Shipbucket
https://111903.jhzobq.asia/forums/

US Cruiser CGN
https://111903.jhzobq.asia/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4531		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  heuhen [ September 8th, 2013, 12:18 pm ]
Post subject:  US Cruiser CGN
From back then I did some small request drawings... And now I have finally finished off Morten812's request:
Quote:
5. Morten812 want a A large US cruiser a Long beach replacement. (this is a difficult one, But I will se if I can get any ideas. Perhaps I can use one of the large US cruiser concepts from the 80's-90's?)

I have drawn it as an possible replacement, I used some basic ideas from "Virginia class" but mainly I used the "USS Long Beach" style. But with different radars. I had gone for radars that was know to work... I saw for me that the US with those problems they had with Long Beach radar build an replacement with radars that they know work.

This cruiser is purely an Carrier escort with main task as AAW, but it have capability in ASW and in ASuW. and since she is such a large platform she can carry tomahawk's for land attack operation.

One of the few ships that carry it's own crane for reactor and engine handling, but also for reloading of missile weaponry.

in an fleet with now carrier in she would act as flag ship.

--------
Nuclear Heavy cruiser AAW
Length: 222 meter
Beam: approx. 25 meter
draft: with sonar: 10,36 meter
max height from keel to top mast: 63,55 meter
Propulsion: 2 Westinghouse nuclear reactors, 2 screws, 90,000/100,000 SHP
speed: 33 + - knots
crew: 1100/1200 officers and enlisted
armament:
3 X MK-26 GMLS (with reload)
2 X MK-11 GMLS (with reload)
1 X MK-25 SeaSparrow launcher (with reload), later replaced by MK-29 (with reload)
2 X 5"/54 Mark 42 gun
2+4 X MK-143 Tomahawk ABL (with reload)
2 X triple torpedo launcher
8 X GAU-16 0.50" Browning

Sensor:
SPS-49 LR 2D radar (was planned to carry SPS-50)
SPS-48 LR 3D radar
4 X SPG 51
4 X SPQ 9 in new doom on the side of each mast (Backup, but also helping at tracking multiple targets)
Various satellite and VHF, UHF, etc. communication systems.
some navigation radars.
Sonar

Aircraft:
Two medium Helicopter for ASW operation.

[ img ]
Author:  Morten812 [ September 8th, 2013, 12:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Cruiser CGN
Thanks - i knew you could do it - Truly amazing. :-)
Author:  Judah14 [ September 8th, 2013, 1:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Cruiser CGN
Nice design! Altough I think having both the Mk. 11 and the Mk. 26 is redundant. Since the ship is a 1980's-1990's design, provisions for an Aegis upgrade would do.
Author:  Morten812 [ September 8th, 2013, 1:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Cruiser CGN
This is the original 'requirement' i wrote to Heuhen's "You ask, i draw" :

Pre VLS and Aegis. - Nuclear - larger than existing US-cruiser - Kind of modern battlecruiser, Design period 75-80, perhaps design similar to Spruance

Single Launcher for Standard ER missiles for and aft, Asroc, Large helo-capacity. Tomahawk optional - refit.
Author:  TimothyC [ September 8th, 2013, 1:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Cruiser CGN
No, just no. The US would have never placed both a Mk 11 and a Mk 26 on the same hull, and would never have placed both Tartar/Standard on the same hull as Sea Sparrow.

And that's just the start of the problems.
Author:  acelanceloet [ September 8th, 2013, 1:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Cruiser CGN
Mk 11 is older then Mk 26, and was replaced by the Mk 13 before the Mk 26 was conceived. if any launch system should be there, it would be Mk 13. that said, the Mk 26 can fire faster and has an larger stack of reloads, so if you have space for Mk 26 on board, why would you fit an Mk 13?

the Mk 25 lacks guidance, and btw, if you have Mk 26, then you have Mk 29 too. the gun guidance system on the bridge is outdated as well, and the use of 4 SPQ-9A is already an redundancy in itself (I would have SPG-60 instead) also, some more SPG-51 would make sense as right now you have not the guidance channels to really make use of the additional Mk 26.

(and why is there no ER missile on board, in VLS or Mk 10?)

the propellers and rudder are on the small side. btw, where are the reactors? underneath the cranes? and were are the turbines? underneath the structures?
Author:  heuhen [ September 8th, 2013, 2:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Cruiser CGN
TimothyC wrote:
No, just no. The US would have never placed both a Mk 11 and a Mk 26 on the same hull, and would never have placed both Tartar/Standard on the same hull as Sea Sparrow.

And that's just the start of the problems.
I'll answear that in acelanceloets list, since he made a good list so here we go:
Quote:
Mk 11 is older then Mk 26, and was replaced by the Mk 13 before the Mk 26 was conceived. if any launch system should be there, it would be Mk 13. that said, the Mk 26 can fire faster and has an larger stack of reloads, so if you have space for Mk 26 on board, why would you fit an Mk 13?

so what you say is that I should remove MK11/13 and use the place for something else.. like what?

do you think I can fit an Mk.26 mod 0/3. or should I replace both Mk11/13 and those two ABL with ASROC.
Quote:
the Mk 25 lacks guidance, and btw, if you have Mk 26, then you have Mk 29 too.
forgot that one :oops:
Quote:
the gun guidance system on the bridge is outdated as well, and the use of 4 SPQ-9A is already an redundancy in itself (I would have SPG-60 instead) also, some more SPG-51 would make sense as right now you have not the guidance channels to really make use of the additional Mk 26.
so if I put them up in this style instead:

[ img ]

would that fix some of the problems.
Quote:
(and why is there no ER missile on board, in VLS or Mk 10?).
I have made this one to help us explaining things:

[ img ]

an empty version for playing with:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/887 ... Plan_B.PNG
Quote:
the propellers and rudder are on the small side. btw, where are the reactors? underneath the cranes? and were are the turbines? underneath the structures.
ruder and propeller will be fixed. reactors and turbines... see drawing above. placement of turbines. two separate engine rooms, one aft for the forward reactor, and one aft for the aft reactor. If one reactor have problem...


With drawings like these there will always be something, and I take always all advice I can get. But now I want to play a game, so see you later for fixing these things and many more things and ideas you boys might come with.
Author:  klagldsf [ September 8th, 2013, 3:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Cruiser CGN
heuhen wrote:
so what you say is that I should remove MK11/13 and use the place for something else.. like what?
I don't know, but Mk 26 makes Mk11/13 redundant. That's ace's whole point. I can't think of any weapon or sensor systems that make a lot of sense to put there, so I'd either put some sort of misc. equipment that does make sense or leave it empty.
Quote:
do you think I can fit an Mk.26 mod 0/3. or should I replace both Mk11/13 and those two ABL with ASROC.
You have a decent sonar setup but since this is primarily an AAW escort I don't know why you really need ASROC. BTW 2 ABLs for a ship like this is plenty enough. The provisions you have for six are probably overkill, especially since where you have them indicated as potential placement will really crowd the deck.

Also, why do you have the Typhon missile without the Typhon radar system? You can't have one without the other.
Author:  odysseus1980 [ September 8th, 2013, 5:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Cruiser CGN
The mid 1970's California Class had twin Mk45 guns,is curious for a later design to have the Mk42.Perhaps you did that because Mk42 has grater elevation and rate of fire from the Mk45.
Author:  heuhen [ September 8th, 2013, 6:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: US Cruiser CGN
Quote:
heuhen wrote:
so what you say is that I should remove MK11/13 and use the place for something else.. like what?
I don't know, but Mk 26 makes Mk11/13 redundant. That's ace's whole point. I can't think of any weapon or sensor systems that make a lot of sense to put there, so I'd either put some sort of misc. equipment that does make sense or leave it empty.
Then I just replace it some misc. and low caliber weapon. perhaps some... CHAFF
Quote:
Quote:
do you think I can fit an Mk.26 mod 0/3. or should I replace both Mk11/13 and those two ABL with ASROC.
You have a decent sonar setup but since this is primarily an AAW escort I don't know why you really need ASROC. BTW 2 ABLs for a ship like this is plenty enough. The provisions you have for six are probably overkill, especially since where you have them indicated as potential placement will really crowd the deck.
Ok!
Quote:
Also, why do you have the Typhoon missile without the Typhoon radar system? You can't have one without the other.
I don't have typhoon missiles... perhaps that you referring to is that Harpoon that I flipped!
odysseus1980 wrote:
The mid 1970's California Class had twin Mk45 guns,is curious for a later design to have the Mk42.Perhaps you did that because Mk42 has grater elevation and rate of fire from the Mk45.
I just felt that this gun was a more correct gun to use than those Mk45. I have also heard that the Mk45 isn't as good as the Mk42 so why go for an worse gun when something is good already!
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/