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

[navydavesof]

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...

From what I can find while the structure looks like a double hanger, it's actually single.

BUT, that does not matter. I have been able to find some great pictures of of the interior of the hanger, and that helps me understand some of the interior requirements of hangers for my upcoming builds.

I agree. Red hull is going to look nice.

[JasonW]

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

1.jpg

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.

I'm thinking, maybe the new 1/700 Cyberhobby Virginia would be a good starting point for the CGN-42? I had bought three with this in mind. Basic hull shape seems to look similar, not sure about overall length.

[navydavesof]

I'm thinking, maybe the new 1/700 Cyberhobby Virginia would be a good starting point for the CGN-42? I had bought three with this in mind. Basic hull shape seems to look similar, not sure about overall length.

So am I! Since the only alterations to the ship were to be in the super structure, I think the hull is exactly right in all respects. Keep in mind we are talking about the Aegis Virginias, not the strike cruiser based on the Long Beach. It would be a great place to start

[navydavesof]

I am wavering back and forth between enclosed or open boatdeck. DDG-51s where RCS reduction is taken very seriously, boats are still being stored on open boat decks. For simplicity I am leaning toward leaving them exposed. Should we try to take a stealthy step forward and put them in an enclosed hanger?

[HvyCgn9]

There R pro's an Con's for both enclosing the boats or leaving them exposed. R you having modern style 26'-30' RhIB's or the Virginia's original 40' workboats?? (PROS)If its RhIBs then I'd go enclosed boat hangers.(CONS) added expense of changing the existing design.
The other thing is how stealthy can a 10,000ton CGN be??But
She would look cool with a Burke style superstructure fwd without the funnels plenty of room for hanger/ VLS battery depending on positioning of said bits.

Cheers Bruce

PS:: If my memory is correct the D2G reactors used in the CGN's ( except CGN-9) were the same as the S2G's used in some of the attack sub class's shouldn't be 2 hard 2 fit a updated sub reactor (what ever the Virginia class SSN's use would be perfect symmetry I think!!) in 2 the CGN hull.

[carr]

I am wavering back and forth between enclosed or open boatdeck. DDG-51s where RCS reduction is taken very seriously, boats are still being stored on open boat decks. For simplicity I am leaning toward leaving them exposed. Should we try to take a stealthy step forward and put them in an enclosed hanger?

This design is based on the Virginia hull which had the built-in stern hangar. Here's a wild thought... What about making the RHIBs waterline stern launched like the LCSs? The room (an empty hangar) is already there. I'd envision a slide-down, drive-up ramp like the Cyclones so that RHIBs could be launched and recovered very quickly with no need for cranes. Just a thought.

[navydavesof]

This design is based on the Virginia hull which had the built-in stern hangar. Here's a wild thought... What about making the RHIBs waterline stern launched like the LCSs? The room (an empty hangar) is already there.

I am not positive, but the weapons were swapped around on the CGN-42s than the originial Virginias (CGN-38s) to a more appropriate arrangement of 5" on the outsides and Mk26 on the insides as opposed to what the Virginias had, 5" inside and Mk26 outside. I am also pretty sure that in addition to properly arranging the weapons and a hanger included in the superstructure, there was no more below deck hanger in the CGN-42 design. While I am not sure, because I don't have any interior drawings of CGN-42, I cannot be sure. However, it would lead one to believe that the hanger would have been replaced already with decks, spaces, and partial 5" magazine. In our case more of the 8" magazine would be in the space of the hanger on the Virginias.

So, the question would be, would a boat deck in the stern interfere with steering machinery? Since the hanger was in the original design, probably not. Would it interfere with an 8" magazine or handling equipment? With the depth the boat deck would be...possibly but not sure. It is an interesting idea though.

Being a small boat guy, I have to say that the prospect of deploying from the stern of a ship like you do on a PC instead of having a bunch of boatswain's mates banging your boat against the side of the ship, some chief or warrent officer yelling and screming at half of deck division doing nothing but making things worse, and the greatly reduced time involved in a launch would be nice.

[navydavesof]

There R pro's an Con's for both enclosing the boats or leaving them exposed. R you having modern style 26'-30' RhIB's or the Virginia's original 40' workboats?? .

We don't use the old work boats on combatants any more and there is no reason to go back to them. I would suggest either 7meter boats, 9meter close cabin, and or 11meters.

(PROS)If its RhIBs then I'd go enclosed boat hangers.(CONS) added expense of changing the existing design..

There would not be much of a cost to a redesign. So much of the design would be reworked that enclosed hangers would be selected on utility. I am leaning toward leaving them exposed since those are so successful today. Something to continue to think about.

