The Ship Model Forum

Good afternoon watchers!

For those of you who have followed my work before, you have noticed that most of my projects have been cheap, low cost, or affordable solutions to modern Navy issues/problems. Mainly this has centered around NSFS. In this thread I will be branching out to address the Navy's desire to have a next generation cruiser. Both the Navy and the Congress have suggested/decreed that the new CG have the latest Aegis weapon system, SPY radar, and be nuclear powered.

I am going to step into this debate with a WIF concept for people to comment on. The situation is that the Navy has a very bad reputation for pursuing dead-on-arrival programs such as LCS and DDG-1000. The Navy has lost all credibility with the US Congress (the bill payers) that it can construct ships with reasonable capabilities at a reasonable price. Congress is likely correct in this assumption. The Navy has stated that it needs a replacement for the Ticonderoga-class CGs, and it would like for them to the BMD capable and nuclear powered. In order to convince Congress that the Navy can actually execute a class of ship without expending $10+ billion and 15 years in R&D, I hold the case that the solution is to look to the past.

Way back in the 1970s we had nuclear cruisers on order called the Virginia-class CGNs, and these were to be some bad @$$ ships. As they came on-line they actually turned out to be some extremely valuable ships. During the 1980s they were given the New Threat Upgrade (NTU) which brought them up to par with the Aegis weapon direction system. The only draw back was that NTU had rotating radars instead of static radars like Aegis. In all practicality and desipte other assertions, this did not make a lot of difference with the war-fighting capability of the NTU ships. However, because the Virginia-class CGNs had a lot of people on board, required a lot of money to maintain, did not have Aegis, were restricted to the majority AAW role with MK-26 launchers, had no helicopters, and were thus limited to escort duty, they were decommissioned, defueled, and the hulls are ready to be scrapped at 1/2 of their nuclear reactor’s lives.

Despite the four existing ships being ruined and destroyed, eleven ships of this class were initially ordered. Construction halted after the initial 4, because there was a concept to continue the class but equip it with the Aegis weapon system! This would have provided nuclear powered Aegis ships...“unlimited steaming Aegis platforms”. These ships would have been heavily armed and capable escort ships for nuclear powered aircraft carriers.



The ships would have been armed with the same weapon system as before: 2 Mk26 launchers, at least 8 Harpoons and 2 5”/54caliber guns. Because this debate continued into the 1980s when the Mk41 VLS was coming on board and the Mk26 was discontinued from production, there was a suggestion that the ships would have been armed with Mk41 VLS in addition to Aegis while being nuclear powered. If that modification had been constructed, the ship would have carried TLAM, SM-2, ASROC, and at least 8 Harpoons. With the addition of large amounts of TLAM via VLS they would have bordered on "capital ship" status.



Today: The Navy has recently decreed that it needs to buy 19 new cruisers, preferably nuclear powered, to replace the 27 Ticonderoga-class CGs. The realities of the US Navy are that the Navy is being forced to reduce its CVN force to unacceptably low levels for the foreseeable future. As a result, the Navy is going to need ships that can function as the centerpieces of surface strike groups (SSG) to provide presence where the few remaining carriers do not need to operate but where more than CG or DDG firepower is required. Unless a massively armed "strike cruiser" is utilized, in addition to providing BMD for carriers, these ships may fill the roles of Ticonderoga excort replacements and act as centerpieces of such strike groups.

I propose instead of sinking years and years and billions of dollars into reinventing the wheel, why not take the Aegis modification of the Virginia-class CGNs and update them with modern SPY-1D, Mk41 Mod15 VLS, and 16-32 harpoons in order to fill the role of the next class of cruiser. This would begin construction years ahead of other schedules, require less R&D costs, only require modification of vertical and 90 degree edges to reduce the ship's radar cross section, and if the Navy had the testicular fortitude provide the ships with a modern version of the Mk71 8" Major Caliber Light Weight Gun, the ship would indeed be a capital ship capable of not only performing missile strikes but major caliber gun strikes as well. With each 8” round carrying the equivalent of a Harpoon ASM impact and destruction, the 8” gun provides a very effective anti-ship and a land-attack capability. The best thing about the Mk71 is that it is 100% proven and ready for employment aboard USN ships. I would only suggest its electronics and gun shield be modernized.






One might suggest the Advanced Gun System (ASG) instead of the Mk71. When one examines the capabilities and level of development one discovers that AGS is a terribly large gun system that provides inferior fire for ship roles, both in NSFS and NSuW. However, since the Mk71 8" gun is simply an expansion of the Mk45 5" gun, delivering 75% more ordnance than a 155mm (AGS round) and 250% of a 5inch round, incorporating the 8inch gun would only require a larger base ring than the Mk45 5", a slightly larger magazine, and it would deliver a far superior precision guided round onto either ship or shore targets. The large amount of surplus volume inside the hull, 600 8inch rounds forward and 475 8inch rounds aft, would provide this ship with an anti-ship and NSFS capability unheard of since the WWII designed heavy cruiser USS Newport News!



Because the Ticonderoga-class was literally an Aegis adaptation of the Spruance-class destroyer, and the Arleigh Burke-class DDG was "the great compromise ship", the expanded Virginia-class CGN with 128 VLS tubes, 2 8" guns, facilities for 2 HH-60 helicopters, SQQ-89(v)15 sonar, 8-32 Harpoon missiles, thicker armor protection, and nuclear power, actually steps into a true "cruiser"-like capability. The rest of the ship literally falls into place with little R&D costs.




While it will still be expensive, approximately $2.5-3 billion, we would have an ultimately capable CGN for less than the price of the disappointing super stealth DDG-1000 destroyer whose run will be $6.1 billion for the first ship and supposedly 3.2 for follow on.

I plan to make a 1/700 test-run model of this class of ship before I make the financial investment into a 1/350 ISW Virginia-class model. Does anyone have suggestions or comments before I begin?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Sounds like another winner NAVYDAVE.
Several questions come to mind when I look at the photos of the prototype that you posted.
To the naked eye it looks like a cross between a Burke FLT IIA and a TYCHO.
Could be wrong, I am a little confused, are you saying that they should take the design of the Virginia class or even the California Class and update.
Regardless why nuclear other then the need not to refuel and max speeds runs that would not be limited by fuel consumptions.
This could be another interesting group build (just a thought), one last consideration have you seen the new Japanese Navy 5000 ton DD it looks like an upgrade to ATAGO I could be wrong..
Oh by the way you have been elevated to regarded reading with your morning coffee before starting your work day.

David,

Setting aside all the rest of the nuclear/non-nuclear questions (initial cost, lifetime cost, disposal, Congressional mandates, manning, etc.), there is a tactical aspect to the nuclear issue. If the cruiser is to be part of a surface group that is non-nuclear (Burke escorts), it somewhat reduces the tactical benefits of nuclear power. For example, the tactical advantage of an extended high speed run or lengthy stay on station is negated if you have to stop and wait for the escorts to refuel or you have to pull off station to allow the escorts to refuel. It's not, by itself, a reason to drop the nuclear option, just another aspect of the nuclear issue to factor into your planning.

Once upon a time, there was a Congressional mandate (law?) requiring ships above a certain size to be nuclear. It was, apparently, a Rickover inspired criteria. Is that still in effect?

Regards,
Bob

A question.
Is it more efficient, safer whatever, to have the helo pad on the main deck, as in Burke class, or the 01 deck as in Tico class? In otherwords, is there a reason why both Ticos and the CGN-42 design have the pad and hanger on the 01?

It seems to me that placing it on the main deck, as on Burkes allows placing of the aft Mk-41 so as to have the least intrusion below the main deck/uppermost deck capable of being made water tight.

EDIT! I cleaned this post up a little in an edit. Sorry, guys!

