What-If CSGN-138 final

[CSGN138]

Hi again evrybody, its been too long...

Ive been studing up on CGx and DDx and CGN42 and anything else i can find about future ship. I desided to design my ship based on the Virgina CGN-38 hull. While i liked my first design, i decided it looked dated. I read in the CGx program the navy was considering a stealthy version like the DDX ship and another design that would be much bigger and less stealthy. The less stealthy, more conventional designs is what i wanted to play with. Altho not as stealthy as the DDX i incorpated the RCS reducing design of the Burk Class. I like how it turned out, and i hope you all will give your feed back

Here are some theoretical specs


Class and type:

Virgina Class - Strike Cruiser



Displacement:17,550

Length:745ft 10in

Beam:86 ft 10 in

Draft: 30 ft 7 in

Propulsion:

2 � Westinghouse A2W nuclear reactors
2 x Steam turbine Electric generators
2 x Electric Propulsion Motors 85,000 SHP
2 � controllable-reversible pitch propellers
2 � rudders
4 x Emergency Gas turbine generators
Speed: 30 + Knots



Range:Unlimited distance; 20-25 years





Complement:375 Officers and men





Sensors and processing systems:


AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar (MFR) (X-band, scanned array)
AN/SPS-49 air search radar
AN/SPG-62 fire control radar
AN/SPS-73 surface search radar
AN/SPQ-9 gun fire control radar
AN/SQQ-89(V)3 Sonar suite, consisting of
AN/SQS-53B/C/D active sonar
AN/SQR-19 TACTAS passive sonar
AN/SQQ-28 light airborne multi-purpose system
AN/SLQ-32 Electronic Warfare Suite






Armament:

� 2 � MK 57 VLS modules, with a total of 170 launch cells
RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), 4 per cell
Tactical Tomahawk, 1 per cell
Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Rocket (ASROC), 1 per cell
Mix of RIM-66M-5 Standard SM-2MR Block IIIB, RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV, RIM-161 SM-3, RIM-162A ESSM, RIM-174A Standard ERAM, BGM-109 Tomahawk, or RUM-139A

� 2 � 155 mm Advanced Gun System
920 � 155 mm rounds total; 600 in automated store + Auxiliary store room with up to 320 rounds (non-automatic) as of April 2005
70�100 LRLAP rounds planned as of 2005 of total





Aircraft carried:
4 x SH-60 Sea Hawk helicopters
or
4x F-35B
or a combination of the two




Motto:

"In God we trust, all others we track"



i will be doing more pictures and will post as the are finished.

Comments/suggestions welcome

[CSGN138]

I have no Idea how this was attributed to a guest...I was signed in and everything when i posted it...

Anyway, I'm going to attempt to build this in 1/350. Im guessing ill have to do a lot from scratch. Anybody have any good suggestions for kits or anything where i can get 1/350 fixtures?

[GTDEATH13]

This is really very interesting... Will you be building your hull or have you found anything to start with?

Veteran models make some superb modern US Navy fittings. CIWS, helicopters, harpoon missiles, deck fittings, RHIBs...

In my opinion a good starting point would be a DML Spruance or Tico kit... You can lengthen the hull and widen it enough to provide you space for all the things you are planning...

[CSGN138]

I was thinking about a tyco, i had one a long time ago, and it was decent. I need to find a 1/350 burke class because i stole most of the forward superstructure from the burke. As for the hull, i think ill try from scratch, probably talking on a lot for my first custom build....

Thank you for the suggestions. i will into those tonight.

[CSGN138]

Does anybody ever use cardboard to mock up the model? I was thinking about it and it seems like a pretty good idea. I could use the cardboard pieces as templates for the plastic, right?

[Bill Liebold]

CSGN-138,

Yes, cardboard is a good way to play with shapes to work out what you are looking for. There are some guys that use pieces from card models as templates to make plastic models.