The other thing is how stealthy can a 10,000ton CGN be??But
She would look cool with a Burke style superstructure fwd without the funnels plenty of room for hanger/ VLS battery depending on positioning of said bits..

The Burke style might go well with a Burke theme, but the above design with only few added angles would be added. But I agree, it will look beautiful.

Cheers Bruce

PS:: If my memory is correct the D2G reactors used in the CGN's ( except CGN-9) were the same as the S2G's used in some of the attack sub class's shouldn't be 2 hard 2 fit a updated sub reactor (what ever the Virginia class SSN's use would be perfect symmetry I think!!) in 2 the CGN hull.

Oh, my that's a little ambitious I believe . Two Virginia reActors would way overpower that ship! What has been proposed for the CGNX is installing one half of the Ford CVN plant (one high-yield reactor). This also reduces if not eliminates reactor design costs and would likely give the ship a reactor that would last it's entire life of 35-40 years. This sounds very good to me.

[Russ2146]

Is it me, orhas something changed??

[navydavesof]

Is it me, orhas something changed??

ddg-109 Hanger doors.jpg

...the people look smaller?

[Russ2146]

Like I said, maybe its me and too many pictures of the LCS hanger doors.

[navydavesof]

I was scaling out the line drawing I found of the CGN-42 just for reference today, and she's going to be big. Next to the battleships, she's going to be the biggest ship I will have made.

Length 20.1 inches

Beam: 2.16 inches

There will be glory.

What say you, the reader, after what I am sure is ponderous thought, do you think about the stern boat ramp, open hanger, or enclosed hangers? I like all three, but I am hung on variables concerning all three. The cool options are the 1) stern boat deck and 2) enclosed hanger. Another cool one would be: 3) side boat deck like on LCS-2. If you look near the water-line at the stern you can see it. It's a pocket on the side of the ship that swings a crane out.

The side boat deck has proved problematic, and the ship still has to top and crane the boat into the water.

If possible the stern boat deck would be great. I just don't know if it would work with the CGN-42 design yet.

Hmmmm.... hmmmmm...

[Russ2146]

On the side location, I think I read that the launch time was something like 45 minutes. Also, is that an 11m boat? Doesn't look like it. Could the that mechanism be adapted? Incredible that you have to stop the ship to launch a boat.

Stern ramp seems like it would be faster, though you'd probably still have to slow the ship to minimize wake. The stern launch with a hanger would make servicing the boats a lot easier than it is on an open deck. Boats? Yeah, I hear you need two.

Would there be enough overhead to get a Mark V or two in there?

[navydavesof]

On the side location, I think I read that the launch time was something like 45 minutes. Also, is that an 11m boat?

I don't think either one. 45 minutes is probably for a novice crew, and I don't know, but I think it's a 7 meter work boat. The crane could probably handle an 11 meter, but the alcove might be an issue.

Incredible that you have to stop the ship to launch a boat.

Okay, a lot of words on small boat operations. I know, it sounds easy, but launching boats can be pretty hard, and it is always very dangerous. People can be broken, crushed, or killed any time. San Antonio lost a sailor to small boat ops.

http://www.caaflog.com/2010/11/08/uss-s ... acquitted/

Wake and the ship's crews' in ability to lower a boat on the level, the boat crew's ability to start the engines quickly enough to begin making way with the ship, unhooking the at least two lines attaching the boat to the crane, all while dealing with the ship's wake makes things very, very hard. You can get thrown over the side, front, or stern, or get crushed or decapitated between the boat and the ship.

Even the stern ramps on PCs and well decks are hard to deal with. The stern ramp you have to race up onto, quickly cut your engines, and hope you can secure the boat fast enough on the ramp so you don't slide off back into the water. This is very dangerous.

Launching or recovering from a well deck while the ship is underway is kind of wild and fun, but getting back in the deck while it's underway is a real challenge and scary. It requires a lot of focus on the boat crew's part, because things can go bad quickly. Driving into a moving well deck is like having the belt stopped while you are running on a treadmill. Once you get inside the well deck, you fly forward, because the water in the well deck is nearly still. Your forward movement to over take the ship goes from just barely overtaking it to the combined speed of keeping up with overtaking.

Even that being said, the US Navy does not usually have the courage to make way with a flooded well deck. The British have no problem with it, though. The boat deck would be even more unforgiving, because you are trying to drive onto ramps while dealing with the wash. You could deploy them, and the ship would look like it's pooping out boats, but getting back in would be really, really scary, especially in a little boat deck like LCS-1 has.

This leads me to believe that underway recovery in a boat deck like LCS-1 has would have to be done at very slow speeds. Trying to accurately make it into a cradle, straight and true without being at an angle or not going far enough or going too far up, is hard, especially underway.