I would say both more efficient and safer. With it elevated you do not have to sacrifice the balk half of your ship to the helicopter. If the flight deck was the main deck you could not have an aft gun because of the collision hazard. However, with the landing pad lifted by 1 deck you can land without worrying as much about hitting something behind you. It is more efficient, because now you can utilize your stern for what a ship is meant for: weapons systems.

With hatches, air intakes and exhaust ports all over, the ship is not water-tight above the water line. It's just a question of how the ship deals with the water. The Fligth IIa Burkes' missile aft arrangements are not a revelation in weapon placement, that arrangement is forcing two things to occupy the same space, missiles and a hanger.

The reason NAVSEA gave me as to why the Burkes have the helo landing pad consuming the entire stern of the ship, is because the Burke is a compromise ship. They had to delete a lot of stuff off the Flight Is to sell them to the Navy. For instance, the aft 5" gun had to go to save money. As a result they made the whole area a landing pad. After they had lots and lots of these ships without helicopter hangers on board, they decided they had to somehow jam a hanger on the ship while retaining the aft 61-cell VLS arrangement. This took a while, because the original version of the Burkes that had a hanger deleted the aft VLS and put 61-cells forward instead. The version with a hanger and aft missiles was the Flight III option, and its VLS was aft of the landing pad with everything on an even main deck, and that was going to be a pretty big ship. They did not want to make a full Flight III because of the cost, so they finally figured out how to have both in the smaller DDG hull. As you can see, they lengthened the ship a little and literally jammed a helo hanger on either side of the VLS in order to have both a hanger and VLS in the same spot. Hey, it worked!

The below deck intrusion should not be a problem with the CGN-42 arrangement. This ship is set up like any other. Remember, the CGN-42 is a Virginia-class CGN with Aegis. The Mk41 VLS is interchangeable with the space allocated for the Mk26 twin-arm rotary magazine launcher, so all of the equipment arrangements and space have been taken into consideration and justified. Most of the time weapon systems have to go in the deck, because they weigh so much that if they were in the ship's super structure they push the ship's center of gravity way too high and make the ship unstable. For instance, when a Flight IIa Burke is fully loaded, it rolls a lot more than a Flight I.

With the water tight integrity concern, the aluminum super structure cracking away from the steel hull, the intake and exhaust vents, and hatches on the structure pose more of a water tight integirty issue than VLS in the main deck. When systems such as gun mounts and missile launchers are installed into a hull, they are made an integral part of the hull. If anything is going to get wet it’s going to be the forward arrangement at main deck level so if anything would benefit from being slightly elevated, its the forward VLS. Maybe it should be on a little raised platform like the Harpoon deck just forward of the bridge (see above model).
Keep the comments coming!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I know, it's weird, isn't it? The lone nuclear ship in the group. I would only suggest that if the ship is going to stay on station longer than a deployment then it would have another set of escorts relieve the ones with it.

In 2008 the Navy and Congress said that they want any combatant cruiser or bigger to be nuclear powered, and they are considering nuclear powered cruisers. Here is the Congressional verbiage about new cruisers (and battleships) being nuclear powered:



It was a law that mandated that all new surface combatants be nuclear power with special exception. I think the special exception was to be made by the President. President Carter decided that no ships would be nuclear powered....which is weird.

I have considered this doctrine a lot as I fleshed out my Montana-class battleship concept. As you can all tell, following this, a new battleship, such as Montana. would have to be nuclear powered, too. hmmmmmm.... (this is why I planned to build 2 different super structures, one conventional, one nuclear.)