Bill

[CSGN138]

OK, I am going to try the cardboard thing. First I am trying to draw some "plans" in 1/350. Im trying to figure out some dimensions. Im not sure if decks are 8 feet tall, but thats what i used, then measured the hull out in 8 foot sections and came up with 680 feet. Taking into account that the ship is not at a straight on view i figure somewhere between 700 and 725 feet. So then i calcuated that should be somewhere around 25 inches in 1/350.

Are my calculations close? I really want to get this thing going. I know its a lot to ask being that the design came from my head, but would anyone like to check me estimates? it would be a ton of help. I realise this is a "what if" but id like to make it as realistic as possible.

Thanks for viewing

Joe

[CSGN138]

Hi Everybody. I was wondering if I got my AMDR right. Ive seen a few renditions and it looks different every time. As far as i can tell there are three sets of arrays (NOT 4 like spy) right?? Am also wondering a couple things about AGS. First, does it look like Ive drawn it correctly and to scale? And secondly,As far as i can tell, AGS is really meant for shore bombardment. Im not really sure you would want this type of ship doing that job

What do you all think? any input will be considered and appreciated

Thank you

Joe

[Seasick]

AGS has the primary mission of shore bombardment but it does have an anti-ship capability which isn't very technically challenging and gets less attention. The gun is finalized and built for the first 2 ships. After the first ship comissions and joins the fleet they will most likely do well in their first deployments. If thats so the delay in ABurke Flight III will result in a few more DDG-1000 being built. I suspect it will top out at about five or six ships.

[navydavesof]

If thats so the delay in ABurke Flight III will result in a few more DDG-1000 being built. I suspect it will top out at about five or six ships.

That's an interesting idea. The DDG-51 Flight IIIs are going to be AAW/BMD primary ships utilizing AMDR. DDG-1000s are land attack platforms with minimal self defense capabilities. Why would they substitute land attack platforms with minimal self defense systems in place of AMDR AAW/BMD ships?

Another complication is that the DDG-1000s are already spilling over $3.2 billion a piece, which is significantly more expensive than the Flight IIIs are supposed to be.

I would suspect that if the Flight IIIs are delayed the real solution would be to order more Flight IIAs with AMDR software patch with SPY-1D and SPQ-9B (the mod the John Paul Jones is going to get) would be ordered instead. Any ideas?

AGS has the primary mission of shore bombardment but it does have an anti-ship capability which isn't very technically challenging and gets less attention.

As of only three months ago, the anti-surface warfare round for AGS has not been funded or produced yet. Has this changed?

[CSGN138]

Ya know, the more i read about DDG-1000 the more I think that a barge with a shitload of Tomohawk and a battery of artillary would do the same job for a lot less money. I think the Navy is going to be sorry they let cruisers die, and dont get me going about nuclear power haha

I havent really seen a lot about the AGS's antiship capabilites. I'll have to dig into that

[navydavesof]

Ya know, the more i read about DDG-1000 the more I think that a barge with a shitload of Tomohawk and a battery of artillary would do the same job for a lot less money. I think the Navy is going to be sorry they let cruisers die, and dont get me going about nuclear power haha

I havent really seen a lot about the AGS's antiship capabilites. I'll have to dig into that

Yeah, I certainly believe AGS is not the way to go with 155mm ammunition. The 155mm/60caliber version of the Mk71 MCLWG is the only way to go with 155mm ammunition. 155 is great, but it's only great when it can be practically employed. AGS depends on budgets not mattering and money being no object. The 155mm Mk71 would utilize all 155mm ammunition in the inventory and does not depend on special ammunition designed specifically for it. For as Star Trek awesome as AGS is, it will not be long lived gun system.

All of that aside, with your picture, if you do want to use AGS on the stern, the magazine is so large you would need to bring the stern up higher. If you make it flush with the VLS deck you might have enough room to accommodate AGS aft. Man, if you make this model it would be one mean looking ship! I am moving along on CGN-42. In my group of future projects is a Ticonderoga-class replacement cruiser based on the CGBL. My drawings bare a little similarity to your ship here.

