Sciquest2525 wrote:
Norman Palomar's Ship and Aircraft state that a nuclear strike cruiser was laid out a flight deck and island with six hangars for V/STOL and two helo hangars with 8 inch guns, Mk 26, 64 round twin rail launcher, Mk 41 61 round VLS, Harpoon, Phlanx CIWS and SPY 1 Aegis radar. The layout featured a port side given over to flight deck and starboard side and bow given over to the island, Mk 26 and Mk 71 gun forward.that resembled a smaller version of Kiev.
Not mentioned often is that a further variant proposed having a hangar below deck for 18 Harriers, possibly As or Bs. This version added a second Mk 71 8 inch gun and would have displaced around 23-25,000 tons with two uprated D2G reactors for propulsion.j
In the end we got the California class CGNs with inferior SM-2 MR fired from single arm Mk 13 rail launchers. Older Terrerie ships could fire the SM-2 Extended Range missiles and Aegis wound up on a conventional powered destroyer that grew into the Tico cruiser class.
This is completely wrong. It implies we had the strike cruiser you describe as an option in the late 1960's (when CGN-36/37 were designed), when the concept is from the late 70's/early 80's. California also did not have SM-2 until late in her career. Mk10 equipped ships could indeed fire the SM-2ER, but again, that weapon did not exist until much later, and SM-2ER was not aboard until a given vessel had undergone NTU, which happened mostly in the 1980s. Mk 41 VLS: 1980's. Mk26 GMLS came out AFTER the California's commissioned, Mk 71 was a test article AFTER CGN-36/37 had been in service over 5 years, Harpoon would not be shipboard yet...CIWS...
The original CSGN developed through the 1970's as a follow-on to the Virginia Class, not a precursor to the California class, thus was at a minimum 10 years later, so you are altering the sequence of events by as much as 25 years (counting deployment of the SM-2 and NTU) to support the above implication.
On a side note, the California class carried more missiles (80 in two Mk 13 versus 68 in CGN-39's two Mk26 - some of which was ASROC), was faster, and had twice the fire control radars, thus could engage more targets in a saturation situation than the Virginia which replaced it. And Mk 13 was also a more reliable launcher. The Virginia's added a theoretical helicopter capability which proved unworkable in service, and later would get Tomahawk in ABLs, finally giving them something the California's didn't have.
So let's move on to the concept in question.
The version you are describing sounds like Dr. Leopold's concept for the strike cruiser, which came after the previous strike cruiser concepts were derailed by congress.
More information on this concept I believe can be found in "The Hybrid Warship" by Layman and McLaughlin - I'll check mine when I get home today.
Busto has a more realistic Air Wing size. UAVs may need to be increased, a AEW (APS-145 on a drone?) and a sea control UAV (UAV with the S-3's sensors) would be excellent here.
Seasick wrote:
To many divergent missions on a single hull. This is an LHA, CG, SSGN all crammed into a single hull. For fire support you compromise flight operations safety by bringing the ship close to shore where you are vulnerable to counter battery fire. This ship would also have a large draft making operation in brown water difficult. Storing all that aviation fuel could be problematic. The air wing would have to qualify periodically so this ship would have to deploy like a carrier or face having to deploy without them. With its size and nuclear power it will need to be refueled every 12 to 15 years. Two years in dry dock means the air wing will be broken up and redeployed.
Why not just have a LHA and a pair of DDG?
First, reactors do not need to be "refueled every 12 to 15 years" and have not needed that for decades - even the Virginia class CGNs were early 1970's reactors which put in 15-19 years of service without refueling - so if we modernize this concept, we have core lives of 25-33 years (S9G) to utilize, which can certainly intersect with any major update required by every combatant vessel across this timeframe.
(ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S9G_reactor)
"Aviation Fuel" is the same thing we currently run all of our Gas Turbine Engines on - JP-5, so it is not 'problematic' - it is common to what we have been doing for 40 years.
Personnel costs are the primary drive in the Navy budget today, so would the combined hybrid be able to complete some of the missions of that LHA+DDG+DDG without using 3400 personnel (approx 1700 Sailors on the three ships and 1700 Marines on the LHA)? Not to mention initial construction and periodic maintenance of this vessel would be less than two DDGs and an LHA. Clearly, the proposed vessel will not be able to perform the missions of the three competitor vessels, yet the three vessels are not needed to perform every task.
Instead of thinking of the platforms as the mission profile, think of the mission profile and have a platform to match a given set of requirements. This will not do everything an LHA and a SSGN would do, so the only real comparison which might apply is the CG. It will likewise not do everything a PC, LPD, FFG, SSN, CVN, AOE and IX classified vessel will do. It will perform relevant missions - rather those missions are met in a reasonably effective way by this platform is the real debate - not that "it isn't something we already have or had". Could this be effective is supporting the LCS from deeper water? Sure - act as a node hub for operations and send heavier missiles and additional aviation forward into the brown water or across the shoreline when needed. The LCS could "run to big brother" if needed.
Put this vessel into an "Operation Praying Mantis" or Falkland Islands type of situation (probably the closest analogues we have to modern action) and I think it would do well. It would also work well for the current issues of area Piracy and 'showing the flag' as is happening around the Spratly Islands.
This platform would be a good fit for sea control missions in my opinion, with Nuclear power enhancing her strategic mobility, and weapons systems and sensors which allow it to operate nearly independently (I don't recommend that - better to have FF/DDGs in company), and this plus a DDG would be a very cost effective way to cover area as compared to our current Navy attitude of "A CVBG or nothing".
A CONAG engineering plant may also be an effective way to go - One Reactor two MT-30 in an all-electric drive setup - the reactor giving baseline/cruise endurance power and the MT-30s for sprint/combat loads. The MT-30/aviation detachment both use JP-5....
Always love to concepts like these worked through