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

HvyCgn9 · Post by **HvyCgn9** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:22 am

If your going for RCS reduction for the ships boats the enclosed style would be the way to go mate. Really like the Stealthed mk71 turret that looks sweet!! Any drawings for it??

Cheers Bruce

navydavesof · Post by **navydavesof** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:07 am

HvyCgn9 wrote:If your going for RCS reduction for the ships boats the enclosed style would be the way to go mate. Really like the Stealthed mk71 turret that looks sweet!! Any drawings for it??

Cheers Bruce

Hey, Bruce!

Well, that's why I am so torn. The stealthy value is very much in question. The most advanced Arleigh Burkes, the DDG-51 Flight IIAs, are our most stealthy ships to date, and they still have their boats fully exposed. Even with that said the Burkes are still no bigger than a fishing trawler on radar so, I don't really get the full benefit of enclosing the boats. There is not too much of a maintenance issue with the boats staying outside, either so weather is not that big of a deal.

Concerning the reduced RCS Mk71, I designed the gun shield, and then I commissioned a master to be made so I can have as many resin copies as I might need. So yes I have drawings.

I also came into possession of some of the original drawings of the DDG-51s when they were going to be fitted to fire the Deadeye 5-inch semi-active laser guided projectile (SAL-GP). The difference in the appearance of the DDG-51s was that there was a long range laser designator mounted forward of the forward SPG-62 illuminator. I will include a laser designator similar to this in the CGN build since laser guided rounds are an integral part of the anti-surface feature of the Mk71 MCLWG weapon system.

Thanks!

Cliffy B · Post by **Cliffy B** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:15 pm

I'd say enclose them so that you get the deck space back. No its not on the same level as the boats but its still a nice flat area that can take anything that doesn't penetrate the deck. Nice spot for some 25mms, SRBOC, Phalanx?, RAM?, etc...

Bill Liebold · Post by **Bill Liebold** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:25 pm

Cliffy B has a point. More deck space for some added fire power is a good thing. But then again, if you add 7m boats and stack them over 11m boats like some of the DDGs have there boats stacked it would make for an interesting looking model. Then you have to add all of the stuff you need to handle and stow the boats. More STUFF make a model look better to me. I could be alone here but I'm more interested in how good a model looks than how functional the real ship is or was.

Bill

navydavesof · Post by **navydavesof** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:52 am

Bill Liebold wrote:Cliffy B has a point. More deck space for some added fire power is a good thing. But then again, if you add 7m boats and stack them over 11m boats like some of the DDGs have there boats stacked it would make for an interesting looking model. Then you have to add all of the stuff you need to handle and stow the boats. More STUFF make a model look better to me. I could be alone here but I'm more interested in how good a model looks than how functional the real ship is or was.

Bill

I agree. It does offer more deck space, but the exposed boats do offer a far more interesting model. If I were to do enclosed boat decks I would have to make one of the decks open so you could see inside

So...I just thought of this one: teak or no teak?

I was thinking like Long Beach. Oh yeah.

Bill Liebold · Post by **Bill Liebold** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:42 am

Teak or no teak? Wow, teak sounds a little spendy in these austere times. I don't think you will have that much of it on the main deck anyway, but I would love to see how you put it off just as a modeling exercise. You will either have to simulate it with paint or add something with grooves to look like planking and add something smooth where there is no planking so the deck stays a constant height. How will you work that in around the bow bulwark that is already in place? You'll have to make the bulwarks taller if you add to the deck.

It's your model so It's your call!

Bill

navydavesof · Post by **navydavesof** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:23 am

Bill Liebold wrote:Teak or no teak? Wow, teak sounds a little spendy in these austere times. I don't think you will have that much of it on the main deck anyway, but I would love to see how you put it off just as a modeling exercise. You will either have to simulate it with paint or add something with grooves to look like planking and add something smooth where there is no planking so the deck stays a constant height. How will you work that in around the bow bulwark that is already in place? You'll have to make the bulwarks taller if you add to the deck.

It's your model so It's your call!

Bill

Oh, I should have specified what I meant by "like on Long Beach". It would not on the whole deck, but in a small section. On LB's quarter deck there was a length of teak deck maybe 25-50' long. I am sure there is a Long Beach expert on here that can tell us how long it really was. For CGN-42 I was thinking either a small section, 1/2" x 1/4" on the model's quarter deck or on the bridge wings.

Seasick · Post by **Seasick** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:34 pm

Long Beach had the teak on part of her deck because of Admiral Rickover's influence. The Long Beach was sort of a politically motivated monster. Originally the design of the Long Beach was more like the Bainbridge. She was enlarged to take the Scanfar radar sets and Talos was added and the second Terrier rather than being deleted from the design found itself up front. Rickover tried hard to get Polaris also and she equiped with the launch pads to prevent the polaris from burning a hole in the bottom of the ship when it blasted off. Instead the space was used for a few of the ship's departments and the ASROC launcher on deck. Nobody could get away with a design like that today. There is a picture of the teak section on the Long Beach at the Navy historical center web site.

navydavesof · Post by **navydavesof** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:06 am

Buidling this super structure has been very tricky. However with three attempts under my belt I am starting to get a little better at this part.

Here is the first attempt.

You may ask "what's wrong with that?" Unfortunately, the answer is: it's too big...like way too big.

The third attempt is:

This one is working out a lot better. The shape and size are right. The sides are missing 1 deck, and due to the contour on the port and starboard bulkheads I will replace them with others that are the correct height so the contour matches. Easy day.

navydavesof · Post by **navydavesof** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:47 pm

A little more onthe scratch building front. It's pretty hard making all of these pieces match angled bulkheads.

carr · Post by **carr** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 9:17 pm

Dave,

Those structures are coming together nicely! You're developing quite the skill for it.

Just as an alternative method, I build superstructures by assembling solid pieces of styrene with 0.25x0.25 strip being my main component although I use whatever size is necessary. Once the basic building block is assembled, I simply grind/file/sand the faces to the desired angle. Of course, I've got a small circular power sander which makes quick and accurate work of producing the faces.

I'm really enjoying watching this build develop. Keep going!

navydavesof · Post by **navydavesof** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:53 am

Slow progress, but progress toward learning. I have the basic structures built, but I think I can only use the helo hanger. It turns out I have a scaling program and some pieces cut where they should not be resulting in missing bulkheads, etc. It would just be better to fix all of these problems by building a new forward super structure. So this work has been more of a learning process for me and this coming weekend will result in another structure.

Nevertheless progress is in practice.

This structure is of the original CGN-42. This is really helping me flesh out what the modern Reduced Cross Section (RCS) structure will look like and how much room there really is for the boats, etc.

This is one of the best learning projects I have had in a while. I can only imagine what I will be able to do in the near future.

HvyCgn9 · Post by **HvyCgn9** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:32 am

Once you've done this small version you will have to build yourself a big RC version! Your superstructure looks great mate!!

Cheers Bruce

navydavesof · Post by **navydavesof** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:14 pm

HvyCgn9 wrote:Once you've done this small version you will have to build yourself a big RC version! Your superstructure looks great mate!!

Cheers Bruce

Hey, Bruce, you know, that's an interesting idea. I cannot make a 1:72 ship for the next several years; I have no where to put it. However I was just thinking, what if I just made the super structure and weapons layout with the ship's foot print laid out? I bet I could do that at some point. That would actaully be pretty cool, and I could utilize a lot of parts you guys at your R/C club use.

By the way, I know you have told me a number of times, but I never can get there. Where can I browse a parts list for parts in 1/72 such as the SPGs, VLS, etc? A lot of your stuff on Long Beach is really cool looking, and I would like to buy one and look at it in person.

Thanks, Bruce! More updates to come.

navydavesof · Post by **navydavesof** » Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:00 am

So, work continues on the CGN-42. The super structure will resemble what is already made. The only differences will be angled super structure, possible changes in face shape to accommodate larger SPY arrays, and a different boat arrangement on the sides.

76mm guns will be on each side of the super structure both forward and aft in �shoulder� and �hip� positions for small boat defense. There is a question about RAM though.

I had been thinking about putting both RAM and Phalanx CIWS both on port and starboard, forward and aft, but there is an option of forward and aft as well. What do you think? Should there be a RAM mount forward and aft instead? Should there be a Phalanx CIWS forward and aft instead?

The aft mount would be on the stern just like on the Spruance-class, just off the starboard side and right on the rail.

What do you think?

SumGui · Post by **SumGui** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:12 am

I love the 76mm (ala Audace/De La Penne - love those ships...), and with them amidships, My first thought would be to locate RAM amidships and Phalanx Forward and Aft.

This allows RAM and the 76mm's to be available on the same threat bearing, and Phalanx to be available on the forward and aft bearings the 76mm are not.

Steppenrig · Post by **Steppenrig** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:13 am

navydavesof wrote: By the way, I know you have told me a number of times, but I never can get there. Where can I browse a parts list for parts in 1/72 such as the SPGs, VLS, etc? A lot of your stuff on Long Beach is really cool looking, and I would like to buy one and look at it in person.

Thanks, Bruce! More updates to come.

Theres a small company in Australia that makes 1:72 fittings and hulls, APS models. His work is very popular. He doesn't have a website.

Dave.

navydavesof · Post by **navydavesof** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:09 am

Steppenrig wrote:Theres a small company in Australia that makes 1:72 fittings and hulls, APS models. His work is very popular. He doesn't have a website.

The problem is that it's really hard to get in touch with someone without a website, catalogue, or contact information. I am sure someone can get in touch with him, and there has to be a gallery on line of his pieces. That's what I would be interested in later on.

Thanks for the interest!

navydavesof · Post by **navydavesof** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:37 am

Alright, so after a MONTH since my last constructive post, I have concluded on a number of things concerning the CGN-42.

- Deck mounted (exposed) amidships boat deck
- Slightly altered super structure from the originally designed CGN-42 super structure to reduce its radar cross section
- The helicopter and UAV hanger (port UAV hanger, starboard twin helicopter hanger)
- Internal Mk32 torpedo tubes
- Placement of the NULKA and SRBOC equipment

The things I am still working out as I build the new super structure is where the Phalanx and RAM go. I thank the people for the input they have supplied so far.

Above anything else I would like to thank my partner in crime on this model who built the hull form. I appreciate his patience in my sloooow progress in this project. However, I am very pleased to get back into the modeling. The last month has been amazingly busy about this place. I look forward to sitting down at the work table and cutting more plastic!!!

I can't wait, and I really look forward to sharing the next step.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 9:16 am

I have been reading this thread and im very much enjoying it. I was stationed on the USS Virginia from 91 thru decomissioning. We were all very sad to see her go. The CNO at the time Admiral Kelso attended the deactivation ceremony and he said it looked more like a comissioning. She was a good ship. Regarding your discussion of the highspeed rattle she had, a friend of mine at the time took a video and just recently posted it on facebook . Anyway, i really like your model. I too have read everything i can find on cgn-42 and modified virginia. i have created my own version that i call CSGN-138. Its is a Streched Virginia hull to accomidate a helo deck and the SPY-1 combat system is added.

The Ship Model Forum

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

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42

Re: CGN-42