What-If CSGN-138 final

[navydavesof]

I was checking that out last night. I cant believe nobody has built the 1/350 Virginia from Iron shipwrights.

I understand. I got my hands on one, and it is not worth buying. Please don't buy it. If you super want to use that hull, we can work something out.

I'd ;ike to come accross something like that from morden ship. Like vls's and guns and such like that.

I understand. There is such a lack of parts out there that I had a bunch commissioned. They are fantastic, and I am ashamed I have not finished more models so the pieces can be showcased. CGN-42 is almost done, so that is going to be a very happy moment for me when I get her out and up on the site with all of these parts showcased.

I was thinking about maybe seeing if i could find a heavy cruiser hull of about 700-800 scale feet. Do you think that would work, or are the shapes going to be way off for a morden hull? I will probably end up using a tyco or spru can hull, the length and with will be close and will have the details like praire masker and that kind of stuff.

This is an issue I have addressed, too. For a modern CA I have come to the conclusion that if I were to make it with plastic and not try to make my own, I would make it out of a stretched and widened Spruance/Tico hull. When you widen it, you can tip the deck edge out further than the waterline so it has the angled hull shape.

Also I may need the newest TYCO model that has all the COMSAT domes, cant remember what hull it is but I do remember seeing it for sale on the net somewhere

There is not one with the "latest" domes and such, but you can get them from a DDG. The USS Mobile Bay has some coms domes, but if you get the Trumpeter USS Lassen she comes with modern coms domes. When you get to that point in your build I might be able to help you out with some, too.

So I think my final numbers are going to be 750 feet long by 80 feet wide. does that sound reasonable?

I would go with the length of a Des Moines heavy cruiser, around 700' long. Not saying you can't, I am sure you could push it another 50, but she's starting to get pretty huge!

[Seasick]

All electric is the way to go. First thing that you can avoid is having reduction gears. For many years the reduction gears have solved the problem of steam turbines being most efficient at an RPM way too fast for a propeller. But they can be troublesome and expensive and more importantly noisey. On an all electric grid you have electric motors that turn at the desired rpm. The electric motors have low manning requirements and a longer life span. The USN bought large Diesel alternators for the USS Makin Island. For DDG-1000 Large gas turbines turn alternators that provide a total of 80 megawatts, with large diesel alternators providing energy for ship lighting and other items, but its all connected on the same grid.

The latest generation of large diesel engines would make Dr Diesel very proud. They can be quiet and its hard to hear the tell tale dieseling sound. My first introduction to this generation of diesel was co-workers BMW. Its real fast, tight turning radius, holds the road and is a diesel.

The reason nuclear power is dead on surface ships other than carriers is the fact that operating cost were to high and the utility of the vessel didn't increase enough for it to be acceptable. Part of what did in the surface nuke fleet was the LM-2500 aeroderivitive gas turbine. CVN couldn't outrun the Spruance class or Ticonderoga class ships. Since Spruance class and Ticonderoga didn't need feed water for the boilers more fuel could be carried. Surface nukes were also stuck reprovisioning along side AOE, and AFS ships just as often as Ticos, Spruances and Burkes.

[navydavesof]

The reason nuclear power is dead on surface ships other than carriers is the fact that operating cost were to high and the utility of the vessel didn't increase enough for it to be acceptable....Surface nukes were also stuck reprovisioning along side AOE, and AFS ships just as often as Ticos, Spruances and Burkes.

I am curious how much they actually did and how consequential this is. When they were coming up with the concept of nuclear powered ships I am pretty sure they realized and mediated this. When you remove the refueling aspect, the ship does not need to visit the AOE very often at all. Originally the nuclear powered ships were to be parts of nuclear powered carrier groups. The carrier could (and does in the real world) act in the AOE role as well. Especially now in the modern Navy, the resupply ships are the weak and highly vulnerable point in the battle group.

My point is that if you don't have to resupply for weeks or months at a time, then it's worth having nuclear power. CGs and DDGs have to pull up next to the T-AKE or AOE every few days. Then they all have to pull into port simply for fuel! I would assert that while the overall lifetime costs of nuclear power are greater than a conventionally powered ship, a nuclear powered ship is far more tactically effective than a conventionally powered ship, because it only has to resupply for food (something a CGN can go without resupply for quite some time), and perhaps aviation fuel.

So, CSGN-138, you alluded to your time on the Virginia. How often did you guys resupply from a resupply ship?

[CSGN138]

First off i need to explain that while i was on Virginia all we did was c chase drug runners in the Caribbean. That being said, we would go along side maybe a couple times every month. Mostly for food and or mail. there was a period when they were having some issues with the fresh water makers and we were going along side a lot more. For the most part though, we were doing unrep a lot less than the other ships. Ya know with the rising cost of oil and the dwindling supply i can't even think why we would be thinking about any other means of generating power.

[carr]

..

[Russ2146]

Yes, we are still living with SecDef McNamara.

I saw in the news recently that an Air Force spokesman said, in regard to the F-22 oxygen issue, "the corporate position is......"

[b-man]

if you are looking for parts for this build/project.. pm... I have lots of things you can use..

[navydavesof]

You are making me itchy to use my 1/350 Long Beach for a modern strike cruiser. I already have the super structure down, and I have a Mk57 and Mk41 VLS arrangement, helicopter hanger, and Mk71 MCLWG and Mk110 57mm gun arrangements down. I know exactly how I would arrange the Long Beach in a modern reactivation fit.

You make me want to build a strike cruiser into 2012 schedule, too! Gosh!!! lol

[CSGN138]

I'd love to see it Dave. Also, what are some of the parts you have made? I'm not real impressed with a lot of the radars i have seen. I was an sps 48c tech when i was in, and I've yet to see a really God model of it. The sps 40 & 49 look bad too.

B-man, what kind of pays do you have?

Any body have two tyco or spruance hulls they would part with?

[navydavesof]

I'm not real impressed with a lot of the radars i have seen. I was an sps 48c tech when i was in, and I've yet to see a really God model of it. The sps 40 & 49 look bad too.

The GMM Modern Warship Improved http://www.goldmm.com/ships/gms350-12M.htm PE is really good. It's kind of expensive, but it gives really high quality SPS-10, 40, 48, and 49 in addition to lots of radars, hatches, acom ladders, etc. It's a fantastic set.

Also, what are some of the parts you have made?

We can discuss it in PMs.

Any body have two tyco or spruance hulls they would part with?

Ebay I would suggest that if you want to make a solid representation of what you have in mind, go ahead and invest the money in a kit off e-bay (maybe even 2, one Spruance and one Lassen), get some nice PE like the one above, use an air brush, invest in a good base, and really do this baby up.

First before anything, I think it would be best to get a drawing down as a rough draft so then you can position your pieces before you start cutting plastic. That will give you a pretty tangible example to work with. Then, once you start getting pieces together, you can slide them around next to the drawing and see how they look in 3D. Then, execution.

So, I need to quit being a hypocrite and start working on CGN-42 some more so I can get her done and not just talk about it

[navydavesof]

I'd love to see it Dave.

I am considering it. I already know how to make the CGN-42 super structure, which I think is right for the Long Beach CGSN, and a helo hanger is not very hard to do. I have one designed for the CGBL that would work great here. I think with a surface combatant like this, what would amount to a heavy cruiser, 2 CIWS and 4 RAM mounts would be appropriate. The VLS ESSM is not really working all that great. The "V" part is really messing the missiles up. If the software can't be fixed, I wonder if the Navy will resort to putting Mk29 NATO SSM launchers on future ships to fire ESSMs horizontally instead. If so, allocating space for the Mk29s on board such a ship would be a good idea.

I look forward to your next posting!

[CSGN138]

I'd love to see it Dave.

I am considering it. I already know how to make the CGN-42 super structure, which I think is right for the Long Beach CGSN, and a helo hanger is not very hard to do. I have one designed for the CGBL that would work great here. I think with a surface combatant like this, what would amount to a heavy cruiser, 2 CIWS and 4 RAM mounts would be appropriate. The VLS ESSM is not really working all that great. The "V" part is really messing the missiles up. If the software can't be fixed, I wonder if the Navy will resort to putting Mk29 NATO SSM launchers on future ships to fire ESSMs horizontally instead. If so, allocating space for the Mk29s on board such a ship would be a good idea.

I look forward to your next posting!

Ya know....when I was on Virginia we used to think that the MK-26 would be better at shooting down a close in missle because the missle would actually be aimed at it when fired. Its how we tried to justify our old system compaired to the fancy pants vls cruisers. haha. anyway its a good point, and one i thought abut when i first read of the ESSM. how much time do you loose while the missle is trying to find its target? seems the Mk29 might be a better launcher for a point defence system. Along those same lines, i was thinking if i ever do a modern BB Id have MK-26 on that puppy. I read somewhere that harpoon can be fired from MK26 and altho Ive never heard that before, id like it to be true haha. You cul store Harpoon in that mag, safe and sound below decks. Not to mention you could have a crapload of them

Im going to see if i can buy the kits you mentioned this weekend off e-bay so i can get this thing going.
Also Just for the fun if it, does anybody know if there has ever been a sub and surface ship with the same name, commissioned at the same time? I want to call my ship Virginia, but the navy gave that name to a sub ahaahah

Thats all for now, everyine have a good holliday

Joe

[CSGN138]

Just for fun.....

USS Vincennes MK26

[navydavesof]

Ya know....when I was on Virginia we used to think that the MK-26 would be better at shooting down a close in missle because the missle would actually be aimed at it when fired. Its how we tried to justify our old system compaired to the fancy pants vls cruisers.

I agree. They did have a far better ability to engage close to the ship. The only reason why VL missiles have a minimum engagement range is because they are vertically launched. ESSM has a guidance problem. The VL RAM probably won't make it for the same reason.

how much time do you loose while the missle is trying to find its target? seems the Mk29 might be a better launcher for a point defence system.

I agree, but on the other hand you can carry far more in a VLS arrangement. When the problems are worked out, the VL ESSM will wind up working all the time. However, launchers that can face the incoming threats do have a greater ability to shoot down missiles than ones that have to greatly alter their course to get into a engagement profile.

Along those same lines, i was thinking if i ever do a modern BB Id have MK-26 on that puppy. I read somewhere that harpoon can be fired from MK26 and altho Ive never heard that before, id like it to be true haha.

I know they could fire ASROCs in addition to the SM-2MRs, but I am not sure about Harpoons. The Mk13 launchers, though, those could fire Harpoons for sure. The Mk13 magazine can also fit in the 5" mounts on the BBs with ample space.

Also Just for the fun if it, does anybody know if there has ever been a sub and surface ship with the same name, commissioned at the same time? I want to call my ship Virginia, but the navy gave that name to a sub ahaahah

I have wondered the same thing. In an alternate history story I have been contrinuting to, I am considering having the USS Los Angelas (CA-135) being reactivated in the 1990s while the USS Los Angeles (SSN-688) was in commission. I think the distinction would have to be something like "Heavy Cruiser Los Angeles is coming along side, sir". The ship type would have to be an unofficial part of her name.

[CSGN138]

this is where i read that MK26 can launch harpoon

http://navysite.de/launcher/tartar.htm

[CSGN138]

All electric is the way to go. First thing that you can avoid is having reduction gears. For many years the reduction gears have solved the problem of steam turbines being most efficient at an RPM way too fast for a propeller. But they can be troublesome and expensive and more importantly noisey. On an all electric grid you have electric motors that turn at the desired rpm. The electric motors have low manning requirements and a longer life span. The USN bought large Diesel alternators for the USS Makin Island. For DDG-1000 Large gas turbines turn alternators that provide a total of 80 megawatts, with large diesel alternators providing energy for ship lighting and other items, but its all connected on the same grid.

Thank you Sea sick, that and a couple other reasons is why i was thinking all electric. It would also eleminate the old boiler powered back up steam plant and two gigantic EDG's. The mess over in Japan with the fukushima melt down really got me thinking about nuclear power on ships, and what would happen with a nuc plant and battle damage. If major damage occurs and the reactors SCRAM (shut down) you still nee to cool them. My emergency gas turbine generators would be something like what the TYCOS have (suprisingly, i can find little to no information about that system on line) but four instead of two. Hopefully i have designed in enough power to be able to cool the reactors, make enough speed to egress battle area and rn some back-up defence systems such as CIWS, sps 49 and SPG-9b

I thank you for your reply

Joe

[CSGN138]

Ok, Ive got two Trumpetor USS Bunker Hill's 1/350 On the way. I guess this is it. Im going to dive into scratch building. Cant wait...........

[navydavesof]

Ok, Ive got two Trumpetor USS Bunker Hill's 1/350 On the way. I guess this is it. Im going to dive into scratch building. Cant wait...........

Great! I am glad you're on you're way!

[navydavesof]

So, have you decided on the AGS for the main gun? If so, I am very curious if you have a plan as how to build it. It should be pretty easy to build in the enclosed position. I think it would make for a stunning addition to the model if it were modeled open and out of its enclosed housing.

With a full DDG propulsion plant of 4 LM-2500s as back up, you would really need the large exhaust stacks found on the Tico CGs or Burke DDGs as opposed to the small little vents you have illustrated in your digital painting. Are you going to explore including the stacks, or will you explore reducing the propulsion plant to more of a back-up instead of a primary system used only as a back up?

While Seasick brings up a point about an advantage of having an "all electric" ship, there are still fatal flaws in having all electric ship that make having all electric ship tactically unsound, dangerous and thus totally undesirable. If the electric grid goes out (not un-common on US warships), then the ship is not only defenseless, but it's dead in the water. If the propulsion plant is independent and a mechanical device, then the ship can lose all electrical power and still drive itself out of danger. The all electric ship sits in the danger zone waiting to get hit and sunk.

On another note, the BB thing, I think I have fully explored. I have consulted with NAVSEA, and the man who designed the 1980s modernization for all 4 battleship and the 1993 Phase II modernization that would have put 96-128 VLS tubes, NATO Sea Sparrows, 5"/54caliber guns, TAS-23, Mk160 GFCS, and a SLEP that would have kept the ships operable until 2010-2020. I ran my analysis by both, and they approved of the modernization I have made to the Iowas. I can't wait to get on building it again.

Can't wait to see you building your ship, Joe!!!

[Bill Liebold]

So, you have two kits on the way. Great! as Tony the Tiger would say. Once you have the finish design planed out, don't be afraid to jump in and start cutting. You will get things not quite right the first time, but that's okay, you'll get there. Good luck and enjoy the process.

Bill