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

One of the things I like about the "modified Virginia" CGN-42 concept is that it is a full height hull from bow to stern. This enables us to include a larger gun system such as the Mk71 than the Mk45 5" gun aboard. I keep chosing the Mk71, because the next largest gun, AGS, is too big for any ship not designed around it. The way the ammunition is handled and the machinery is so enormous for only being a 155mm gun it's really surprising. The Mk71 is simply a derivative of the Mk45 mount (sharing over 80% the same components and machinery). If you have not followed by other threads, the reason to pursue such a large gun is that the 8" round has been deemed a number of times to be the smallest naval round that can accomplish the tasks of the Navy needed. These address two missions: land and sea warfare. Land is busting hardened fortifications neither 5" nor 155mm can get, heavy volumes of fire, precision laser guided strikes, and with little modification to the laser guided rounds: GPS guided rounds. The gun is chambered for extended range rounds, and with a strong support the gun lands even unguided rounds in very small groups.

One thing I try to stay way from in these WIF builds is relative high prices. My battleship modificatioins are all reasonably low-cost upgrades (two battleships for the cost of 1 DDG-51 Flight IIa), Spruance upgrade, NSFS ship with 3 5" guns, etc. This, however, would be an expensive new-build CGN. The only reason I am indulging in this project is because the Navy is wanting a nuclear powered cruiser, and it seems that they are bent on designing one from the keel up. Well...common sense prevails again. We already made a medium sized yet highly capable CGN once...and we designed an even better version of that same ship. The only reason we did not buy it in the first place is because we needed to spend more money getting Aegis out in the fleet in large numbers with the Ticonderoga-class CG and we were buying 3 CVNs. It's no wonder the higher priced Aegis CGN was discarded for Aegis versions of the Sprunce-class destroyer.

The environment has changed now. We have several piles of "cheap...haha" conventionally powered Aegis armed ships with 22 CGs and 57+ DDGs. Now the Navy wants Aegis armed nuclear powered cruisers to begin replacing the Ticonderoga-class. My only rub is that they want to start over. Well, the Navy has a hard time with designing new stuff. Such a hard time in fact that the US Congress has "lost confidence in the Navy's ability to procure ships."

What a bunch of saps. Anyway, there is no need to design new CGNs. CGN-42 is ready to go. All that needs to be done is little things: SPY-1D, revision of the CIWS set up to include RAM, new mast arrangement, VLS instead of Mk26 launchers, and a re-evaluation of naval gunnery. The Mk71 is ready to go now. It would take minimal time to modernize it, refurbish projectiles, and procure laser guided rounds that were already developed.

Another modern feature that would need to be included is a UAV suite. UAVs would offer the ship a large surveillance capability, spotting, and laser designation capability. Because the CGN would possibly be operating independently of a CVN, embarked UAVs in addition to those on board, accompanying DDGs’ UAVs would be pretty important in the over-the-horizon picture.

Anyway, just a few more thoughts for consideration.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Ah, easily my favorite ‘never-built’ (although the ‘never modified’ Long Beach and Spruance give it a run for the title…)
CGN-42/CSGN went through many iterations. Initially it was much larger, had passive protection (Armor) for the first time since WWII, etc, etc. But the economies of the ‘70s demanded a cheaper way forward, and over time the idea was simply to modify the existing Virginia design.

The Long Beach was to be converted as a ‘prototype’ strike cruiser, but it was thought that any money put into her conversion was money not available for new construction, so her refit was simplified to what she was given in her early 1980s refit.

My favorite was the 1975/76 CSGN, a big dog with passive protection, flag facilities, and the Mk 71 MCLWG. Rueven Leopold’s Mark II version was even more interesting – a 24-25000 ton beast with a VSTOL flight deck – truly an independent operator, but both are well outside the purpose of your thread here to use an existing design.

In the end, the CSGN was simplified to a modified Virginia, became CGN-42, and it was put into a paper competition against the DDG-47 concept. It has always bothered me that the costs data for the two were skewed. Sec Def Harold Brown claimed that CGN-42 would have the same cost as two DDG-47s, but FY80 dollar comparisons having initial ships at $1.2 billion for CGN-42 and $800 million for DDG-47 show this to be false. Especially when you consider there would have been much more significant reduction on subsequent CGN-42 ships (only four of the baseline ship had been built), because DDG-47’s baseline ships already had 35 built or ordered (31 Spruance, 4 Kidd), so series production savings had mostly already been found there. (I acknowledge that money would still be saved later in series production of the combat system, but that would affect both equally).

That being said if you only look at getting SPY-1 to sea (which is what they did), the cheaper way to do it was DDG-47. We got 27 Ticonderoga class, rebranded as CGs (legitimate, considering the size and capability – especially after VLS) to justify the cost. We would have saved on fuel costs over the life of the CGN, but the personnel costs for NUC qualified personnel are higher, manning of reactors of the era is higher, as is the initial procurement cost.

In my opinion it is worth it, as the endurance gain prevents the trickle down need for more supply ships (which, subsequently must be built, manned, fueled, maintained, and defended…) , fuel stops (see USS Cole…), and most importantly, time off station for refueling/resupply operations. I also like buying my ‘fuel’ (cores) in 1980 dollars and running them into 1995…what inflation?
In the end, the same combat system for the lower procurement cost won.

I would have preferred a mix of 6-8 CGN-42 and 16-20 DDG-47 for about the same cost, provided that the CGNs had Flag capability and the Mk71. While the combat system would have to be developed for either (on in the case of the mix, both), my mix would have had us paying to modify both the Spruance and Virginia baseline designs to take the combat system.
Where is that brass model?

so how about some designs.. since CGN-38 has been scrapped (just the main deck and hull are left from I understand).. Are you purposing using a Spruance/Tycho hull for the base line?... Or stretching a FLTII Burke out for greater stability and upgrades...

On a side note.. NAVYDAVE.. the only 1/350 kit is resin.. 1/700 has plastic and resin version of CGN-38.. have you given thoughts to what will be the starting point..

The trouble is the budgetcuters and polticians want everthing but don't want to spend a dime.. They control money tighter then my ex-wife does.. and that is tight...

Here is a photo from the earlier 80's doing some research they remove the elevator that was built upon commission and repleace it with extra space for engineering to use for training.. I think these was a lot of wasted space on this platform.. lots of potential for upgrades.. she was a put down before her time... what a shame...

This thread reminds me of the following model I saw in the MW gallery long, long ago.
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

Yes, I have given it some thought. Even though this is the most high end and expensive project I have embarked upon to date, I am still thinking about doing it the cheapest and best way possible. The best and cheapest. To me the Aegis version of the Virginias were designed/requested 30 years too early. The seem to have been designed for today's Navy. They meet the requirements of the Navy's desire for an Aegis CGN that can act as a big-boy combatant, and we have so many Aegis ships already the advantage in buying yet another Burke is no longer there. The advantage is having a Tico's armament and hopefully two large guns and a large Harpoon battery under nuclear power.

The reason why I advocate the modified Virginia-class (the follow ons to the original Virginias) is because all of the hard work is done. The ship is designed. It just needs to be equipped with the newest SPY, a few RCS adjustments, hopefully utilize the Mk71 naval gun, Mk110 on eitherside of the structure, and perhaps a new reactor design. They were talking about utilizing a single one of the Ford's reactors as propulsion for CGX which in the case of the Modified Virginias would be different than the original design. That change would reduce the ship's crew dramatically down from 500 men to significantly more acceptable numbers. That internal structural change would have to be the hardest design change to the ship. Everything else nearly stays the exact same and falls onto line pretty easily.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Oh, and the brass model is in the Rickover building at the Naval Academy.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

As someone suggestion a build was done base on the prototype drawings... here they are..

My suggestions would be lose the ABL and the Mast.. replace Mk-26 with the VLS with version that the as NAVYDAVE suggested at minimum if not then what the CG-47 are getting in current yard periods.. Upgrade the Main GUN to MK-71 and use a burke style mast.. Again UAV and helos embarkation are a must.. finally consider adding RAMS, BUSHMASTERS..

here the other view..

Hey dave found this on Shipbucket here is a drawing of the CGN-42.. Sorry been without INTERNET.... would have posted it earlier... I think this a good line drawing to start off...

