What-If CSGN-138 final

[CSGN138]

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

Yes Dave, If i go with the AGS i will depict it with the barrels elevated. This is something I actually thought of, I'm betting that when the system is deployed in the fleet that they would probably elevated the barrels while going in or out of port. Much the same way we used to load our test missles on the rails of Virginia while comming in or heading out of port. Just cause it looks cool

Second, Ive never intended to Use the LM-2500 as my back up emergency power. Im thinking like the ones on tyco and Burks where you can see the Exhaust stack by the aft missle decks. I have scoured the web many times and can find no information about this system. However, i just had an indepth conversation about it with an ex-navy buddy and im thinking i need to investigate the emergency power issue farther

[CSGN138]

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

Bill i cant tell if youre being sarcastic or not hahaha. First let me say that i looked up your work and I am in AWE. I can only hope, sometime down the road, that I can model HALF as good as you. Your work is simply breath taking. And I sincerly apoligize for throwing a word like "scratch building" around with a craftsman like you in the ranks

I am very excited to get my kits and start this projects going. Thank you for your words of encouragment

[Bill Liebold]

Joe,

I'm only half sarcastic. You seem like you really want to see your ship in 3D, and you would be willing to learn by doing (OJT). Passion for what you do is 90% of what you need to get it done. When I say don't be afraid to jump in and start cutting, I mean it. Too many times I've seen guys that got so afraid to make a mistake that they don't get anything done. It's your project, have fun with it. If you make a mistake, and it's a big one, do it over, if it's small you will probably be the only one who knows about it. If you go about making the hull like navydavesof did for his Strike cruiser, that's good. I would add a piece of wood to the inside of the hull to keep things nice and rigid. You don't want the hull to sag at the ends as time goes on.

Bill

[navydavesof]

I mentioned some good Photo Etch for your ship. These are the frets I was thinking about.

There is the White Ensign Models Ticonderoga-class PE fret you could use. It's really good. I have used it before.



However, if you are looking to ever use a SPS-48 or some of the other radars included in this set, this one is the Modern Warship Improved fret by Gold Medal Models.



However, I think the most appropriate set for you to use would be this one:
The White Ensign Models Spruance-class set:



I think those would really, really add a lot to your model, and they would give you the SPS-49 you want to have on your CSGN.

I am kind of gitty about seeing how you are going to do your AGS mounts. How much fun!!! Another WIF modeler who is actually WILLING to build his WIF creation!

I look forward to seeing what you have, man.

[CSGN138]

those look great, I noticed the second one has burk yard arms, which is great cause they are the ones i modeled for CSGN-138. I would love to do a ship with 48 someday because it is so near and dead to my heart haha. I was always sad Virginia never got the full NTU, BUT, if she had i would have never got to serve on here beacause i was a 48c tech. On another note it would be cool if some one could some how be able to model the 48e and up. The antenna is bigger and you can kind of sorta see what looks like a SPY panel when the antenna is at a certain angle and you can kind of see through it.....i dont know if that makes sence, but I know what im talking about anyway hahah.

The AGS mounts really should nt be to hard to model, no real complex shapes to them (this comming from a guy whos never scratch built anything) but im really wondering about a 16" in the same kind of mount

Cant wait for my kits to arrive.....hurry MR POSTMAN!!!!

[navydavesof]

The AGS mounts really should nt be to hard to model, no real complex shapes to them (this comming from a guy whos never scratch built anything) but im really wondering about a 16" in the same kind of mount

You're right. You can buy a set of 9 16"/50caliber brass or aluminum barrels no problem from the modeling sites like pacificfront.com and experiment with them. Even if you want, you can play with the 6" (152mm) or 155mm guns of other nations to represent your AGS barrels in your mount. Those barrels are also offered on modelwarships. The great thing about those barrels is that you can order them and see them in person. You can fabricate your own mounts or play around with pieces of plastic and see what you might want to do.

Even if you do consider a 16" mount, you must keep in mind that it's a 120 ton barrel. The barrel is more than twice the overall weight of an 8" Mk71 MCLWG mount. That's an awful lot. I would suggest if you are really considering going with 16" single guns, you should bump your hull up to the size of an Alaska CB (large cruiser/battle cruiser). That would give you the stability in ship, hull strength, reactor space, and overall space for the missile battery you would want also.

So, if you do chose to go with a ship this big, what kind of secondary battery would you chose? Would you go with 5" for assaulting smaller targets or go with a secondary battery targeted toward countering a small boat swarm threat like the Iranians pose? This would be in the Mk75 Mod1 76mm super rapid fire gun or the Mk110 57mm gun. With this you might even be able to mount 3-4 mounts and really address small boats effectively.

I would suggest your gunnery not exceed 12" in gunnery. Even 8" is good enough to really lay down some serious firepower...but if you want to make it a big ship...you can go with 12" - 16" gunnery and really set your ship up to be a battle cruiser. I am interested in hearing what you have in mind!