Great job and keep up the posts!

[CSGN138]

found an interesting article about back fitting AGS to a Spruance hull

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/ ... +Study.pdf

Interesting read

[navydavesof]

found an interesting article about back fitting AGS to a Spruance hull

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/ ... +Study.pdf

Interesting read

Ever since I read this report 3 yeas ago I have always wanted to see a model of it made. I wish they had done drawings in the report. This was another reason why the Sprucans should have been retained.

[navydavesof]

CSGN-138,

Yes, cardboard is a good way to play with shapes to work out what you are looking for. There are some guys that use pieces from card models as templates to make plastic models.

Bill

You know, far be it for me to disagree with Bill. He has a lot more experience in this area than I. However, I have found it possible to lengthen an Arleigh Burke or Spruance hull pretty easily. Either one would work for this project. The only difficult thing would be to lengthen the underwater portion of the hull. If you're going to do a waterline then you don't need that part anyway. Even the AGS guns would be easy to construct. Their large covered gun houses make them an easy task.

I look forward to if you are going to build the ship up in model form. Are you thinking of 1/350 or 1/700?

[CSGN138]

Going to be 1/350. I have started drawing the plans in this scale. Might take me awhile, but i will post progress as I go along. Ive never done anything like this and im pretty excited. Maybe if a do a good job, ill do a bigger remote control version after. Dont want to get to far ahead of my self though.

[Seasick]

The USN is going to retire some Ticonderoga class CG early. USS Port Royal (CG-73) was going anyway. After her grounding in 2009 its been having serious maintainance problems. She was going cuts or no cuts. The other three haven't had cruiser conversion. These four ships are going to be a parts source for the remaining ships. Don't forget the Arleigh Burke class build was extended. The first five Ticonderoga were replaced by 5 Arleigh Burke Flight 2A from the extended build. The first five couldn't have been upgraded to the same capabilities as the Flight 2A Arleigh Burkes.

Lets review fleet strength of cruisers, destroyers, and FFG. Frigates must have an area defense or better AAW to be counted.

USN
Arleigh Burke Flight I, II: 28 ships (Aegis)
Arleigh Burke Flight IIA: 34 ships + 3 building (Aegis)
Ticonderoga (in 2013): 18 ships (Aegis)
Zumwalt 3 building (Dual Frequency: Aegis follow on)
Total = 80 ships + 6 building

Royal Navy:
Type 45 DDG: 5 + 1 building (PAAMS)

French Navy:
Horizon DDG: 2 (PAAMS)
Cassard DDG: 2 (2 FREDA version of FREMM) (Tartar)

Italy:
Horizon DDG: 2 (PAAMS)
Durand De La Penne DDG: 2 (Tartar)

Germany:
Sachen FFG: 3 (area air defense) (PAAMS)

Dutch Navy
De Zeven Provinci�n: 4

Spain:
Bazan: 4 (Aegis)
OHPerry: 6 (marginal area AAW)

Russian Navy (area air defense only)
Project 11442: 1
Project 1164: 3
Project 956: 4
####
Project 1155: 8 (No Area AAW DD)

India:
DDG: 5 (SAM-N-1 Goa)
FFG: 2 (Shtil-1)

PRC:
AAW DDG: 7
DD: 20

NATO without USN AAW total: 31
NATO with USN: 117

Non-NATO (not allied with each other either):
AAW: 22
DD: 28

The USN is fairly solid in the AAW ship department even with some CG going early.

[CSGN138]

Yes, i agree, we have a good amount of AAW ships. Altho the ship Im envisioning can perform AAW as good as any of the other, and preform escort duty when required, that would not be its main job. Im thinking independant strike operations and the like, as well as BMD. If you notice, she is equipted with two SeaArk patrol craft (like the one in the forground) that could be used for antipiracy operations as well as seal insertion. The Air wing could consist of SH-60 as well as F-35C. the area under the helo hangers is also a hanger with elevator access to the flight deck level hanger. It would be a pretty flexable ship.

