What-If CGN-42 Advanced Missile and Defense Radar Cruiser

[Russ2146]

Looks familiar,

Have to go take a run down I-95.

Want me to take my camera for a port side angle?

[navydavesof]

Looks familiar,

Have to go take a run down I-95.

Want me to take my camera for a port side angle?

I have a number of pictures from street leve. Plus I know someone who works right next door so street level pictures are covered. However....if you can fly and get one from above....

[Russ2146]

Hmmm, good old Google Earth

[Russ2146]

[navydavesof]

Thanks so much. That's exactly what I needed. It'd be great if we could get some of those super high-res KH-11 pictures or a helo shot This works great.

Thanks again!

[JasonW]

I had thought about trying to build this design also. This thread has a ton of good reference pictures. Are there any decent line drawings available?

[navydavesof]

I had thought about trying to build this design also. This thread has a ton of good reference pictures. Are there any decent line drawings available?

I have only been able to find one, and that was hard.

This is one of those ships that slipped into history. Like I said...it seems that she was proposed 30 years too early. With a heavy Harpoon battery, an 8-inch battery, UAVs, and consdierable passive protection she could be a center piece ship in addition to being a CVN escort. That capability is more approrpriate today than in the '80s and '90s.

[HvyCgn9]

Great thread Mate!
What R the weight comparisons between the VLS and Mk-26 and are there any wt & space savings with the VLS ?? ie more space for 8" gun magazine?? (certainly be simpler mechanically than the MK26)

Cheers Bruce

PS thanks for posting the Pic of the Mk-71 Gun turret the size comparison is very helpful.

[navydavesof]

Great thread Mate!
What R the weight comparisons between the VLS and Mk-26 and are there any wt & space savings with the VLS ?? ie more space for 8" gun magazine?? (certainly be simpler mechanically than the MK26)...PS thanks for posting the Pic of the Mk-71 Gun turret the size comparison is very helpful.

No problem, Bruce. The only problem with the Mk71 was an at-sea accuracy issue, and that was directly attributed to the fact that the USS Hull, the test platform, could not support the gun. While its bow was strengthened for the gun, it was not strengthened enough, and it continuously suffered cracks and warpage that was directly attributed to the recoil of the Mk71. An associated consequence was that when the bow flexed with every round fired it threw every projectile off course just enough to make a difference at range, and the Mk68 GFCS was not properly programmed for the ballistic data associated with the 8" gun. When placed on a stable foundation, a concrete pad at Dahlgren, it fired significantly tighter groups than at sea. The semi active laser guided (SALG) rounds hit 5 out of 5 shots at sea and 8 out of 10 on land. It was a very supportable and usable weapon system. It was canceled due to politics, nothing more

I don't have the exact weight comparisons at the moment, but we established back in my Spruance-class modernization thread that the Mk41 is lighter than the Mk26, even fully loaded (IIRC). The weight of the machinery associated with the Mk26 is beastly and very heavy. There should be plenty of volume for the Mk71's magazines. The forward one should be in the area of 600+ rounds and the aft around 411 (366 magazine and 75 in the loader drum) [both numbers sited from Friedman's US Destroyer and Cruiser books]. If the technology developed for the gunfighter (a 5" round in an 8" sabot) and 5" SALG programs were further developed utlizing BAE's 5"ER round the ship could be firing 5" saboted guided rounds well in excess of anything the 5"/62caliber gun could.

Hmmmm...is it just me or does the Navy seem to be bent on reinventing the wheel whenever it can?

[navydavesof]

One might ask:

"Well, if you're looking for a capital ship, why go to all the effort to build a nuclear powered version of the Ticonderoga-class escort crusier when you could just reactivate a battleship? A battleship can out perform the offensive capability of a DDG, CG, or even one of these CGNs."

Fantastic question, One. The answer is: The Navy does not have the sack to even say "battleship" much less reactivate one." So, instead we need to pay out the nose for either an epic fail such as DDG-1000 or something a little more practical as the CGN-42. At least with CGN-42 we will be able to begin construction at a minute's notice, because all of the technology is proven.

Damn, you ask good questions, One!

[Russ2146]

A bureaucracy will always try to maintain and expand itself.
Wheel reinvention is a part of that.

[ex-navy]

Hey,
dave just had a thought,, how far off is the Leahy class cg from the cgn-38 (hull wise).. while going through some boxes, I have the monogram Halesy.. it looks like it could work for the hull..

[navydavesof]

Hey,
dave just had a thought,, how far off is the Leahy class cg from the cgn-38 (hull wise).. while going through some boxes, I have the monogram Halesy.. it looks like it could work for the hull..

That's a great suggestion. It seems that the hull is a little short and narrow to represent a Virginia. It's shape, especially that bow form, is pretty close, though. I am going to be doing all of this in 1/350, because I have a whole bunch of very accurate custom fittings you can see in my Iowa and Spruance builds in 1/350 that I can use to flesh this out. Because I enjoy this kind of thing, and since it has gotten me working with the CNO's SSG, I am willing to make the investments to commission custom resin pieces and even buy resin hulls to make the project work.

In this case, a remarkably unique and gracious offer has been extended to me. A master model builder has offered to make me a 1/350 scale wood hull for this project. All I had to do in return was provide reference material such as plans with hull lines and reference pictures on CD. Then finish the build and share pictures. Those are pretty easy terms for such a unique and valuable gift. If he had not offered, I would have gotten one of the Virginias from Ironshipwrights (a pretty significant financial investment). If multiple models are requested after I make the presentation, I might have to get a resin hull from the Ironshipwright. If I had any molding skills of my own, I would trick out that wood hull with deck fittings, weapon bases, hatches, texture, etc and then make a master so I could cast more than one hull if I needed.

Wood hull or a resin cast of the wood master, she's going to be pretty. That's all I can say

A few fun questions are going to be:

Blue or red hull?

Should I try to include Mk110s? There is space...

Underwater detail

What parts to panel with ECMS material and where to leave it off?

What should the hanger exterior shape be and how should the doors be arranged?

You know, these are only some of the fun details that make a cool model. It has to be good, because it will make it into a proposal to the Chief of Naval Operations.

[HvyCgn9]

A CGN-42 model will look very cool mate! If I wasn't doing an upgraded 1/72scale USS California I would have considered doing an upgraded CGN-42 with VLS and all the bells'N'whistles!
After USS California is more complete (IE at the running stage and have room 2 start another hull ) I'm going 2 do that 1/72 Hybrid 8" CLG Helicopter cruiser still drawin up some ideas on paper before I cut any wood for her. I'm shipbucket illiterate so no chance of drawing it there!!

Cheers Bruce

PS from what i have read the mk26 launcher was prone 2 jamming as well as being bulky.

[navydavesof]

A CGN-42 model will look very cool mate!

I hope so, too!

If I wasn't doing an upgraded 1/72scale USS California I would have considered doing an upgraded CGN-42 with VLS and all the bells'N'whistles!

Great minds think alike.

I'm going 2 do that 1/72 Hybrid 8" CLG Helicopter cruiser still drawin up some ideas on paper before I cut any wood for her. I'm shipbucket illiterate so no chance of drawing it there!!

Hmmm. That's interesting. Are you talking about the Newport News upgrade we were talking about a few months ago (CAH-148) in the Modernized Des Moines and Salem thread?

I would be happy to help you out with that if you would like. I have thought about how to put a workable hanger and flight deck across the stern of the ship while taking into account all of the weight issues associated with removing something as heavy as an 8" turret. I have a resource that has the original conversion plans we could reference. I simply need to convince him to get them reduced and scanned if we want to do a loyal interpretation. From what he says it was going to be nearly a copy of the hanger that was supposed to go on the DDH version of the Spruance-class (an elongated Spruance hanger) at the end of the super structure. If you would like, we could discuss it to produce what the ship may have actually looked like.

Let me know, sir!


Cheers Bruce

PS from what i have read the mk26 launcher was prone 2 jamming as well as being bulky.[/quote]

[navydavesof]

So, hangers.

These three different styles offer three different ways to open the helicopter hanger.

Spruance/Ticonderoga style?

Burke style?

LCS-2 style?

I think two doors are necessary one way or the other. These provide different methods of storage as well. The Spruance/Ticonderoga style has one bay where both birds are hanging out together. The doors slide open, and you can get them out with either muscle or RAST.

The Burke has two hangers and two doors, because the aft VLS arrangement forces them apart.

LCS has two hanger doors, one for Seahawks and the other for the UAVs. Helos and UAVs can both be carried in any of these combinations, so no one seems to offer more mission capability than the other. In this configuration I would split the hanger into Helicopters in the bigger hanger and UAVs in the smaller one. There would be an interior bulkhead separating the two as a fire and fragment boundary, and it would offer another bulkhead to store equipment, tools, lighting, and Sports Illustrated fold outs.

Any ideas?

[Russ2146]

Points for consideration:
1. the side to side sliders would be sturdier than the accordian vertical and thus less subject to damage because of relatively weaker accordian hinges, but a significant dent from the exterior would render the slider un-slidable. At the same time, a like force against the accordian door is more likely to result in damage to hanger contents. Question: Can an accordian be made as strong as the exterior bulkheads?
2. the rollers/guide rails of both types are weak points, though the rollers/guiderails of side sliders are generally sturdier than accordian.
3. the accordian impacts onthe vertical (height) of the door opening/hanger. The side slider impacts on the width of the door opening, unless multiple panel doors are used.

In either case, a 1/3 - 2/3 door arrangement is preferable for reasons previously mentioned.

[Russ2146]

Contract For Modern Long Range Anti-Ship Missile
About time. As has been mentioned many times on the blog, the US Navy has a lot of shooters under, on, and over the sea; but the real problem is the Navy doesn't have enough bullets. I think this is positive news.


Lockheed Martin Corp is to develop within 2 1/2 years a new long-range anti-ship missile, the Defense Department said on Wednesday.

The work falls under a $157.7 million contract from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, which has been responsible for some of the Pentagon's biggest technology breakthroughs, including the Internet's precursor.

The goal is to develop rapidly and demonstrate a ship-launched weapon that can knock out other ships "at significant stand-off ranges," an item in the Pentagon's daily contract digest said, without elaborating.

The work is expected to be completed by April 2013 in a joint effort between DARPA and the Office of Naval Research, the announcement said.
This isn't the first step, rather the phase of the development process where they actually build a missile. The design phase for the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) began last July.

That is still very rapid development though. Is the DoD procurement system even capable of effectively producing a guided weapon system in only a few years without the pressures of a war going on? Why is it always the Navy that is rushing procurement in exceedingly fast time frames?

These are rhetorical questions, but feel free to comment anyway.

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... qus_thread

[HvyCgn9]

Yes its the Des Moines Class CGH Hybrid version I proposed. Have 2 versions in on my ideas sheets at the moment the one discussed and a more radical version with Angled flightdeck (ala A US Kiev with Big Guns ) but I'm still leaning toward the 1st version for simplest construction, the model will work out nearly as long as My 1/72 USS Long Beach but will be beamier across the stern ( will probably sponson the flightdeck a little for more width)

Sorry for the Thread hijack mate!
Now back 2 the CGN-42 Discussion!!

Cheers Bruce

[ex-navy]

dave,
Look at this photo of the JMSDF ATAGO it has the two door arrangement one smaller then the other.

also go with the red hull just call me old fashion... I don't like the blue...