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... 42%202.gif

Yes, before I made this post I made a ship bucket drawing:

I will continue to revise this arrangement taking into account internal volume. Striking the balance of internal volume to afford the largest 8" magazines is the next concern. In addition to the 5" magazine I would like to find out what replaced the below-deck helicopter hanger. That will determine how large the aft 8" magazine can actually be. An advantage this hull offers is the very great amount if depth of hull for those penetrating weapon systems, especially in the stern where machinery usually consumes a lot of space, here the stern was designed for an entire below-deck hanger, and that offers a lot of internal volume free of critical machinery like rudder controls.

I will continue refining the smaller details such as structure angle and other RCS concerns.

Keep the observations and suggestions coming.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

David,

I know I harp on this theme but I really think that the helo landing area in your drawing is way undersized. Using the scale in the drawing, the landing area looks to be about 60-65 ft (fore/aft length). By comparison, the Perry FFG, which has the smallest SH-60 Seahawk family landing area that I'm aware of, has a landing area of about 83 ft. Recall that the original short-hull Perrys were not (are not) rated for SH-60 operations and that the Navy lengthened them to safely accomodate Seahawks. That suggests that the Navy believes that the shortest, safe operating length is about 80 ft. I know that given a pressing need a good helo pilot can probably land inside a much smaller area but no pilot is going to want to do that on a regular basis.

Also, there is a chance that the aft Mk71 gun is a problem as far as height relative to the landing surface. Again, recall that the stepped down area at the stern of the Perry's landing area was the result of the capstan sticking slightly above the landing area surface. Now, in your drawing, the gun is further aft so it might not be considered a problem.

I'm not a helo expert, by any means, and I'm only drawing conclusions from the examples that are out there. You should try to contact a helo guy and get the real story on landing areas. In the meantime, though, remember that the Perrys had to be lengthened to be able to operate SH-60s. It seems unlikely that a 60-65 ft area would be acceptable on a new build.

Regards,
Bob

navydavesof,

This is just a thought, I don't know that much about the internal workings of ships so feel free to set me straight. This is a nuclear ship and I'm thinking it is a really good electrical generator. Would it make sense to go with electric propulsion? The Blue Team DD 21 had those propulsion pods like you see on cruise liners. Can those work on a ship like this? Are they reliable enough? Can they produce the necessary thrust? Would it save internal space by not having prop shafts and the machinery to turn them? Is that type of machinery so far down in the hull that it doesn't make a difference when it comes to space and weight for additional weapons? If you did a full hull model they would look really cool, but only if they are plausible. Yup, all of this just for looks!

Bill Liebold

Bill, that's a good question. One of the times I was in the Northern Arabian Gulf (Persian Gulf) on the British RFA Cardigan Bay, and those ships have thrusters, or propulsers, like you are talking about. I don't know if this has any bearing on the issue as a whole or as far as American thruster technology goes, but they seemed to work well, but when something goes wrong with one, it's usually really bad. I don't know if the USN can employ ones powerful enough to give a ship like this enough power to make 33 knots. I have been told the pump jets on the LCSs make too much noise for them to be effective ASW ships while making way, so maybe pushing a nuclear cruiser with an ASW capability along would be an issue.

Very interesting suggestion you have, though.

An unrelated problem that I feel is noteworthy concerns the over-reliance on computers. Back to the Cardigan Bay, The entire ship went dark, and the ship's propulsion was off ilne for 2 and 1/2 months because of a software problem that arose. After this happened, every time the ship tried to change speed, the ship's computers went down and began a cascade failure of ship's systems. Keep in mind, the Bay class is meant to be just as much a combatant as an LSD. With absolutely no physical damage to the ship, the over-reliance on computer controlled equipment (the propulsion system in this case) caused a mission kill of this ship for weeks and I am sure you can conclude how operations were affected.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Mmmmmmm....sex.

With exception of the mast, this is what the forward structure will look like.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance