The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:15 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:35 pm
Posts: 75
Norman Palomar's Ship and Aircraft state that a nuclear strike cruiser was laid out a flight deck and island with six hangars for V/STOL and two helo hangars with 8 inch guns, Mk 26, 64 round twin rail launcher, Mk 41 61 round VLS, Harpoon, Phlanx CIWS and SPY 1 Aegis radar. The layout featured a port side given over to flight deck and starboard side and bow given over to the island, Mk 26 and Mk 71 gun forward.that resembled a smaller version of Kiev.
Not mentioned often is that a further variant proposed having a hangar below deck for 18 Harriers, possibly As or Bs. This version added a second Mk 71 8 inch gun and would have displaced around 23-25,000 tons with two uprated D2G reactors for propulsion.j
In the end we got the California class CGNs with inferior SM-2 MR fired from single arm Mk 13 rail launchers. Older Terrerie ships could fire the SM-2 Extended Range missiles and Aegis wound up on a conventional powered destroyer that grew into the Tico cruiser class.
Formerly, hybrid designs suffered from interference with flight ops by the guns whose blast was a major problem while aircraft sizze and performance was limited by the short flight decks and limited hangar capacity due to the compromises in having cruiser guns or larger on a hull that had to provide space for aviation facilities.
Today, the blast problem isn't as bad as 155 mm and 203 mm guns would be used in long range shore bombardment and long range antiship roles and could pause for aircraft launch/recovery.
High performance STOVL F-35Bs can carry substantial payloads of precision guided weapons so that great numbers of aircraft are not needed to drop a cloud of dumb bombs with only a small payload on each aircraft necessitating dozens of aircraft needed for a strike to be successful.
The stealthy F-35B carries two 1000 lb JDAMs or eight SBDs internally plus up to four external 1-2000 lb. JDAMs or sixteen SBDs that have a very high probability in hitting a target so that fewer bombs are needed to score a target. Multiple aim points are now possible for each a/c out to 450 nmi radius or longer if a tanking provision can be made using tilt rotor tankers or buddy fueling stores on some F-35s The strike fighters need 550 foot role on a flat deck or a much shorter run with a ski jump ramp and land vertically so that s[ace fpr catapults and arresting gear are not needed.
Gun ranges of 70 nmi. or more can be had from AGS or Mk 71 with guided projectiles that require only two guns be installed to adequatly seravice shore or ship targets. No space needed for an array of secondary 5 inch DP and 40 mm AA guns. Four single 76 mm Oto Melara Super Rapid STRALES guns firing radar beam riding projectiles that are effective beyond 8000 meters @ 120 rpm.
As no avgas is carried for the a/c, the danger of avgas fires and explosions are not needed.
We can also armor vital magazine, control and engineering spaces which was also a featurre of the aviation strike cruisers originally proposed.
Today we have the high performance STOVL strike fighters, ASW helos, Mk 41 VLS, long range guns and missiles controlled by AMDR, which appears to be the successor to SPY radars to equip a ship.
I cannot calculate displacements but we might start with a vessel with 256 VLS nest forward, ski jump ramp flight deck, deck park vice deck level hangars in the island, two elevators, four guns on sponsons to avoid intererrence with flgiht ops, AMDR, ESM, ECM, IRCM, STRALES gun mounts, arrmoring vital spaces, gas turbine integrated electric drive, 14 F-35s, 8 MH-60R, 2 MH-60S jSAR/utility and four AEW configured V-22s and 4 STOVL UAVs for 32 total a/c with the intent of complimenting and not replacing the CVN. for missions were the massive CVNs are overkill.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
Sciquest2525 wrote:
14 F-35s, 8 MH-60R, 2 MH-60S jSAR/utility and four AEW configured V-22s and 4 STOVL UAVs for 32 total a/c


32 aircraft is more than an America class LHA!
And what is the mission for the ship? :thinking:

A more realistic air wing might be:

    Strike Package
    8x F-35B (looks to be the standard squadron size rather than 12)
    4x UAVs
    4x V-22AEW

or

    Sea Control Package
    10x MH-60R
    8x UAVs (two-orbits)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 10:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:35 pm
Posts: 75
I had to start somewhere!
256 VLS tubes for strike/antiship/air defense/missile defense/ASW
Port and Starboard sponsons for AGS or Mk 71 shore bombardment/antiship w/ long range (70 nmi plus) projectiles
AMDR radar w/22 foot diameter panels
Multipurpose package
12 F-35Bs 2 orbit CAP
4 AEW V-22s
6 ASW helos/tilt rotors
2 SAR helos/
8 STOVL UAVs for recon/surveillance/lstrike-2 orbits
Total 32.
Unlike America class LHA, no space is needed for troops/vehicles so a 480 foot by 84 foot hangar with two deck edge elevators can house 16 F-35B equivalents plus deck park.
If 1000 tons displacement per a/c is assumed, then starting point displacement might be 32,000 tons.
CVNs cannot be everywhere and SAGs or independent ops lack air cover which can be supplied by organic air group.
Can support simultaneous BMD and Air Defense engagement using full size AMDR radar suite
Independant ops possible
Escort ARGs, high value convoys, URGs.
Strike w/ cruise missiles
Deep magazines


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 12:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
To many divergent missions on a single hull. This is an LHA, CG, SSGN all crammed into a single hull. For fire support you compromise flight operations safety by bringing the ship close to shore where you are vulnerable to counter battery fire. This ship would also have a large draft making operation in brown water difficult. Storing all that aviation fuel could be problematic. The air wing would have to qualify periodically so this ship would have to deploy like a carrier or face having to deploy without them. With its size and nuclear power it will need to be refueled every 12 to 15 years. Two years in dry dock means the air wing will be broken up and redeployed.

Why not just have a LHA and a pair of DDG?

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 4:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3106
Hey, man,

I put considerable thought into making one of these variants of the Strike Cruiser once. What I was going to do was get a Kiev and use its hull and flight deck and totally scratch build the rest. The only way to really make this (what is essentially an LHA America with the Marines removed and some balls added), would be to have a nearly full hull hangar so your ship can sustain useful flight operations. If you want it to have heavy gunnery capability and a large number of VLS tubes, sure, you can do it. There is just a LOT of scratch building involved.

What era are you going for? Modern I take it? A "today" build would be pretty darn straight forward, but anything in the future would probably shift you to other weapon systems for SAM, CIWS, gun, sensor, etc.

The thing I would be shooting for is a 2020 or so build. I don't know whether I would use an LHD sensor suite or if I would go phased arrays. I already have the modern Mk71 8"/60caliber guns and VLS. I have CIWS, RAM, SeaRAM, and Millennium guns so I can fill in all of the gaps.

I am looking forward to some day doing a WIF of this, but that is a looooooooooooong way away WIF lol.

I look forward to your response!

David

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Sciquest2525 wrote:
Norman Palomar's Ship and Aircraft state that a nuclear strike cruiser was laid out a flight deck and island with six hangars for V/STOL and two helo hangars with 8 inch guns, Mk 26, 64 round twin rail launcher, Mk 41 61 round VLS, Harpoon, Phlanx CIWS and SPY 1 Aegis radar. The layout featured a port side given over to flight deck and starboard side and bow given over to the island, Mk 26 and Mk 71 gun forward.that resembled a smaller version of Kiev.
Not mentioned often is that a further variant proposed having a hangar below deck for 18 Harriers, possibly As or Bs. This version added a second Mk 71 8 inch gun and would have displaced around 23-25,000 tons with two uprated D2G reactors for propulsion.j
In the end we got the California class CGNs with inferior SM-2 MR fired from single arm Mk 13 rail launchers. Older Terrerie ships could fire the SM-2 Extended Range missiles and Aegis wound up on a conventional powered destroyer that grew into the Tico cruiser class.


This is completely wrong. It implies we had the strike cruiser you describe as an option in the late 1960's (when CGN-36/37 were designed), when the concept is from the late 70's/early 80's. California also did not have SM-2 until late in her career. Mk10 equipped ships could indeed fire the SM-2ER, but again, that weapon did not exist until much later, and SM-2ER was not aboard until a given vessel had undergone NTU, which happened mostly in the 1980s. Mk 41 VLS: 1980's. Mk26 GMLS came out AFTER the California's commissioned, Mk 71 was a test article AFTER CGN-36/37 had been in service over 5 years, Harpoon would not be shipboard yet...CIWS...

The original CSGN developed through the 1970's as a follow-on to the Virginia Class, not a precursor to the California class, thus was at a minimum 10 years later, so you are altering the sequence of events by as much as 25 years (counting deployment of the SM-2 and NTU) to support the above implication.

On a side note, the California class carried more missiles (80 in two Mk 13 versus 68 in CGN-39's two Mk26 - some of which was ASROC), was faster, and had twice the fire control radars, thus could engage more targets in a saturation situation than the Virginia which replaced it. And Mk 13 was also a more reliable launcher. The Virginia's added a theoretical helicopter capability which proved unworkable in service, and later would get Tomahawk in ABLs, finally giving them something the California's didn't have.

So let's move on to the concept in question.

The version you are describing sounds like Dr. Leopold's concept for the strike cruiser, which came after the previous strike cruiser concepts were derailed by congress.

Image

More information on this concept I believe can be found in "The Hybrid Warship" by Layman and McLaughlin - I'll check mine when I get home today.

Busto has a more realistic Air Wing size. UAVs may need to be increased, a AEW (APS-145 on a drone?) and a sea control UAV (UAV with the S-3's sensors) would be excellent here.

Seasick wrote:
To many divergent missions on a single hull. This is an LHA, CG, SSGN all crammed into a single hull. For fire support you compromise flight operations safety by bringing the ship close to shore where you are vulnerable to counter battery fire. This ship would also have a large draft making operation in brown water difficult. Storing all that aviation fuel could be problematic. The air wing would have to qualify periodically so this ship would have to deploy like a carrier or face having to deploy without them. With its size and nuclear power it will need to be refueled every 12 to 15 years. Two years in dry dock means the air wing will be broken up and redeployed.

Why not just have a LHA and a pair of DDG?


First, reactors do not need to be "refueled every 12 to 15 years" and have not needed that for decades - even the Virginia class CGNs were early 1970's reactors which put in 15-19 years of service without refueling - so if we modernize this concept, we have core lives of 25-33 years (S9G) to utilize, which can certainly intersect with any major update required by every combatant vessel across this timeframe.
(ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S9G_reactor)

"Aviation Fuel" is the same thing we currently run all of our Gas Turbine Engines on - JP-5, so it is not 'problematic' - it is common to what we have been doing for 40 years.

Personnel costs are the primary drive in the Navy budget today, so would the combined hybrid be able to complete some of the missions of that LHA+DDG+DDG without using 3400 personnel (approx 1700 Sailors on the three ships and 1700 Marines on the LHA)? Not to mention initial construction and periodic maintenance of this vessel would be less than two DDGs and an LHA. Clearly, the proposed vessel will not be able to perform the missions of the three competitor vessels, yet the three vessels are not needed to perform every task.

Instead of thinking of the platforms as the mission profile, think of the mission profile and have a platform to match a given set of requirements. This will not do everything an LHA and a SSGN would do, so the only real comparison which might apply is the CG. It will likewise not do everything a PC, LPD, FFG, SSN, CVN, AOE and IX classified vessel will do. It will perform relevant missions - rather those missions are met in a reasonably effective way by this platform is the real debate - not that "it isn't something we already have or had". Could this be effective is supporting the LCS from deeper water? Sure - act as a node hub for operations and send heavier missiles and additional aviation forward into the brown water or across the shoreline when needed. The LCS could "run to big brother" if needed.

Put this vessel into an "Operation Praying Mantis" or Falkland Islands type of situation (probably the closest analogues we have to modern action) and I think it would do well. It would also work well for the current issues of area Piracy and 'showing the flag' as is happening around the Spratly Islands.

This platform would be a good fit for sea control missions in my opinion, with Nuclear power enhancing her strategic mobility, and weapons systems and sensors which allow it to operate nearly independently (I don't recommend that - better to have FF/DDGs in company), and this plus a DDG would be a very cost effective way to cover area as compared to our current Navy attitude of "A CVBG or nothing".

A CONAG engineering plant may also be an effective way to go - One Reactor two MT-30 in an all-electric drive setup - the reactor giving baseline/cruise endurance power and the MT-30s for sprint/combat loads. The MT-30/aviation detachment both use JP-5....

Always love to concepts like these worked through


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2014 12:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
This ship has been built before, the Moskva, the Kiev, Vittorio Veneto class CGH, Haruna class DDH.
Moskva and Kiev were followed on by the Admiral Kuznetsov.
Italy went from the Vittorio Veneto to the Giuseppe Garibaldi, and now to the even bigger Cavour.
Japan went from the Haruna class to the Hyūga-class helicopter destroyer
The Royal Navy went from the HMS Tiger to the HMS Invincible.

Every Navy that built a hybrid like this has switched to light aircraft carriers or full blown carriers.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2014 1:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3106
Seasick wrote:
This ship has been built before, the Moskva, the Kiev, Vittorio Veneto class CGH, Haruna class DDH.
Moskva and Kiev were followed on by the Admiral Kuznetsov.
Italy went from the Vittorio Veneto to the Giuseppe Garibaldi, and now to the even bigger Cavour.
Japan went from the Haruna class to the Hyūga-class helicopter destroyer
The Royal Navy went from the HMS Tiger to the HMS Invincible.

Every Navy that built a hybrid like this has switched to light aircraft carriers or full blown carriers.

While this is true, if the US was of similar philosophy, we would have dropped the LHA/LHD philosophy a LONG time ago and reverted simply to proper "aircraft carriers". Instead, we have remained LHD/LHA centric for "less than CV capability. This strike cruiser, nuclear OR conventional, could certainly be based off a Kiev-class and provide it alterations to meet USN standards and needs.

Simply put, all an American Kiev is, is a weaponized LHA. Mk71, VLS, and an LHD sensor suite, this strike cruiser ship would be a properly weaponized LHA minus the Marines.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2014 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
Quote:
Simply put, all an American Kiev is, is a weaponized LHA. Mk71, VLS, and an LHD sensor suite, this strike cruiser ship would be a properly weaponized LHA minus the Marines


The USN's LHA and LHD are not equivalent to the to HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes. The USN can't move to full blown carriers because, the USN has had full blown aircraft-carriers since the 1920s. LHA and LHD are large amphibious warships. Any carrier needs the maximum amount of flight deck space possible. One telling difference between the Tarawa class and the Wasp class was that the 127mm/54 Mk45 guns were deleted from the new design, No VLS. It could have been added. The 127mm Mk45 could have been added.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2014 4:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
Seasick wrote:
Quote:
Simply put, all an American Kiev is, is a weaponized LHA. Mk71, VLS, and an LHD sensor suite, this strike cruiser ship would be a properly weaponized LHA minus the Marines


The USN's LHA and LHD are not equivalent to the to HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes. The USN can't move to full blown carriers because, the USN has had full blown aircraft-carriers since the 1920s. LHA and LHD are large amphibious warships. Any carrier needs the maximum amount of flight deck space possible. One telling difference between the Tarawa class and the Wasp class was that the 127mm/54 Mk45 guns were deleted from the new design, No VLS. It could have been added. The 127mm Mk45 could have been added.


I've been trying to figure out how much of an air wing the America class could carry if you deleted all Marine capability and went pure aviation. Any ideas? I have this sneaking suspicion we wont be able to continue with the Ford class and am wondering about alternatives. They speed would need to be upped if they were to go CATOBAR among other things.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2014 7:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3106
Seasick wrote:
Quote:
Simply put, all an American Kiev is, is a weaponized LHA. Mk71, VLS, and an LHD sensor suite, this strike cruiser ship would be a properly weaponized LHA minus the Marines


The USN's LHA and LHD are not equivalent to the to HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes. The USN can't move to full blown carriers because, the USN has had full blown aircraft-carriers since the 1920s. LHA and LHD are large amphibious warships. Any carrier needs the maximum amount of flight deck space possible. One telling difference between the Tarawa class and the Wasp class was that the 127mm/54 Mk45 guns were deleted from the new design, No VLS. It could have been added. The 127mm Mk45 could have been added.

My statement was meant to communicate that the jump from the LHA/LHD to the CV size ship really requires a speed bump, a conversion of Marine spaces and a larger hangar, catapults, arresting gear, and probably an angled deck. For instance, the America has a tanker-like slow hull whereas the Midway had an adapted BB hull design (the Montana-class).

If the USN is going to pour as much money as they seem to into the F-35B, then utilizing America-class hulls expanded away from the LHA role and filled into the CV role, they could without deck modifications to include an angled deck and catapults.

However, if they wanted to install catapults, the EMALs makes it a far closer "plug and play" modification and an angled flight-deck expansion including arresting gear. Except for arriving on station faster, I do not see how 30+knot speed would be desirable. EMALs can throw aircraft off the ship faster than the steam powered catapults, thus reducing the required speed to generate enough lift for the aircraft. The EMALS can push the aircraft off that much faster.

jasonfreeland wrote:
I've been trying to figure out how much of an air wing the America class could carry if you deleted all Marine capability and went pure aviation. Any ideas? I have this sneaking suspicion we wont be able to continue with the Ford class and am wondering about alternatives. They speed would need to be upped if they were to go CATOBAR among other things.
No, I do not. However, you can rest assured it would be more along the lines of a Midway-class CV than a super carrier.

I like where you're going with your American Kiev, though. However, I would stay away from the Harpoons. If you're going to have ASCMs, then you can load them into the Mk41 VLS. However, one way or the other, equipping your ship with the Mk71, 64, 96, of 128 Mk41 VLS, and the requisite RAM, Phalanx CIWS, and other smaller weapons certainly make this an LHA/CV with balls!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2014 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:12 pm
Posts: 392
I find this topic very interesting and the fact that this topic continues to re-surface in one form or another.

That being said What-if designs have always been of keen intrest to me since the start of my military career way back in the early 80's.
At that time it was suggested that a Conversion be done on an IOWA class BB turining it into A Hybird ship. The design was never approved and was just reference material.

Going back to when the real design was being discussed. I remember reading the journals an thinking this would be so cool if they did built it. But in the end that design never happen.

A few years ago this ship became real and was built by the great Rusty White.

I know this discussion is about a Hybrid cruiser, but this design really address all the areas that have been discussed to date. So again I would like to add this design to mix.. what changes would you make and/keep?
Thanks
Major-B :thumbs_up_1:


Attachments:
tinian-01[1].jpg
tinian-01[1].jpg [ 61.26 KiB | Viewed 3131 times ]


Last edited by MAJOR-B on Wed May 21, 2014 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2014 4:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:35 pm
Posts: 75
An earlier edition of Ships and Aircraft referenced a study of alternatives types of ship for future carriers.
One concept was the ultra large CVN with a center line island flanked by two 1500 foot flight decks, each with arresting gear and catapualt, a 250,000 ton (?) displacement, nuclear propulsion and a larger air group than the Nimtz.
Another approach was the CGV, a cruiser with significant air group which would have a CTOL air group and the other STOVL. Armament comprised 192 VLS cells, conventional gas turbines, modern armoring and with electric drive in both.
The CTOL variant displaced over 40,000 tons amd had it's air group in the island ala the CSGN Mk II and two arresting wires, an angled deck with one catapault and a straight deck with ski jump. Air group was 8 F-14s, two E2Cs and two LAMPS III helos.
Althogh not illustrated, the STOVL variant featured 14-22 a/c and displacements of under 30,000 tons for the 22 a/c air group version and the same type propulsion, armaments and armoring.
The CSGN I referred to was a small note in the cruiser section about a flight deck strike cruiser that added a below the flight deck hangar with 18 Harriers, the type of which was unspecified AV-8As or AV-8Bs which have a larger wingspan. Nuclear propulsion was assumed along with a second Mk 71.
The Hybird Ship book, which like those earlier editions of Ships and Aircraft is lost but the final entry proposed that today's developement of high performance STOVL, compact VLS cells main armament and Aegis anti saturation air defense made a hybrid cruisser/carrier practical even with a small, six plane strike fighter squadron due to the increased payloads per plane possible with modern designs to which I would add that guided 500/1000/2000 pound bombs and guided Small Diameter Bombs, make each a/c in a small air group much more powerful on a per plane basis than earlier hybrid designs with 1930-40s tech designs avalilible to those designer of say, the CVF. Elimination of reliance on big guns for main armament and instead use a multipurpose VLS that had much less blast effects than cruiser or battleship size guns making simultaneous operation of missiles (cruiser/battleship strength) and air group possible or at least, in my view, near simultaneus ops.
With respect to my errors of Virginia class and California class CGNs, I plead a poor memory and my failure to refer the edition of Ships and Aircraft.
I believe the final CSGN variant proposed by Reuven Leopold, as in Ships and Aircraft which added the below decks hangar to design as well as a second Mk 71,
Harpoons are on the way out but for the near term, are the only purpose built ASCMs availible to the USN. The LRASM (Long Range Antiship Missile) is being developed as a derivative of the JASM/JASM-ER ASM to have a stealthy RCS, long range and the ability of a new seeker to discriminate upon different targets that are searched for, identified and attacked autonomously without other than initial location upon launch by the firing vessel and at ranges of hundreds of miles Regretably, the supersonic ASCM has been set aside..
I specifiy AMDR radar and gas turbine integrated electric drive but fuel costs are high now and may go up in the future so that a base nuclear/gas turnine boost plant or an all nuclear plant are viable choices, especially the all nuclear plant as current designs offer up to 33 years with a life of the ship core and you pay, in the case of the Ford class reactor, a 300 million dollar nuclear fuel cost during construction and then do not pay anymore money either for the 33 year life of the ship or just once, after 33 years if you elect for say, a longer 50 year life of the ship ala CVN lifestyle. (USN believes that it is possible for Burke DDGs, to achieve a life of 40 years with a SLEP type life extension program)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2014 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Sciquest2525 wrote:
The Hybird Ship book, which like those earlier editions of Ships and Aircraft is lost but the final entry proposed that today's developement of high performance STOVL, compact VLS cells main armament and Aegis anti saturation air defense made a hybrid cruisser/carrier practical even with a small, six plane strike fighter squadron due to the increased payloads per plane possible with modern designs to which I would add that guided 500/1000/2000 pound bombs and guided Small Diameter Bombs, make each a/c in a small air group much more powerful on a per plane basis than earlier hybrid designs with 1930-40s tech designs avalilible to those designer of say, the CVF. Elimination of reliance on big guns for main armament and instead use a multipurpose VLS that had much less blast effects than cruiser or battleship size guns making simultaneous operation of missiles (cruiser/battleship strength) and air group possible or at least, in my view, near simultaneus ops.


Here you are capturing what I believe makes the hybrid a potentially viable asset - the multipurpose capability of VLS (can be loaded as needed for the mission at hand), Aegis (a truly effective integrated AAW system) for area air control, and the aviation capability. I'd add integrated ASW as well, as SQQ-89 would not have been a far-fetched addition to an 80's-90's hybrid.

Even if the vessel originally commissioned with Mk26, the footprint of the Mk41 VLS was intended to fit in the Mk26 footprint, so changing out would not be out of the realm of possibility. She could have commissioned in the early 80's with SM-2 and ASROC with Harpoons in canisters, later refit to VLS to add Tomahawk and VLASROC, later to incorporate ESSM in quad-packs, on to today where LRASM could be added in the near future.

STOVL has developed through the ages, and Sea Harrier was even effective in 1982. AV-8B (especially the plus version with APG-65) and soon the F-35B adds credible fixed wing aviation, but the ships aviation facilities could also be used for a helicopter-heavy wing if the mission called for it. UAVs do nothing but make the Hybrid more appealing, as long as there are UAVs of the proper size for the platform (many UAVs are small enough not to need a platform of this size, and others are so large they will require the full CVN deck). Where a 80's-90's wing may have had AV-8B and SH-60B/F in changing ratios depending on role, an updated version may have V-22s, SH-60R, UAVs, and F-35B.

The hybrid will never be as good as a single mission ship within its specialized single mission, but when considered across an operational area or compared with the absence of the specialized vessel (not enough CVN/LHA to be everywhere all the time...), and considering the cost (much less to operate than the larger aviation vessels, who need more escorts, and drain more resources) they are very tempting conceptual vessels.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2014 8:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:35 pm
Posts: 75
I think the point is that today'x technology makes a hybrid a practical fill in for CVNs when the situation does warrant a CVSG. Also, this ship, fitted with modern sensors, including the up coming AMDR or Air and Missile Defense Radar, VLS and AGS or Mk 71s mounted below flight deck level on sponsons, may make simultaneous air/missile/long range gun(over 100 nmi Mk 71 using saboted projectiles and/or rocket/ramjet assist) possible. When gun ops are used from 25-50 nmi out from shore and still have 50 or more nmi range inland left, horizon threats are much reduced.
Oto Melara DART/STRALES super rapid 76 mm guns firing radar beam riding guided projectiles that match SAM performance out to 8,000 meters using on mount guidance radar that, once it acquires the target, is independent of ship's main radar would make a fine CIWS for the hybrid if built near term. AMDR and SM-6 long range air defense and SM-3 Blk IIA give it a credible ABM role while the weapons suite might make the vessel, in some circumstances, capable of independent ops.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 12:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
Quote:
Simply put, all an American Kiev is, is a weaponized LHA. Mk71, VLS, and an LHD sensor suite, this strike cruiser ship would be a properly weaponized LHA minus the Marines

The USN's LHA and LHD are not equivalent to the to HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes. The USN can't move to full blown carriers because, the USN has had full blown aircraft-carriers since the 1920s. LHA and LHD are large amphibious warships. Any carrier needs the maximum amount of flight deck space possible. One telling difference between the Tarawa class and the Wasp class was that the 127mm/54 Mk45 guns were deleted from the new design, No VLS. It could have been added. The 127mm Mk45 could have been added.

I've been trying to figure out how much of an air wing the America class could carry if you deleted all Marine capability and went pure aviation. Any ideas? I have this sneaking suspicion we wont be able to continue with the Ford class and am wondering about alternatives. They speed would need to be upped if they were to go CATOBAR among other things.


The Department of Defense used a strange form of accounting. The reason that the Ford cost so much is that all the development cost go into the price of the first unit. Lots of technology developed for the Ford will be used on other ships. But their price won't reflect that. Enterprise will have lower development cost worked into is unit price.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 1:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3106
Sciquest2525 wrote:
I think the point is that today'x technology makes a hybrid a practical fill in for CVNs when the situation does warrant a CVSG. Also, this ship, fitted with modern sensors, including the up coming AMDR or Air and Missile Defense Radar, VLS and AGS or Mk 71s mounted below flight deck level on sponsons, may make simultaneous air/missile/long range gun(over 100 nmi Mk 71 using saboted projectiles and/or rocket/ramjet assist) possible. When gun ops are used from 25-50 nmi out from shore and still have 50 or more nmi range inland left, horizon threats are much reduced.
Oto Melara DART/STRALES super rapid 76 mm guns firing radar beam riding guided projectiles that match SAM performance out to 8,000 meters using on mount guidance radar that, once it acquires the target, is independent of ship's main radar would make a fine CIWS for the hybrid if built near term. AMDR and SM-6 long range air defense and SM-3 Blk IIA give it a credible ABM role while the weapons suite might make the vessel, in some circumstances, capable of independent ops.

Whoa, man, that's putting all of the most expensive toys onto a single ship. With the AMDR, AGS, SM6, etc, you're looking at a ship at least as expensive as the Ford!

Mk71s cannot fit on sponsons used by CVNs. The sponson would have to be so big, it would be shocking. You would be increasing the beam of the ship by about 60' if you have Mk71s on sponsons. AGS would be even worse with how her magazine is set up. I say Mk71 should be used because it operates like the Mk45 5" guns. It's magazine is manageable. Even then, the gun should be used on the main deck or on an elevated platform/deckhouse The AGS is this huge and enormous mount with an amazingly large magazine that would not fit in a sponson.

However, I could see Millennium guns, RAM, and self-defense length VLS tubes on sponsons.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2014 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:12 pm
Posts: 392
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:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 9:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
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.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 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 4 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