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

[navydavesof]

I like how this is going. Your friend that made the hull for you must be proud that you are doing so well on the top side.

Boy, I hope so! I've been pussy footing around so long I hope I have not lost his confidence. It's nive to getting back to cutting plastic and seeing what works and what does not. I wind up cutting things a couple times, because they wind up being a little off. That's alright, because I have enough material to make mistakes now and again. For instance, the aft radar deck house; I must have cut pieces for that 3 times. Now, I have what I want in plastic. I don't have to putty or anything like that, it's just what I want.

I like the grill on the back of the hangar but it looks Japanese to me. Is it from a Kongo?

It's actually a grille from a L'Arsenal fret AC 350 51 called Structual Parts Set 2. It gives me the opportunity to have brass supports, grates, open hatches, etc. It's really cool.

Where did you get the helicopter? It looks really nice for 1/350.

It's from Veteran models, and it is really, really nice. I have only bought a couple of those sets, because they're really expensive. That one helo is about $7.50! They're worth it, but I can't see buying lots of them for a big project.

Thanks for chiming in, Bill. I hope to achieve quality like yours. I would also like to make an LCS and see how close I can get it to one of yours!

[navydavesof]

I am taking a break from messing around with the X-band radar part of CGN-42. Scratch building can be pretty darn challenging! I bow down to those like Bill Liebold, Dave Wolley, etc who don't just do it, but they do it for a living. They are amazing men.

I was reading a report the other day about the different stages of the AMDR. The CGN-42 is supposed to be a new AAW cruiser with the power plant capable of supporting the AMDR in its highest form (VSR and SPY-3 multi-function X-band radar), an anti-surface warfare package good enough to engage surface ships with a heavy load of ASCMs and a heavy naval gun battery, and a good self defense sonar with the volume to accommodate a deep water and littoral sonar if ASW is necessary. We continue to find with our current ships is that because we have SO MANY different missiles to put into the Mk41 VLS launchers that in order to meet the bare minimum mission requirements in AAW, ASW, Strike, self-defense, and soon to be ASuW, 122 Mk41 VLS cells is barely satisfactory. The 96-cells of the DDG-51s must be combined with multiple ships to be satisfactory. If we were to build a new class of ship, we should keep this in mind and produce a cruiser replacement with those facts in mind. In order to meet the numbers of missiles required to meet mission requirements, the new ship needs to have more than 128 tubes.

To accommodate this, I have fitted:
160 x Mk41 VLS tubes (arranged in two sets of 2 x 16-cell and 2 x 64-cell VLS arrangements)
2 x Mk71 Mod2 8"/60caliber naval guns with 600 rounds forward and 400 aft
2 x Mk38 Mod2 remote 25mm guns
16 x M2 .50caliber HBMG and GAU-19 .50caliber gatling gun/M240B 7.62caliber MGs
2 x Mk32 SVTT mounted internally
2 x 21-cell RAM mounts
2 x Phalanx Block 1B CIWS or SeaRAM

2-3 x 11 meter RHIBs are stored in the stern like LCS-1.
2 x H-60 series helos
2-3 x Fire scouts
5 x Hunter-type UAVs

This is the same fit I would assign to a conventional cruiser based on the CGBL (guided missile cruiser base-line) design. The CGBL would have its RHIBs in port and starboard deck houses instead of in its stern.

Now, back to building the SPY-3 deck houses!

[Guest]

I really like what you are doing with the CGN-42. Given the constraints of design you used (the Virginia class upgrade) the conclusions and compromises you used are well thought out. I served 3 years on Long Beach and 3.5 on Truxtun. I would like to give some feed back on a few comments made earlier.

First the Reactors mounted on Long Beach and the other cruisers were very very different then those installed on any submarine. Building a new cruiser plant would be easier done as a scaled down and reconfigured Carrier plant then an upscaled sub plant.
The assumption that the ammount of power needed on a surface vessell being appropriate for a couple of sub plants is way off. Sorry can't be any more specific.
I am not a big fan of electric drive because you lose about 10% to 20% efficeincy compaired to direct turbine drive. I understand with some super conductor motors it is possible to lower the losses but then you will probably need a generator dedicated to that purpose or have to do alot of customizing with all the other electrical gear on board to make the power factor work.

I think the model your making is awesome and I would have been proud to have served on her.