[CSGN138]

ya know...this could go on forever haha. I need to get this one finalized. Probably wont go with 16" for this ship, maybe another wif prodject. I also had a thought to make the mount where the guns are modular. If situation called for AGS, you can put and AGS mod in there. so on and so fourth with different kinds of systems. that Idea has a lot of potential. All kinds of systems could be designed for that "hole"

I have a whole set of ideas regarding the iranian swarm issue. lets just say, for now, that it involves an old carrier coverted to fly A-10's and AH-64's. Also maybe converting OHP hulls with a new system that fires hellfire, and somekind of AGEIS style OPTICAL sensors. I would also have to come up with somekind of cool gun systems for it, not sure what yet. thats definatly a think tank in my near future. That post on here that shows the re-designed OHP's really caught me in the "cool" bone, AND i already have a OHP by Academy sitting here doing nothing........Ya know...I'm so happy I found this board hahaha. I have to say that you, navydave, led me here while searching google for CGN-42, modified virginia, and strike cruisers.

[navydavesof]

ya know...this could go on forever haha.

You're not kidding. This can indeed go on and on. Even with the margins of "feasibility" there are so many possibilities.

...that it involves an old carrier coverted to fly A-10's and AH-64's.

Oh?! Could you expand this a little?! I have always thought the CVN-80 needs to have a wing or two of A-10Ds on board.

Also maybe converting OHP hulls with a new system that fires hellfire, and somekind of AGEIS style OPTICAL sensors.

The swarm buster thing is a great idea. That's totally what PCs should do while the FFGs should be little DDGs with a SPECWAR emphasis (mounting a 155mm gun perhaps with 2 helos).

I have to say that you, navydave, led me here while searching google for CGN-42, modified virginia, and strike cruisers.

You honor me, sir. I appreciate it. This board has been a great outlet for me, too. There are so many people here who help you develop your ideas and get them into a 3D model. This community is so great. I can't wait to get back to the States so I can go to conventions and meet more board members....maybe even you some day, sir!

Hooyah.

[CSGN138]

Oh man, dont get me going on A-10's. I have been in love with that plane since i was a kid. Its basically a flying battle ship. I cant even believe they were going to get rid of them before desert storm showed how deadly they are. Can you imagine the carnage a few of these could do to an Irainian style swarm....can you say soft targets I know those Irainian guys think they are hard core and all but i bet they would do some deep soul searching before trying to swarm again after seeing all their fellow fanatics ripped to shreds by 30mm shells whoot whoot.

Apaches......long bow style....oh yeah....just stand off a few miles and pick off the swarm boats one by one with hell fire....

It would be a floating highway of death

[Russ2146]

Just to go off on a tangent, a little, you do make me wonder how much it would take to make the A-10 carrier qualified. In the same vein, the Navy could either buy some Longbows, or do the most simple and direct thing by carrier qualifying some Army pilots after convincing the Army to rotate Longbow units through carrier deployments.

[Busto963]

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

Comments/suggestions welcome

That is awe inspiring work

[Busto963]

Just to go off on a tangent, a little, you do make me wonder how much it would take to make the A-10 carrier qualified. In the same vein, the Navy could either buy some Longbows, or do the most simple and direct thing by carrier qualifying some Army pilots after convincing the Army to rotate Longbow units through carrier deployments.

I think that an navalized version of the A-10 would be new aircraft - it could hold to the same design philosophy, and still carry the GAU-8, but it would be a new design if it had to deploy on carriers. Aside from the obvious structural issues for CATOBAR capability, folding wings, etc., there are anti-corrosion, fueling/refueling issues etc.. Think of this as an opportunity to make a product improved, 21st century version of the A-10.

AH-64s on carriers? If you create a few light attack squadrons based on the hypothetical "Navy A-10" - you will not need attack helicopters for the Navy.

Helicopters certainly have there place, but they apart from vertical take off/landing capability, helicopters have pre-WWII aircraft flight performance capabilities ( <200 Knot speed, massive fuel consumption, limited range, limited altitude performance, the highest maintenance costs and lowest operational rates) of any tactical aircraft. Any late WWII carrier capable aircraft design updated with modern electronics and weapon hard points will absolutely dominate any attack helicopter in existence or on the drawing board. If you do not need to conduct troop support operations from a FARP (and the Navy does not have that mission), why bother with helicopters?

By the way, look into Persistent Close Air Support (PCAS) for unmanned variants of the A-10 and other goodies.

[CSGN138]

That is awe inspiring work

Thank you busto, I cant tell you how long it took me to get her to that point...like a year and a half. Im looking forward to seeing it in real life. well 1/350 real life anyway haha

[CSGN138]

i have been thinking a lot about putting either a MK26 or a Mk13 launcher for the sole purpose of firing Harpoon. I would build a "house" for it between the masts on the boat deck, but one level above. the mk13 could hold 40 and the mk26 could hold 64. what do you all think about the viability of that? I was reading in navydaves Des Moines post that for a true anti-shipping platform you would want a buttload more that 8 harpoon... so there it is, a realistic (IMO) way to have a buttload of harpoons.

[CSGN138]

I think that an navalized version of the A-10 would be new aircraft - it could hold to the same design philosophy, and still carry the GAU-8, but it would be a new design if it had to deploy on carriers..

OH MAN i love A-10s. Anyway Ive seen alternante history scanerios where the people have a Nimitz class carrier go back to WWII. One oh my all time favortie movies is about that too (Final countdown). Heres my what if alt history.....Take A-10s back two WWII.... the Nimitz class would definatly kick some butt, well untell all the missles and stuff ran out. You can keep reloading 30mm ammo for the gun and WWII dumb bombs on the A-10 and still cause major damage. That is a fun scenario i like to run through my mind when im bored.

[navydavesof]

i have been thinking a lot about putting either a MK26 or a Mk13 launcher for the sole purpose of firing Harpoon. I would build a "house" for it between the masts on the boat deck, but one level above. the mk13 could hold 40 and the mk26 could hold 64. what do you all think about the viability of that? I was reading in navydaves Des Moines post that for a true anti-shipping platform you would want a buttload more that 8 harpoon... so there it is, a realistic (IMO) way to have a buttload of harpoons.

Well, I would suggest you have 2 Mk13 launchers (one port and one starboard) instead of 1 Mk26. The 64 missile Mk26 had a very large magazine foot print, probably too big to put between your super structures.

However...if you put one Mk13 on port and starboard of the center line amidships, you would have 80..count them...80 Harpoons, or a mix with some SM-2s. Here is the profile view:

This is what it looks like inside the FFG-7 Perrys:

Both would look really cool. The Mk26 can be center-line. I am not sure if you have enough room to have 1 launcher on either side of center-line. However, if you have the Mk26 Mod 0, 1, or 2, it could come close to butting up against the super structure, because the launcher arms would simply pivot to either port or starboard to fire.

You have some neat ideas, ones that I would not pursue, because the launchers are no longer supported, but they would make a great model, the Mk13 or the Mk26

[CSGN138]

You have some neat ideas, ones that I would not pursue, because the launchers are no longer supported, but they would make a great model, the Mk13 or the Mk26

Holy CRAP! Did the king Champion proponent of the MK71 just tell me he wouldnt use something that was no longer supported........ oh man, that cracked me up Mr. Dave, hahaha

I do see where youre comming from though, dont get me wrong.

Anyway, Ive been doing a little naval architecting (? is that a word?).
see what you all think about MK17 installed.

Ok, the harpoon deck is where i would install the system.



First things first, i need to get rid of the MK141 launchers



I found a MK17 in a picture that is about the correct angle, scaled it by matching up the guy staning next to it to the guys on my ship. Verified the scaling by also checking the sps-49 that was in the other picture to my 49. should be pretty close to the right size



Next, i took the line drawing Navydave posted and scaled it to the MK17, now on deck, so i can see how the magazine would fit in there. looks like it could be feasible...?



Lastly, i cleaned up the launcher so i can better picture it in my mind.



I think i like it. with one mounted port and starboard thats a theoretical load out of 80 harpoons


How do you all feel about that. alll comments welcome

Joe

[navydavesof]

Holy CRAP! Did the king Champion proponent of the MK71 just tell me he wouldnt use something that was no longer supported........ oh man, that cracked me up Mr. Dave, hahaha

Well...you caught me, sir! You're absolutely right. While my reasoning may have seemed logical to me, it came out contradictory! So, you're right! Let me correct my logic.

While the Mk26 is still utilized in the world, the US does not use it. This does not mean that it cannot be re-instated and used again. The Mk13 presents a clear and current missile system that can be easily reactivated and utilized for SM-2/Harpoon duties. The Mk71, however would be a completely new procurement path that was based on a system that had already been developed. Your utilization of the Mk26 and Mk13 would be far more practical than the Mk71!

Ok, the harpoon deck is where i would install the system.

Excellent! What a great place to put it! The deck is raised, and if you armor it, the missile magazine will be well protected.

I think i like it. with one mounted port and starboard thats a theoretical load out of 80 harpoons

That would look pretty cool.

I look forward to your first cuts of the plastic!!!

[CSGN138]

I'm going to go with it....also I've decided I'm going with the mk71. I'll save some of the other ideas for a future p project.


Does anybody make a mk71?

[Russ2146]

The only known supply in the free world belongs to a Gunners Mate currently stationed in Japan and they are cast resin made at his request. Guess who!!