Shipbucket

Why only 90 VLS cells?

If you decide to stick with just 90 cells, I would strongly consider reducing the SPG-62 units down to just 3.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Umm, well, first, I'd move the Mk 71 8" gun just a bit further aft. The Mk 71 not including ammo in the ship's magazine weighs close to 90 tons. That's a lot of weight to have that far forward on the bow. I'd put it where you have your VERTREP space marked off. That'll make the ship a little more balanced and it would give you more magazine space for more ammo. Second, I'm not sure you would ever need 2 Mk 45 5" guns. There's nothing wrong with 2 of them, but 1 could cover the same firing archs as the two the way you have them placed. That'd save weight and the cost of 2 gun systems. The only reason I could see for having two guns the way you have them placed would be to engage separate targets coming from entirely different directions simultaneously, but I'm not sure the chances of that ever happening are high enough to justify two guns. Also, I think I would have kept OTO 76mms instead of 5" guns because the 76/62 is better at engaging air targets and missiles and your 8" gun, especially with guided rounds is more than adequate for engaging surface targets as well as shore targets, however, historically, the US has never been fond of the 76/62 unless space and weight were real concerns, so the 5" guns are probably more historically accurate.

And yeah, you have plenty of room for more VLS cells.

Other than that, your design is much more refined and better laid out than the previous one.

I know only 90 VLS cells but that does have to do with the weight. and a 4th iluminator is always a good thing



Well i could change the position of the systems but i wouldn't be able to take more with me because of the weight on the bow,this set up would give me like 550 tons of weapons on the bow.
The two 5 inch guns are because of the lack of a dual mount of that era, i could use mk75's because of the weight restrictions on the bow.
If i would place the mk75 give me about 57,000 lbs of free weight. so it would take of some stress of the bow, a 2nd pro mk75 is that it could perform a dual role , but it lacks fire power for shore bombartments to complete the 8 inch.

I realy think that 90 VLS cells with a 16 harpoons are good enough,
- 29 Tommahawks (nuclear)
- 24 ASROC's
- 36 Standard Missile's
For the Anti-ship role i got the Harpoons that could also serve as a Land attack missile (or tommahawk as anti ship) could be loaded with nuclear warheads.
I got 12 SVTT's for short range ASW / ASuW warfare and 4 Phalanxes for Close range protection

And these ships would have to sail in a strike fleet so they are protected by her escorts.

_________________
Vi coactus
Door geweld gedwongen
Forced by violence
------
Caption signing treaty with England by Johan de Witt

[Working List]
None

What an astonishing waste of a nuclear plant. Might as well buy five Burkes, as you surely could.

Back in the '70s during the first major mid-east oil crisis the US Navy pretty much went crazy designing nuclear ships because they were worried about being able to get oil for the fleet. In '73 when people were lining up for hours at gas stations to get a few gallons of gas, the idea of a vast fleet of nuclear ships wasn't such a far-fetched idea, and it actually made sense at the time. Obviously, with the proliferation of cruise missiles and the end of that particular oil crisis, the need for a huge nuclear cruiser with a big gun went away. Hence why the CSGN never made it off the drawing board.

The point of CGSN wasn't a big gun it was the cruise missile (first drafts of CGSN completely lacked a gun). Ultimately the USN decided to put ABLs on the Virginias and SpruCans and reactivated the Iowas and put ABLs there too (and of course later developed VLS-launched Tomahawk).

For that matter, the rise and fall of the nuclear cruiser in the US Navy doesn't in any way track with the oil crises.

Or a CGN-42 and an Mk 71ed Hayler, which after they both get VLS will offer darn near the same total capability (and more VLS cells to boot!).

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Putting a VLS and an AEGIS system on a CGN-42 would have pretty much made them into what the CSGN was supposed to be. Too bad some brilliant admiral didn't come up with that bright idea. LOL

uhm.... may I present you, the CGN-42 concept? http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... 42%202.gif
aegis and mk 26, when build might even have been mk 41..... or in other words, some brilliant admirals got that idea. sadly, politicians rule the armed forces. you analysis seems to keep on missing the point here.
on this and some of your other points, may I suggest you doing some research before doing an reply like that?

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin