The Ship Model Forum

My friend has the original painting. If you sign in with a screenname and PM me I can e-mail you some high-res pictures he took of the painting.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

more interesing info for my CSGN Of course im sure you know my preference for power haha. dave if you dont mind, i would love some hi-res .

Is the hull youre working in this thread CGN-42 or is it different?

_________________
In God we trust all others we track

No, CGN-42 is a wooden hull crafted by a good friend of mine. The hull you see in this thread is one I did by lengthening a Spruance hull to the porposed length of the CSGN-1.


Of the picture itself? Send me a PM with your e-mail address, and I will send it to you.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

So, as a future project, here is a picture of the USS Long Beach as she sits today:

The hull has been retained for all this time in the case of conversion to a strike cruiser. Well, today in the 2012 environment, the need is there. Why not make her one?

To those who read this, what requirements would you put on her? Make her a heacy cruiser? Make her a strike cruiser? Make her an AAW cruiser like she used to be? What?



Dave

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

you sure about that Dave, i could swear i saw a picture of here with bow or stern cut off, cant remember which, but the caption said they did it so she would fit in dry dock with another nuk that was being cut up.

_________________
In God we trust all others we track

Well, as of 8/11/2011, she was still there given Google Earth satellite image.

I can clear this up the pic you are refering to has CGN9 in it but the ship with her stern cut off is a Virginia class (either the Ark or Mississippi....oh god to many iiiii's) Here is the pic!

Found some plans on e-bay for Long Beach and it lists her as having 150,000shp for 35+knots! Not the generally referred to 80,000shp

Cheers Bruce

_________________
building:
1/72 RC USS LONG BEACH CGN9
1/72 RC USS CALIFORNIA CGN36
1/72 RC USS SAIPAN LHA2
1/72 RC USS JOHN PAUL JONES DDG53
1/72 RC USS SHARK SSN591
1/72 RC USS SEAWOLF SSN21
1/72 RC USS ALBANY CG10

Meanest pipe-hitting CSGN possible.

Hey, Busto! Been a while. I know you're a big proponent for the ballistic missile stuff. Would you try to put them on a ship like this? I know you said that it would not necessarily require Trident sized ballistic missiles, but you would still prefer something bigger than what fits inside the Mk41 VLS. While the Mk57 isn't that much bigger, would a sea-ATCAM type weapon fit your vision?

Even though the fleet has no plans to move toward being able to support the AirSea Battle doctrine in a conflict with China, would you still support arming a large/heavy cruiser sized ship to fire ballistic missiles to meet such a doctrine?

Good to hear from you again.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

deleted as a duplicate

Long Beach is a big ship- there are a lot of different ways to to take advantage of that hull space.

A naval version of ATACMs fired from MK41s would be a minimum capability.

I would like to see 3 x 64 cell MK41/MK57 VLS launchers on a hull that size. Plus guns, CIWS, Sea Ram etc..

Admiral Greenert and General Schwartz seem to be pretty keen on joint USAF/USN A2AD strategy (AirSea Battle) as of 16 May 2012:
http://www.brookings.edu/multimedia?mm= ... 0greenert1

How much Congress is ready to fund, is of course another issue.

That is the real crux of the issue it seems. While Adm Greenert may publically promote it, the procurement side of the Navy is not pursuing anything that could meet the demands of the AirSea Battle. Under Secretary Work recently made a very passionate case at the CATO Institute laying out how his goal is to evenntually build up to 300 ships with 90 DDG/CGs and the rest fleet support/amphibious ships and LCSs. He skirted the issue when the ASB came up and suggested that we could neutralize the A2AD factor quickly so the LCSs could escort the fleet logistics ships into the battle zone in time to support the combat fleet. The ASB paper you linked promoted a long war of attrition, and that is not something our fleet or weapons inventory can currently sustain in the USN or USAF, both elements of the AirSea Battle.

Weird. It seems like they are not singing from the same sheet of music. Maybe they do not have the courage to ask for the money to actually meet the ASB's requirements. As SECNAV Ray Maybus said earlier last year, we need a 500 ship fleet to meet the combatant requirements right now in what is effectively a naval peace time. Instead, we are looking to eventually meet a 300 ship fleet as long as we don't have to suffer any more early retirements and pre-mature disposals (scrapping or skinking).

Because she carried the Mk10 launchers, Long Beach, however, has deep magazines left inside her hull. That means to me that VLS installation would not displace anything inside the ship. The only displacement would be installing an AGS or Mk71 gun system forward and aft. I will arrange a Mk57 battery forward of the super structure for (yet to be developed) big-boy missiles and a Mk41 aft of the helicopter hanger. The installation of a Mk71 Mod gun in the bow and stern would give the ship significant standard, LRLAP and anti-ship capability.

With a ship that big and that much of a target, I would fit her with 2 Phalanxs CIWS Block1B or 2 SeaRAM and 4 21-cell RAM mounts. Fifty-seven millimeter or 76mm guns are still on the table, though. They may be worth the real-estate invested.

What an interesting project. I am glad I already have a 1/350 Long Beach hull.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I ran one of your topics way of course so I will stick to the LB...

I think the MK110 is a great weapon. The 76mm is popular with our allies, but never seemed to work for the Navy.

The MK15 as a CIWS is past its prime, but as a CRAM system is still very useful. The possibility of our ships getting hit with 60mm, 81/82mm, 120mm, or improvised mortar systems while in port, or transiting constrained waterways should give us pause for thought (a 120mm mortar round can carry more HE than a 155mm (6") howitzer round!). As a CRAM, the 35mm Oerlikon Millennium gun based on the KDG revolver cannon might be most useful, not to mention useful for clearing swaths through a swarm boat attack, or for detonating surface mines (I am sure we will see those in the Persian Gulf - again).



RAM/SeaRAM for a CIWS is given.

Will you go with Aegis?

It's funny how the 76mm only wound up on FFGs (now FFs). Here is the newest incarnation that is available. It has a significantly higher firing rate and reliability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrUXDAhP3Fg

I'm sure you remember a few years ago in 2005 when the USS Kerserge and Ashland were fired on in Jordon. If CIWS had been up there is a chance it may have intercepted the rockets and no one would have been killed. However, CRAMs use the self destructing rounds whereas shipboard CIWS does not. Shipboard CIWS spews the 20mm tungson rounds all over, and they are free to fall where they may. Maybe the Navy should consider switching to self destructing 20mm ammunition?

A friend of mine took a lot of footage from his IA in Iraq. I am so glad someone had the forethought to fund CIWS on land.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugDbAXXk ... re=related

You make a very good point with the Millennium gun. In many Phalanx CIWS shoots, despite how long the gun shoots, fragments of the drone missiles scatter awefully close to the ship. The Phalanx, even the Block 1Bs, seem to have some issues hitting maneuvering small craft. Somehow the Oerlikon Millennium gun seems to have a better success rate, however, I am not sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfyNz2I02Vs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boal24zzEm4

Perhaps but probably not. A ship this big, especially having all the power available that nuclear power plant(s) give you, I would probably make this ship the AMDR master of the area. So far, the reports are saying that putting AMDR on the Burke Flight IIIs is a bad idea, because they are too small to carry an AMDR big enough to make it worth the effort. Long Beach, however would be a far more appropriate platform. How the Navy is staying away from nuclear powered escort ships, a CG(X) based on the CGBL design may be the most practical way to have an AMDR ship.

Since we had our long, hard discussion about how the battleship could have contributed to the ASB strategy, I have read the paper several times, the supporting documents, and the follow-on articles by arm chair admirals and spectators alike. I found it interesting, and it seems like, as a whole, the strategy is pretty reasonable if the Navy and Air Force were equipped for it. I would like to see an ASB proposal tailored to what we actually have and how we could employ it if an issue with China were to come up right now (with our current military strength).

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Interesting.



Ideally, we would carry both types of ammunition



Funny, I was re-acquainted with the floor of the Sully compound in Baghdad two weeks ago as 81mm rounds were being lobbed at us...



The 35mm Oerlikon Millennium Gun is probably only marginally more effective than the MK15 as a CIWS, but I think it would be much more useful than Phalanx for mine and swarm attacks. The Persian Gulf, Staights of Malacca and other "choke points" are doubly bad do to the high volume of dhow boats and other small craft. A crafty enemy (and they are), could easily hide amongst legitimate traffic until they get very close. I also worry about suicide truck bombers coming done the pier overseas. A few rounds of AP in a 35mm gun would do nicely to tear apart a truck engine. More guns are better. Here is the optimal 35mm Millenium Gun shot pattern:

I would still like to see some AP rounds mixed in the feed - just in case some goat sucker dreams up the idea of armoring his boghammar.

Agree, A large hull gives a lot of options. I used to be critical of the hull growth of western warships (along with the drop in weapon density), but the reality is that large hulls are better from almost every perspective, except detectability, and both the upfront and lifetime cost difference has become almost insignificant.

I would go with navydavesof idea of a refitted Long Beach you could easily fit 2 61cell mk41 VLS's in the spaces where her mk10 magazines are located (the rear mag had 4 drums with 80 missles...plenty of room!) and have the fwd mk71 located on the site of the fwd mk10 launcher, just need to make a space for its magazine. Have the bridge almost in the same spot as her old one but with a flight deck midships (above the reactors) and hanger at back of bridge structure similar to the concept art but flush decked fwd. And a second mk71 aft (on the old flight deck depending on what's under it) and a another VLS unit sited where the mk12 Talos mount was.... 180 odd missiles....

Cheers Bruce

ps. probably be a better ship than a ZUMWALT......

_________________
building:
1/72 RC USS LONG BEACH CGN9
1/72 RC USS CALIFORNIA CGN36
1/72 RC USS SAIPAN LHA2
1/72 RC USS JOHN PAUL JONES DDG53
1/72 RC USS SHARK SSN591
1/72 RC USS SEAWOLF SSN21
1/72 RC USS ALBANY CG10

Those old nukes sitting around "cooling off". The Long Beach was stripped of just about everything. A lot of stuff was crated up and sent to the out of production spare parts stash for USS Enterprise. The reason the Long beach is sitting around like that is simply to wait for all the low level exposed materials to have further nuclear decay to the point its no longer has unsafe radioactive contamination. The odd beta emission or gamma ray is the problem. I wonder if the government is going to make people go around in spacesuits on the surface of the Earth to protect us from thr radioactive carbon made when sunlight hits a carbon atom in carbon dioxide dead on with some particle in the upper atmosphere, or all the radioactive potassium that naturally occures in all the rocks, clay and other natural sources all over the Earth.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝

While I really like the proven quality of the Mk41 VLS, I like how the Mk57 is a little wider. They are not longer missile cells, but they are a bit wider. There are no missiles being developed to take advantage of the larger Mk57 cells, but I still can't ignore them. I think I will have 8 modules of Mk57 forward of the super structure on the 01 Level. I place of the forward Mk10 launcher will be the Mk71. Some spaces below the Mk10 would have to be removed to make way for the ready service magazine, but the bulk of the magazine would be behind the gun and into the void of the Mk10 magazines. Behind that would be the beginning of the Mk57 launchers filling the rest of the Mk57 voids. The Mk57s would be arranged in two rows or 2 modules side by side with a broad way going down between the port and starboard missile modules.

While one piece of concept art illustrates the super stucture and helo hanger as all one compact unit, I lean far more toward separation of the radar units. If this ship, a strike cruiser, is going to be expecting to take hits, which it is, it needs to have its electronics and radars spaced out between two different super structures. There is a single piece of concept art that represents such an idea:


I would like to have the Mk41 VLS behind the helicopter landing pad leading back to the Mk71.

I am still wavering between the SeaRAM vs. Phalanx for anti-small boat and anti-missile capability. The Millennium gun, as Busto has suggested, is on the table as well, specifically for anti-small boat.
SeaRAM:


RAM:
Here is a good proportion for the size of the RAM launcher. It's significantly larger than the standard Phalanx CIWS.



Oh, my yes....

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

..

Oh, yes. The SeaRAM is so awesome. It makes me tingly thinking about it. A Warrant Officer of mine who just went through an Aegis school at Dahlgren said that the testers there said the SeaRAM was overwhelmingly successful. The CIWS direction part of the SeaRAM tells the RAM missile directly where to go before it is even launched. The normal 21-cell RAM mounts fire in the general direction of the threat and let the IR seeker head go after the hottest thing around, which is usually the target. The SeaRAM, however, locks the missile seeker head onto the target before it's even launched. That has led to a 99% kill rate.

The SeaRAM seems to me to be good for anti-boat missions while the normal 21-cell RAM is good for the leaker ASMs making for 2 SeaRAMs (1 forward and 1 aft) and 4 RAM mounts (2 port and starboard). We are planning for our ship to get into a fight and win. Instead of the Phalanx Block1B for taking out missiles or small craft I would (at this time) consider the Millennium gun more instead. With 2 on each side it seems at this point that system would offer an extremely good anti-boat capability and would be very good for countering shore based fires (like artillery/mortars) like Busto suggested.

Interesting....

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance