The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:09 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 182
Happy Fourth to all, I came across this photo recently while doing research on my cold war build (Litton version of the burke)...
Other then it supposed to be bigger then a tycho.. and was to be the new design for CG for the navy post 80's....
However, I found very little info on this design.. from what I can see it has VLS forward and aft, with a single hangar, and not clear on the forward and aft gun mounts as either 5-inch or mk-71....
Thanks.


Attachments:
CGBL_Guided_Missile_Cruiser_Baseline_1980[1].jpg
CGBL_Guided_Missile_Cruiser_Baseline_1980[1].jpg [ 56.41 KiB | Viewed 5025 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
I've seen that picture before. I'll dig around and see if I can find information.

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Seasick wrote:
I've seen that picture before. I'll dig around and see if I can find information.
I look forward to what you can find. There is only a little in some of Friedman's books, and sporadic mentions on the net.

ex-navy wrote:
...from what I can see it has VLS forward and aft, with a single hangar, and not clear on the forward and aft gun mounts as either 5-inch or mk-71....
I would say from the size and shape of the mounts they were probably Mk45 5"/54caliber guns. To my knowledge beyond the bow of the Spruance-class being specifically designed to accommodate the Mk71, the gun mount was only seriously planned for the Long Beach Aegis upgrade, Strike Cruiser, and DDG-51 upgrade.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Here I found a couple things from globalsecurity:

Quote:
By the 1980s, with the advent of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyers, the distinction between a cruiser and destroyer was blurred. According to the US Navy, a cruiser was focused on anti-air warfare [AAW], and was focused on providing air defense to an aircraft carrier. The destroyer was focused on anti-surface and anti-submarine duties, while also having a substantial anti-air capability.

From the very first studies, the DDG was given two contradictory roles: 1) to be a smaller force-number-builder and 2) fix things that were perceived to be wrong with the CG 47. Specifically, it was felt that a ship armed with Tomahawk, unlike a carrier escort, could fight while hurt. Even if the ship were slowed and had lost a combat system capability in one or more areas, if it could receive Tomahawk targeting data and launch, the self-guiding missile would be fully functional. Thus the DDG received a steel superstructure, increased blast overpressure resistance, more armor, a collective protection system and radar cross section reduction measures. Thus there is a historically anomalous situation of the destroyer being a more survivable ship than the cruiser.

A question that has continually come up is "what if a new cruiser, with weapons the same as the CG 47 class, were designed starting with the DDG and expanding into the cruiser mission?" In order to have a math model of such a ship for future technology studies, Navy Preliminary design created the Cruiser Baseline (CGBL). The study also included weapons systems modularity and increased service life reserves. The resulting ship had a waterline length of 600 feet, a beam of 69 feet, a displacement of about 13,500 tons plus a 30+ knot speed.


I am a member of the Naval Engineer's Society so I will see what I can find from their 2008 Symposium on the subject.
Here is a bit bigger version of ex-navy's original posted picture:
Image

Being based on a possibly enlarged DDG-51 hull a 1/350 model seems to be a reasonably easy task to accomplish. :cool_2:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
WOW. A whole lot of the Navy's dumb decisions in ship acquisition really make sense now. 20/20 hindsight helps a lot. It's like the holes in the Swiss cheeze all of a sudden line up.

The reports on the CGBL state that because the DDG-51 class was being produced in mass the DDG-51 became the focus of alteration and modification. While this should lead right into the CGBL development, the mid to late 1990s through the 2000s was side tracked by a fascination with building a fleet of "future stealth ships", completely revolutionizing the US Navy. This included the CG(X), DD(X) FFG(X) and a "street fighter". There was even the suggestion of a stealth carrier. The concept of a conventional cruiser was discarded for the concept of a cruiser belonging to the Navy after next: the CG(X).

Why has this CGBL not been more hotly pursued? Well, the idea for a conventional cruiser was out of the picture for so long that it was kind of forgotten about.

The reality of that stealth fleet was that it was technologically too far away. The capabilities and requirements of those ships were scaled back and drawn down to the maximum of what we could actually do. However even though we could physically build the lowest possible concept they dreamed of in the DD(X), a.k.a. DDG-1000, the ship turned out to be several times the promised cost. With DDG-1000 being unaffordable it was guaranteed that the CG(X) would, too be unquestionably unaffordable. The CG(X) also had so many unanswered basic questions and conflicts, such as would it be nuclear powered or conventional, would it be an larger version of the enormous DDG-1000 or have a conventional hull, that it was completely dropped.

Now, instead of the CG(X), the DDG-51 Flight III developed in 1989 is being redesigned in FY2012 to accommodate a larger radar and the associated equipment (such as cooling plumbing and other requirements) to try to approach what CG(X) might have been able to do. However, because these radars weigh so much more than the SPY-1 the hull was designed for, the Flight III is also looking at being delivered at the beginning of a 30 year life with no possible growth margin.

Because starting off your career with no way to grow your capabilities is a horrible idea it might be prudent to re-examine and develop the CGBL. Missions need to first be developed and then capabilities and weapon systems assembled to accomplish those missions. NAVSEA has put together an excellent list of missions for a future cruiser to accomplish. The Flight III would not be able to accomplish those. A real "cruiser" as opposed to a "big destroyer" needs to be made.

The development in the papers and the numbers supplied look like an excellent place to start, especially if someone wanted to begin a model of this kind of ship. :big_grin: :thumbs_up_1:

Who's going to start? :big_grin:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
carr wrote:
...(water wings)...
lol. You said "water wings"
:lol_pound:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 182
Thanks dave for the input, how are things going, sorry been so busy with my course work.. I found a nice line drawing the other day while doing some research, needs to be resized for submission.. It shows a basic layout that could be worked with.. I also thought up a name for the class how about the Montana Class CG with 5 ships purposed....
take care
Bruce aka ex-navy


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
ex-navy wrote:
Thanks dave for the input, how are things going, sorry been so busy with my course work.. I found a nice line drawing the other day while doing some research, needs to be resized for submission.. It shows a basic layout that could be worked with.. I also thought up a name for the class how about the Montana Class CG with 5 ships purposed....
take care
Bruce aka ex-navy
You are welcome, Bruce. I look forward to the pictures you can scan and print. I have been reading the reports wirtten when they re-examined the CGBL after CG(X) was canceled. I am taking some of the findings and applying them to the CGN-42 project I have going on.

The basic parameters that were laid out for the CGBL offer a good starting point for a hull and basic geometry for a super structure. I may try my hand at a CGBL one day.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 182
here is the line drawing I found, while doing some research... I know it is very basic, but it a good starting point...
As david said, this is the way to go, that looks like an enlongated burke.
So what would be add to the design?
RAMS, MK38.. ???
What time frame should this have be started.. ???
My thoughts are around the early 90's as they started to phase out the Older Crusiers such as Truxton,branbridge...etc..
Thanks.


Attachments:
CGBL Line.jpg
CGBL Line.jpg [ 45.5 KiB | Viewed 4630 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:44 am
Posts: 3
navydavesof wrote:
I am a member of the Naval Engineer's Society so I will see what I can find from their 2008 Symposium on the subject.


Hello! I'm the guy on Shipbucket and Secret Projects who dug up the line drawing that is seen in this thread and I would love to get a copy of any info you find on the Ship so that I can improve my current WIP Shipbucket version [Image Link to the current WIP].


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 182
Tim, welcome, that site you speak about has some great design, however, people get wrapped around the looks then function. With that said, your design has a lot of merit and as you said a work in progress some thoughts for you to consider. As Navy Dave has described this was a study to make a crusier using burke tech. So my first thoughts would be the forward Super Structure needs major re-work may be you could rework a FLT-IIA Bridge and forward structure.
Ok with that all said, my plans are to build this design in 1/350 so let get the basics down:
1. length should be 670 feet which would be slightly bigger then a tycho and CGN-38 Class.. so in 1/350 it would be about 24 "
2. two sets of VLS 48 cells Forward that would be primary containing ESSM, SM-2, and ASROCS. The rear not sure if should be 64 or 120 Cells, with load out being mostly SM-2 and Tomahawks.
3. Forward and AFT Gun Mounts (spruance fit)
4. Quad Racks of Harpoons x 4
5 CIWSx 2. Mk-38 x2, RAMSx2,NUKLA's and SLQ-32
Not sure if The SPS-49 should be retained or not..
6. Helo storage and handling for sh-60 x2 with RAST
Electronics starting point would be what the TYCHO Class is getting during refit...
thanks


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:44 am
Posts: 3
ex-navy wrote:
Tim, welcome, that site you speak about has some great design, however, people get wrapped around the looks then function. With that said, your design has a lot of merit and as you said a work in progress some thoughts for you to consider. As Navy Dave has described this was a study to make a crusier using burke tech. So my first thoughts would be the forward Super Structure needs major re-work may be you could rework a FLT-IIA Bridge and forward structure.
Ok with that all said, my plans are to build this design in 1/350 so let get the basics down:

I remind you that I'm drawing the design as it appeared in the 1980s, not a hypothetical 1990s version.

Quote:
1. length should be 670 feet which would be slightly bigger then a tycho and CGN-38 Class.. so in 1/350 it would be about 24 "
LBP of 620 feet.
Quote:
2. two sets of VLS 48 cells Forward that would be primary containing ESSM, SM-2, and ASROCS. The rear not sure if should be 64 or 120 Cells, with load out being mostly SM-2 and Tomahawks.
She's got a repeat of the Flight 3 Ticonderoga systems fit. This means that she's got two 64 cell VLS blocks with a 3 cell crane in each.
Quote:
3. Forward and AFT Gun Mounts (spruance fit)
Yes, well, Ticonderoga fit.
Quote:
4. Quad Racks of Harpoons x 4
The drawing shows two Mk-141s, which fits with the Flight 3 Ticonderoga systems fit.
Quote:
5 CIWSx 2. Mk-38 x2, RAMSx2,NUKLA's and SLQ-32
The Mk-38 is presumed, but not placed. I'm not sure where exactly they would go, and thus I'm not placing them yet.
Quote:
Not sure if The SPS-49 should be retained or not..
It's on the drawing.
Quote:
6. Helo storage and handling for sh-60 x2 with RAST
Yes.
Quote:
Electronics starting point would be what the TYCHO Class is getting during refit...
thanks
Tycho class?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
TimothyC wrote:
It's on the drawing.
Hi, Timothy!

I understand that you're dictating directly from the initial drawing. I think if the actual project were to have gone beyond the initial design stage, the size of the forward super structure may have increased, the space between the two super structures would have been utilized, and the SPS-49 would have been deleted. The HM&E upgrade the CGs are receiving now does not need the SPS-49 and has had it removed from the mast.

However, I think what ex-navy is going for is something that might be built today in a what-if sense, hence the 48-cell VLS and various things. I have done three similar equipment and weapons configurations confronting different threat and cost levels as well. Since the CGBL was the "cruiser guided missile base-line", it served as a base line to be configured to meet the range of threats accordingly.

All of that aside, I think your shipbucket drawing is pretty cool. I can cut and paste pieces of other ships together in the ship bucket world, but I cannot fabricate. Great job, sir!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 182
Quote [Navydavesof][I think your shipbucket drawing is pretty cool. I can cut and paste pieces of other ships together in the ship bucket world, but I cannot fabricate. Great job, sir!]
As david aka Navydavesof stated, I am complete agreement, your skills are impressive...

But as he also stated this a [Navydavesof][ Since the CGBL was the "cruiser guided missile base-line", it served as a base line to be configured to meet the range of threats accordingly.]

With that all said my goal is work out some plan to build this proposed idea as a model in 1/350......

As others have suggested prior to working on a design you need to state what the purpose of the platform will be and work from adding weapons and electronics/sensors to support that mission. So let start with my basic idea, the navy over the years has developed ships that are multirole and even when I was on active duty in mid 80's and early 90's this was shift from the single mission ie ASW or AAW..to a little of everything, which is not always possible you can't do everything well....
So my thought is to revert back to what A Cruiser was first design for which was protection of the HV (high value) Unit which could anything from a Carrier Battle group to Amph Assult Group.....

So here are my basic missions that this platform " Must be able to perform"
1. AAW
2. Command and Control
3. Anti Surface Warfare (Close and Long range)
4. Intell Gathering and Analysis

How will this be done?
AAW:
will also include Cruise Missile protection
VLS armed with ESSM, SM-2, RAMS, NUKLA and CIWS....
Anti Surface Warfare:
Sh-60 with Hellfire and Penquin Missle, Harpoon, MK-38 and 5 inch
Command and Control, Intell Gathering/Analysis:
various electronic, UAV, Sh-60, SLQ-32, SLQ-19 and SQS-53
additional features would be Hangar space for two SH-60 with RAST, and Sonar Bouys...
Limited ASROC and Torp load out for protection of HV unit, this is a secondary mission until primary ASW units can assist..

With this all said, why not use a burke or a tycho.. as many has stated, they are platforms that do one thing great, not many, for example the tycho can do AAW but not ASW... In my mind this class would be a supplement to the burke and a replacement for the capabilites lost with focus of the navy going forward with LCS program...
My thought would be developing a model about 22-24 inches in length, with forward and aft 5-inch and VLS,, Still working on some ideas here is a quick line sketch of my thought, with Aegis, now I could also remove the Ageis and use the NTU system (SPS-48 and SPS-49) instead...
thanks
bruce aka ex-navy
edited 10.24.11:
Tim, that drawing was an early sketch of my litton DDM that I was going to build for the cold war group build, which was a cut/paste, from various drawings that I found via google. It was not my intention to take credit for someone else work, but to use as a example of what I thought it might look like ( I am a person who needs to see an example so that points can be adjusted or deleted).... I will let you remain the expert on drawing... but the rest of my statements remain unchanged...


Last edited by ex-navy on Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:44 am
Posts: 3
navydavesof wrote:
However, I think what ex-navy is going for is something that might be built today in a what-if sense, hence the 48-cell VLS and various things. I have done three similar equipment and weapons configurations confronting different threat and cost levels as well. Since the CGBL was the "cruiser guided missile base-line", it served as a base line to be configured to meet the range of threats accordingly.


CGBL was a conceptual and mathematical model that was developed to evaluate cruiser proposals, and as not a baseline designed to be modified in and of itself.

Bruce - I know you did not intend to, but by distributing a shipbucket based image without the scale bar or title block, you are in violation of the Shipbucket Fair Use Agreement. It's a very permissive agreement, but it is one who's enforcement is starting to be applied. As a staff member in the community I would be much obliged if you credited the drawing.

I also point out that the Flight 3 Burke has been drawn, so you don't have to kitbash quite so horribly to draw what you are drawing.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 182
As I said Timothy you are the expert on drawing...

Since you reference the burke flt III here are the drawing's I found.... and the DDV-7 purposed design

these designs are enlarged burkes....., while the DDV-7 is a burke flt I without Aegis.... Consider the following:

The flight III had a lot of potential but was rejected for what was called the DDV-9 design that would become the flt IIA current Config... as I said and repeat.... doing many things does not equal success, but doing one thing does.. I think this platform (CBGL) has merit and should discussed with a focus on either AAW and Command & Control;
Even go one step further have the lead ship function in that role, have another function as ASW/Convoy protection, while the third could be NGFS/Special OPS focus, fourth could have increased helo capability and last one TBD... ( I purposed a class consisting of 5 ships)... the time frame would be the lead ship being placed in service around 1995, the second 1999, the third 2002, the fourth 2004 and the last one if funded 2008...


Attachments:
DDG79 (1989).jpg
DDG79 (1989).jpg [ 89.45 KiB | Viewed 4431 times ]
Flt III(1989) reference.jpg
Flt III(1989) reference.jpg [ 120.6 KiB | Viewed 4431 times ]
DDV-7.jpg
DDV-7.jpg [ 63.21 KiB | Viewed 4431 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 6:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
TimothyC wrote:
CGBL was a conceptual and mathematical model that was developed to evaluate cruiser proposals, and as not a baseline designed to be modified in and of itself.
Seeing how it laid out such specific elements such as CG-52 weapons package, DDG-51 building standards, and possibly built on an enlarged (not just lengthened) DDG-51 hull form, and such a specific depiction in the profile line drawing and painting, what do you think about building a 1/350 scale model of her? It can be done by kitbashing any of the Arleigh Burke-class line of models from Trumpeter or you could modify a Spruance-class hull to cosmetically match the angled hull appearance (radar cross section reduction requirements) of the DDG-51 hull.

So...what do you say? :thumbs_up_1:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3102
Anything more on this? Seeing how the DDG-51 Flight III seems to be unable to accomplish the mission it is to fulfill under any circumstances, a new cruiser seems to be in order instead. The CGBL makes for an excellent subject, and a model would be watched with great interest.

Does anyone plan to pursue this subject? I am pursuing a 1/350 CGN-42 which may fill certain aspects of this type of ship which will be followed up by a CAG that would have AMDR and Aegis as its AAW system.

Oh, wait!!! Did I hear carr say he's going to build a CGBL? :big_grin:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CGBL Design
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 182
I think it is time to re-look at this project.

It has been a while since I have been able to log in due to recovery from surgery, a new job/new position and most of all limited time and computer issues both at work and home...

Dave I think this baseline study needs to be re-looked at with the downsizing of the Navy and the less then stellar performance of the Freedom and Independence Classes...

The CG-47 class are still around but have been upgrade to the MAX... The Burke's still can not handled all missions....

So here are my thoughts...

Two Platforms should be developed from this study/proposed design;

1. A Crusier that is bigger then the CG-47 Class with the potential to be around for about 20 years.
2. A Destroyer/Frigate version
The DD/FF version would be a replacement for spruance and perry class ships that have been decommissioned without the limits of the burke.
Lets just call it a ddg for now but in all purposes it should be classified as a DE since it functions in mulitple missions such as ASW or protection of a battle group with limited AAW and ASUW...
lets the discussion begin....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group