Also was wondering what you all think about a Ballistic Anti-ship missle? China has developed one to kill carriers. Why not have that capability for the USN? I was thinking like the same size warhead as the MK48. Then design it to penetrate the ship and not exdplode tell it hits sea water, thus killing a ship the same way a torpedo does.

[navydavesof]

Yes, i agree, we have a good amount of AAW ships. Altho the ship Im envisioning can perform AAW as good as any of the other, and preform escort duty when required, that would not be its main job. Im thinking independant strike operations and the like, as well as BMD.

I understand what you mean, but this is what all CGs do. There is nothing different in mission here than what the USS Bunker Hill does. Mid-life upgrade CGs currently accomplish this mission quite definitively.

If you notice, she is equipped with two SeaArk patrol craft (like the one in the foreground) that could be used for antipiracy operations as well as seal insertion.

I am probably the only person on this entire forum who has operated 34' Sea Ark Patrol Boats for real and for a long period of time. Thirty-four foot Sea Arks are probably pretty good for confronting Pirates, but they are not useful for any special operation at all. They are very loud boats, and we were tasked with demonstrating the Sea Ark's capabilities to reps from the Teams. SEALs from Team THREE came down to our boats one day, and within three seconds of them running both reps said, "thanks you're not what we're looking for," and they left. I would suggest choosing RIVRON or SBT boats.

The Air wing could consist of SH-60 as well as F-35C. the area under the helo hangers is also a hanger with elevator access to the flight deck level hanger. It would be a pretty flexible ship.

That's...interesting. So your hanger also descends a deck and half (15') down into the engineering spaces of the hull? That seems like an awful lot of internal space consumed...but then again I cannot criticize, because I am a proponent of below deck hangers like on the WWII CLs and CAs.

Also was wondering what you all think about a Ballistic Anti-ship missle? China has developed one to kill carriers. Why not have that capability for the USN?

Honestly, I think it's kind of useless. You can track an anti-ship BM for whole minutes, and you can plan out your fire control solution very, very well and finally make your shot. A sea-skimming anti-ship missile to me is rediculously hard to shoot down, because it is traveling very, very fast, and it's going about 2.5 times the speed of sound. This is very, very, very hard to track and engage with multiple systems. An ASBM target is a LOT easier to shoot down, so I would not pursue it at all. I would instead pursue a super sonic missile.

I was thinking like the same size warhead as the MK48. Then design it to penetrate the ship and not exdplode tell it hits sea water, thus killing a ship the same way a torpedo does.

On a practical basis, if you want the missile to detonate beneath the ship, a timer would be required to detonate the warhead as opposed to a salt-water sensor. An ASBM would be going so super fast that it would not even realize it had impacted water. The speed makes it difficult, and you would have to harden the missile warhead and sensors so well so it could detect salt water. That would be very, very hard. What is a lot easier is a timer to detonate in the water.

While SeaSick makes a good point that the US has a LOT more good AAW ships than the rest of the world, that actually does not matter at all. What matters is: how many ships are going to be sent to an AOR. Sure the Navy can have 80 CG/DDGs, but if they are spread around the world like they are you actually, you can only have 2-3 in an AOR. So the group might meet a large portion of the Chinese or Indian Navy amounting to 7 AAW and 8 anti-ship missile shooters, the opposing group out guns us by 9-10 really good ships. What you have in the area is what matters, not just total numbers.

Could you better define the missions of your CSGN? That would help most of us really quantify what the ship needs to do.

[Timmy C]

Dave, I'm fairly certain that ASBMs, like other ballistic missiles, have hypersonic reentry speeds - much faster than your typical ASCMs. It's what makes them so scary for the Americans and why the Chinese are pursuing it. If not for the speed, its only advantage over ASCMs would be range, which alone is not worth the Chinese investing so much effort into if countering them is as easy as you say.