Old navy guy

[Busto963]

I am not a big fan of electric drive because you lose about 10% to 20% efficeincy compaired to direct turbine drive. I understand with some super conductor motors it is possible to lower the losses but then you will probably need a generator dedicated to that purpose or have to do alot of customizing with all the other electrical gear on board to make the power factor work.

How does this compare to the efficiency loss through a main reduction gear?

I thought that the issue with integrated electric propulsion was not efficiency (actually the electric plants were more efficient), but weight.

This would seem to be less of an issue with modern surface ships, and the weight low in the hull might actually be good and counter the heavy topside weight of the latest sensor suites.

Another plug for electric drive is the potential to shorten or eliminate (azipods) long shafts: a cause of significant secondary structural damage and flooding when ships are supject to severe under water shock.

[Busto963]

The CGN-42 is supposed to be a new AAW cruiser with the power plant capable of supporting the AMDR in its highest form (VSR and SPY-3 multi-function X-band radar), an anti-surface warfare package good enough to engage surface ships with a heavy load of ASCMs and a heavy naval gun battery, and a good self defense sonar with the volume to accommodate a deep water and littoral sonar if ASW is necessary. We continue to find with our current ships is that because we have SO MANY different missiles to put into the Mk41 VLS launchers that in order to meet the bare minimum mission requirements in AAW, ASW, Strike, self-defense, and soon to be ASuW, 122 Mk41 VLS cells is barely satisfactory. The 96-cells of the DDG-51s must be combined with multiple ships to be satisfactory. If we were to build a new class of ship, we should keep this in mind and produce a cruiser replacement with those facts in mind. In order to meet the numbers of missiles required to meet mission requirements, the new ship needs to have more than 128 tubes.

To accommodate this, I have fitted:
160 x Mk41 VLS tubes (arranged in two sets of 2 x 16-cell and 2 x 64-cell VLS arrangements)
2 x Mk71 Mod2 8"/60caliber naval guns with 600 rounds forward and 400 aft
2 x Mk38 Mod2 remote 25mm guns
16 x M2 .50caliber HBMG and GAU-19 .50caliber gatling gun/M240B 7.62caliber MGs
2 x Mk32 SVTT mounted internally
2 x 21-cell RAM mounts
2 x Phalanx Block 1B CIWS or SeaRAM

2-3 x 11 meter RHIBs are stored in the stern like LCS-1.
2 x H-60 series helos
2-3 x Fire scouts
5 x Hunter-type UAVs

Dave,

I think the focus of this design is drifting a bit from being "the" AAW ship given the air/uav, and small craft choices. This assumes that this cruiser is either anchoring the AAW defense of a carrier group, or ESG.

This ship should always be escorting a carrier, or have its own escort; ergo why the need for so many UAVs, and helos, particularly with CV airwings starting to deploy with entire H-60 squadrons as part of the wing? I would push them to other assets in the TF, and let this ship do its primary AAW mission without being encombered by the constraints of flight quarters operations.

I think the call for 11 meter rhibs launched by stern ramp is perhaps ambitious as well.

What I am really hinting at is the lack of a "current" DD and a FFG/DEG in the USN inventory. Ideally, these are the hulls which should pick up the hot deck for helo operations, VBSS support, and other requirements of a task force/group.

[navydavesof]

I think the focus of this design is drifting a bit from being "the" AAW ship given the air/uav, and small craft choices. This assumes that this cruiser is either anchoring the AAW defense of a carrier group, or ESG.

As I have been working on the model, I have been thinking about cutting the capabilities down a little. I have elimiated the Harpoons, and I am considering drawing the guns back from 8" to 155mm with a mind toward the suppor like you have suggested in another thread...however, when hitting ships, size matters. In the ASuW role, the larger caliber gun, (8"/60caliber) would deliver far more destructive power than a 155mm.

On the aircraft front, the UAVs would enlarge the ship's overall awareness quite a bit. It would be like having very small scale AWACs aircraft aboard. It would also help coordinate naval gunnery engagements, either surface combat or NSFS. In addition to the expansion of capability, I am adding the UAVs to the ship's capability, because the ship is wide enough to have a hanger large enough to not just embark H-60s but also a number of UAVs as well.

This ship should always be escorting a carrier, or have its own escort; ergo why the need for so many UAVs, and helos, particularly with CV airwings starting to deploy with entire H-60 squadrons as part of the wing? I would push them to other assets in the TF, and let this ship do its primary AAW mission without being encombered by the constraints of flight quarters operations.

This is interesting. Since there are going to be so fewer carriers in the fleet, the Navy is going to start relying on more of the surface action group/cruiser strike group (like a BBSG) depoyment cycle. Because of this eventuality I am planning for the carriers to not be there.

I think the call for 11 meter rhibs launched by stern ramp is perhaps ambitious as well.

That one is carr's fault. However I think it's a good interest to the model. This would also put all the RHIBs in the stern in one maintenance space. It would make maintenance much easier.

What I am really hinting at is the lack of a "current" DD and a FFG/DEG in the USN inventory. Ideally, these are the hulls which should pick up the hot deck for helo operations, VBSS support, and other requirements of a task force/group.

I certainly understand that. There is this terrible balance in the escort ship type I am trying to strike with my projects by having the CGN-42/CGBL, DDH, and DD-21/NSFS. Now I have come across a soft PC replacement design expressed in another thread.. There may very well be a gap in the escort fleet design that would be filled with a DEG or FFG.

Thanks for the input!

[Busto963]

This ship should always be escorting a carrier, or have its own escort; ergo why the need for so many UAVs, and helos, particularly with CV airwings starting to deploy with entire H-60 squadrons as part of the wing? I would push them to other assets in the TF, and let this ship do its primary AAW mission without being encombered by the constraints of flight quarters operations.

This is interesting. Since there are going to be so fewer carriers in the fleet, the Navy is going to start relying on more of the surface action group/cruiser strike group (like a BBSG) depoyment cycle. Because of this eventuality I am planning for the carriers to not be there.

...

What I am really hinting at is the lack of a "current" DD and a FFG/DEG in the USN inventory. Ideally, these are the hulls which should pick up the hot deck for helo operations, VBSS support, and other requirements of a task force/group.

I certainly understand that. There is this terrible balance in the escort ship type I am trying to strike with my projects by having the CGN-42/CGBL, DDH, and DD-21/NSFS. Now I have come across a soft PC replacement design expressed in another thread.. There may very well be a gap in the escort fleet design that would be filled with a DEG or FFG.

Thanks for the input!

I think the Navy needs to be a lot more inovative about not only it's force mix, but also about how it organizes those forces for missions.

Ironically, the Navy invented the "Task Force concept," but creativity in the past few decades is a bit ... lacking. I almost wish the terms "carrrier group," ARG etc. would be banned so people would have to think about the mission, and then think about the forces needed to accomplish the mission. Gosh, we might reinvent the Task Force/Group/Element of 1941! The mantra "send a carrier" is now muddled with "send an ARG" and Lord knows the absense of clearly articulated doctrine/organizing thought is what led to the LCS, amphibs that cost $2+ billion (and none of our gators can actually land troops/supplies ashore), lack of logistics ships like AOEs (even though an equivalent commercial hull would cost about $50 million - chump change in DOD), and a host of other maladies - unbelievable.

Rant off: I like high-low mix forces, but think "multi purpose" has/can lead to horrible compromises. An AAW cruiser is a high mix ship and ought to be employed as such. That cruiser definitely needs to be supported, otherwise it is being missused.

[Seasick]

General purpose always leads to compromizes. Its why the USN doesn't make combinations like half LHA - half CG with nuclear power, and x-ray vision.

[carr]

..

[Busto963]

Let's be fair, here. There's nothing wrong with compromise designs nor is there anything wrong with specialized, focused designs as long as they're both obtained in balanced quantities and used appropriately. Sure, compromise (or multi-purpose) can lead to bad designs if not done wisely. However, the Burke is a multi-purpose ship and is a good design. The Perry FFG was a multi-purpose ship and a good design for what it was intended to do. And so on. The strength of a multi-purpose design is that it can competently (not superbly) handle whatever situation it encounters as opposed to the single purpose ship that can only handle what it was designed for. In a very large world with a (relatively) very small US Navy, multi-purpose ships are indispensible.

If we only built single purpose ships, most of the time we'd have the wrong ship in the wrong place for the circumstances encountered. Of course, we could always operate single purpose ships in mixed groups so that there would always be one or more of the needed type but then we'd cover a lot less territory.

Broadly, agree, particularly with the Burke example, but note that a CGN or CG is a very high priority, very in demand asset because of its unique sensors and weapons.

Adding a low-mix unit like an FFG or even the dreaded LCS to a carrier group, or a CG/CGN/DDG on ABM patrol is compelling because it lets the low mix-ship "pick up the slack" (helicopter ops, drone launch, VBSS, etc.) and lets the AAW ship do its thing.

The converse is akin to expecting a primary ASW ship with a towed array sonar to be effective at ASW if it constantly has to manuever in order to conduct flight quarters. That interferes with operation of its primary sensor (TACTAS). And embarking an air detachment does not include sufficient additional personnel to create a dedicated flight deck crew. Even CVNs do not really have the manning to do 24/7 operations indefinitely.

This yet another example of how challenging it is to add capability to ships.

Anyway, the model looks cool, and the concept is not only valid, but the USN needs a new Aegis cruiser.

[carr]

..

[Busto963]

... but note that a CGN or CG is a very high priority, very in demand asset because of its unique sensors and weapons. ... Adding a low-mix unit ... is compelling because it lets the low mix-ship "pick up the slack" ...

Absolutely agree. You've described the proper usage of the hi-lo concept. Extending the concept a bit further, one can make a case for a peace-war mix. The Navy is performing peacetime ops 98% of the time and those ops don't require supremely capable ships. Patrol, boarding, interdiction, show-the-flag, anti-piracy, third world training, etc. only requires a Coast Guard type vessel. One could envision a large number, very low cost, low capability peacetime fleet along with the wartime, high capability, stealthy, high survivability, high cost fleet. Perhaps that would be one way to get around the Navy's constant tendency to want to build win-the-war-singlehanded ships even at the low end of the mix. I can't see anything wrong with a peace fleet that performs 98% of the Navy's day-to-day work and then steps out of the way when the serious shooting starts. Sort of an extended, international Coast Guard - isn't that what most of the Navy's routine work amounts to? With such a split in the fleet, maybe we could stop having Aegis ships on anti-rowboat piracy patrol or the USS Vinson on fishery duty (seriously, someone should lose their job over that!). Of course, this assumes that the Navy could design and build a low cost, low end vessel and history suggests that would be a challenge!

This is a problem throughout DoD...

I think it is silly that the USCG does not fall under the DON, not under the CNO, but under SECNAV authority and more autonomy than the USMC. I would build USCG cutters based on USN hulls, but without the sensors, and with reduced weapons; but all of the spaces would remain the same, so that say a HEC based upon a DD, could be converted into a DD by adding back TACTAS, etc..

Back on topic, How would this cruiser be employed independent of a carrier? Is it reasonable to expect her to operate just outside the straights of Hormuz, but in company with a number of Dave's PC replacements (corvettes) where her ABM capability might be needed to shield allies?

[navydavesof]

Hey, guys!

After a mostly free weekend, I was able to get some good progress done on both the forward and aft SPY-3 deck houses. There was some serious cogitation going on with these. I first took several pieces of styrene stock and glued them together in to a large block. I sanded them down into the deckhouse shape with a little extra length. This was so in the case that I needed a long deckhouse it would work out. After that was the easy part. I cut pieces of strip styrene and beveled the edges to make the SPY-3 arrays.

Then it was just a question of putting a lot of time into cutting and shaping pieces...for a novice

I staged my SeaRAM bases, NULKA launchers, radomes, and Mk38 Mod2s in position to block out how they will be set. It looks great.

Here on the stern is the aft weapons arrangement. The two Mk41 VLS arrangements, a 16-cell arrangement and a 64-cell arrangement, the Mk71 Mod2 8"/60caliber gun, and the 21-cell RAM launcher.

Pretty much it's down to details now. I just have to work out the bits and pieces. I need to lay down details on the deck (like deck welds, bitts, hatches, capstans, and anchor chain paths), narrow the helo deck in a little so it follows the drawn lines, and smooth out some of the joints.

That's not to mention the mast...oh, gosh...the platforms on the mast. My initial reaction is to have 2 sets of SPQ-9Bs and TRS-3Ds. On the forward mast would be a SPQ-9B on top of the mast and a TRS-3D ahead of it on a platform, and the reverse on the short aft mast. On either side of the forward mast would be platforms to accommodate coms domes and yard arms.

I also have to decide on where the SLQ-32 systems go. I am leaning toward on either side of the aft SPY deckhouse. I may also push the SeaRAM mounts out onto platforms protruding from the upper deck like the original Virginia-class CGNs had.

So, back to work!

[carr]

..

[CSGN138]

Very nice!

I was also wondering about the six panles. Are those panles AMDR? I thought the SPY-3 panles were a lot bigger, as represented in Gerald Ford pictures. I'm confused. So you're using spy-1 and spy-3?

[Busto963]

You appear to have 6 SPY-3 faces with two of the faces (one forward and one aft) "crossing". Am I seeing that right? If so, is that a problem as far as signal interference?

I was curious about the SPY-3 also, is it becase the fire control channels are also using phased array panels?

I know Thales has designed an integrated mast antenna that uses phased arays for search, fire control, IFF, and even communications radios.

Another question on MK41 VLS, does the 16 cell (2 modules) have to be physically separated from the 64 cell unit? Ithought you could just keep slapping modules together. Or is the limit on the loading/maintenance side of things?

Nice work!

[navydavesof]

That's some outstanding progress. Great work!

Thanks for the kind words, guys!

You appear to have 6 SPY-3 faces with two of the faces (one forward and one aft) "crossing". Am I seeing that right? If so, is that a problem as far as signal interference?

You see correctly.

A quick word on AMDR. It's made up of Volume Search Radars (VSR) that searches the medium to high altitude air space and the SPY-3 that performs two functions: horizon search (meeting where VSR leaves off) and performing terminal illumination for the missiles. This is so the ship can actually do both BMD and cruise missile defense at the same time. Current BMD ships can only do one or the other, not both. It's a neat concept. What's even neater is how they are going to bridge the gap before AMDR comes on line.

So, on the DDG-51s they have the 3 faces on top of the super structure. Here are the two different iterations in their concept phase:

Northrop:


Lockheed:

As you can see, both SPY-3s are pretty much the same shape, it's just the VSR that is possibly different between the two companies. I am doing a Lockheed version.

So, back to carr's question:

You appear to have 6 SPY-3 faces with two of the faces (one forward and one aft) "crossing"....If so, is that a problem as far as signal interference?

We know that a SPY or AMDR, DDG-51's WDS can be totally taken out if its super structure is hit. With this in mind I have separated the WDS between the two super structures much like the Ticos have. This way if one super structure is hit the other will be able to still function. With the SPY-3 panels facing aft the ship will still have horizon search and illumination capabilities cover the back of the ship while full coverage is supported forward. If I were to reduce it to only 4 panels for the whole ship, there would be 2 forward and 2 aft mirroring the VSR panels. Then, if the other half of the ship were disabled, they would still have an opearting other half, but only have 1/2 VSR search and 1/2 horizon search and illuminatino. With my arrangement, if 1/2 of the ship is disabled, the ship still has nearly 360 degrees of self defense and 1/2 VSR coverage. I like the survivability and redundancy of my arrangement.

Will it cause interference? I don't think so. You just tell the radars where to cut out so you don't irradiate your own structure.

Does the aft 16 cell VLS have enough clearance from the Mk71 mount to avoid having the mount housing cooked by the missile exhaust flames on the way up?

Yes, I just didn't block it out well on the model

I assume there's two more of the larger arrays going on the aft superstructure above the hangar?

Yes, sir, I just have not glued them on yet

I was curious about the SPY-3 also, is it becase the fire control channels are also using phased array panels?

I know Thales has designed an integrated mast antenna that uses phased arays for search, fire control, IFF, and even communications radios.

Yes, sir, you are correct. The funny thing is that something I see in a lot of the AMDR displays

Another question on MK41 VLS, does the 16 cell (2 modules) have to be physically separated from the 64 cell unit? Ithought you could just keep slapping modules together. Or is the limit on the loading/maintenance side of things?

I am going to ask one of my GMCSs who was a VLS instructor if it is physically possible, but every arrangement I have seen, it's always a maximum of eight 8-cell modules at a time. There is one example I know of where more than 64-cells in one general area, and that the South Korean KDH III:

That is two arrangements of the 48-cells to 32-cell, making for 80 cells in the helo hanger.

[carr]

..

[Timmy C]

They're beginning to roll out Aegis Baseline 9, which has as its goal to enable both air and missile defence - the stopgap measure you mentioned, I think. Dave, what limitations do you know of regarding this method of meeting the "dual-purpose" challenge?

[carr]

..