring of vital spaces such as command, propulsion and magazines. RAM or SEARAM and 35mm Milleniun guns for point defense.

There were alternative CGV or guided missile avaition cruiser studies done by the USN. A 40,000 ton CATOBAR version with a skijump on the bow would support 8 F-14s, 2 E2C AEW, 2 SH-60s in island hangars with 192 VLS cells and gas turbine vice nuclear propulsion. By contrast, a STOVL variant would support 14-22 aircraft on 26,000 tons(?) with a below decks hangar(presumed)

An airgroup of 12 FB-35s, 4 AEW helos/tiltrotors, 2 SAR helos/tiltrotors and six ASW helos/titlrotors 4 UAV/UCAVs supported by deck park or deck park plus deck level hangars and below deck hangars and increased beam and a twelve degree skijump on the flight deck with two deck edge elevators fore and aft of the enlarged island of an enlarged ship.

There is an illustration of the Mk 2 CSGN as modified fictional ship by an artist on the Net showing nine helos in the island hangars, two F-35Bs on flight deck and 6 F-35Bs in a small below decks hangar with a single elevator aft of the island with a forward gun and Mk-13 missile launcher. Another has an illustration of the flight deck/island hangar CSGN from side and plan views. Very good.

So, what would this ship look like and what role it could play. Independent operations, more strike fighters to support amphibs, bring organic air to the surface action groups or SAG, add F-35Bs to the carrier battle group? Hopefully, it would not be a concept in search of a mission.