Stern ramp seems like it would be faster, though you'd probably still have to slow the ship to minimize wake.

Yes, there is no doing 15+ knots and safely deploying or recovering boats from a well deck. A ramp would be pretty dangerous. You can easily lose someone over the bow of the boat as he tries to unhook the line holding you to the ramp winch.

Would there be enough overhead to get a Mark V or two in there?

lol stop that! Mk5s are too big. That's 82' in length, so your bay would have to be 90-95' to house service them. I don't think even an LSD could actually handle one. It might fit, but working it...I doubt it

So all of that said...deck crane or stern ramp ...still working on it!

[carr]

On the side location, I think I read that the launch time was something like 45 minutes. ... 45 minutes is probably for a novice crew...

That is the correct reported time from extensive experience with the LCS side launches. The Navy is reportedly looking at redesigning the side launch equipment. Along with every other aspect of the LCS, this was another case of designing on paper and building without trying it first.

I'm undoubtedly missing the realities of the stern launch but I would think that the recovery would be analogous to RASTing in a helo: toss a line to the RHIB and winch 'em up the recovery ramp. It ought to be quick, easy, and safe. Wake effects would, of course, have to be minimized by slowing the ship.

The launch/recovery method you choose might kind of depend on how you anticipate the boats being used. If you think they'll be used tactically (SOF, boardings, etc.) you probably want the fastest launch/recovery method you can. On the other hand, if you think they'll be used just as a utility boat (ferry passengers/cargo) then launch speed and convenience are less important.

Personally, with no actual experience to back this up, I'd pick a stern launch. I've seen too many pictures of boats hanging vertically by one line because something went wrong.

And finally, with the example of the rocket propelled chainsaw to inspire us, there's always the option of developing the rocket propelled RHIB launcher, much like the circus act of shooting a man out of a cannon. You can either fire the RHIB with crew already on board (a wild ride!) or launch the RHIB unmanned and then use the Mk160 Fire Control System to shoot the crew out of a low powered cannon and drop them onto the RHIB. Either way, I figure the RHIB should be fully deployed and crewed in under 60 seconds.

Regards,
Bob

[carr]

And finally, with the example of the rocket propelled chainsaw to inspire us, there's always the option of developing the rocket propelled RHIB launcher, much like the circus act of shooting a man out of a cannon. You can either fire the RHIB with crew already on board (a wild ride!) or launch the RHIB unmanned and then use the Mk160 Fire Control System to shoot the crew out of a low powered cannon and drop them onto the RHIB. Either way, I figure the RHIB should be fully deployed and crewed in under 60 seconds.

I called the CNO and received permission to post this photo I took while my company was aboard and conducting underway testing of the new, and just now declassified, Mk1 Mod0 Cannon-RHIB And Personnel (CRAP) launcher.

As with any new system, there were initial bugs that had to be worked out. Originally, the RHIB crew was spec'ed at 17 per boat to allow for some expected attrition during the launch but with the installation of reinforced seat belts that's been reduced to a current launch attrition rate of about 20%.

The next version, Mk1 Mod1 CRAP Launcher, will have a 6-RHIB magazine for rapid tactical swarm launches. We're also working on a modified RHIB that will have extendable airfoils that will provide a glide capability thus enabling Over-the-Horizon RHIB deployments.

[Cliffy B]

Pure comedic gold Carr!!!

[Russ2146]

In order to avoid wheel reinvention, a look to the past might be in orde here.

How about stern bay, slow appropriately, pay out a line/cable with a curious device on the end. The RHIB approaches the device from dead astern and hooks on. The device is then hauled in.

Add a couple of IR lights to each side for night work.
Boat crew would know they are hooked on if, when revving down, the RHIB maintained the speed of the pick-up vessel. The ship crew would know that hook-up had been achieved when additional strain was sensed on the line/cable.

Too low tech???

[navydavesof]

God that's, cool. At least the launcher has balls.

[navydavesof]

The seaplane technique is quite the good idea. I had not thought that one through because foreign matter in the water such as tow lines which is what this would be are not boat friendly. It's a bad prospect when dealing with propellers and jet drive. Other than that it sounds like a fantastic method and should be practiced and refined! That way you can cut your engines and just be pulled in.

The issue we would have to address is how to get the line out to the boat. Some sort of cart that holds the line several feet off the surface so the boat crew can grab the line without having to lean out of the boat too far. The cart would need a tether of it's own, but that's easy as it can be. The crew would grab the tether and tie it to a cleat or Ballard on the bow, and in the boat could be hauled.

Nice idea, Bob!