- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,114
- Reaction score
- 12,183
On a related note, this was found by CanisD over at Shipbucket: http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/5500035000.pdf
Triton said:Hangar space for six VSTOL fighters in the island. (No mention made of the three smaller hangers that appear on the model. Could these be for LAMPS III helicopters?)
marcd30319 said:The second image appears to be the strike cruiser conversion for the USS Long Beach (CGN-9) which would have received two 8-inch/55 caliber Mark 71 gun mounts, fore and aft, as well as two Mark-26 twin missile launchers, also fore and aft.
Firefly 2 said:Wow, that Strike Cruiser Mark II CSGN is something to behold.
A few questions:
Wouldn't the missile ramps eventually have been replaced by VLS systems?
What was the rationale behind the extensive Harpoon package ( I count at least 5*4 cells, if the configuration is symmetric there would be 6 quadruple launchers... Triple the normal complement)?
XP67_Moonbat said:https://books.google.com/books?id=_eMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=strike+cruiser+ADM+Mike+Metcalf&source=bl&ots=C9kY-mzzKd&sig=IYtcpwSJQOLpsC6cpcwQPI0SblY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_wjVVLOjF5PmgwTGiILIDA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=strike%20cruiser%20ADM%20Mike%20Metcalf&f=false
note that she appears to have 24 Harpoon launch tubes but no box launchers for Tomahawk.
The attached exchange from a 1978 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing seems to be the definitive answer on the viability of Aegis modernisation of the CGN-36 and CGN-38 classes. In summary, the CGN-36 conversion was technically undesirable but probably possible, the CGN-38 was possible and viable but expensive and would have resulted in ships being out of commission for long periods. Also attached is an exchange involving Admiral Meyer from a 1979 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing suggesting the cost per conversion would have been $600-700 million in FY79 dollars.
I guess such conversions would have utilised the Aegis modular deckhouse concept, Deckhouse Mark 20, with the new deckhouses mounted on a revised and strengthened superstructure. Each of the loaded deckhouses for the CGN-38 would have weighed over 200 long tons each according to a 1988 article in The Naval Engineers Journal.
Is there any more information on the deckhouse concept? That sounds like an interesting read.I guess such conversions would have utilised the Aegis modular deckhouse concept, Deckhouse Mark 20, with the new deckhouses mounted on a revised and strengthened superstructure. Each of the loaded deckhouses for the CGN-38 would have weighed over 200 long tons each according to a 1988 article in The Naval Engineers Journal.
Probably best to replace "2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM" with 2x Mk 26 GMLS Mod 2 (64 rounds each), "4x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM" with 4x Mk 141 Harpoon Launcher (4 rounds each) and "2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM" with 2x Mk 143 Armoured Box Launchers (4 rounds each).In my excel Table together with the data posted by JFC Fuller I have 3+1 CSGN designs.
The three "Mark 1" versions:
Variant 1: (Smaller version)
Dimensions: 176,78 (wl) x 20,12 x 6,7m
Displacement: 11.800tons (standard), 12.700 (full load)
Engines: 60.000shp Westinghouse D2G Nuclear Reactors
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armaments:
2x1 127mm/54 Mark 19 Guns
2x6 20mm/76 Phalanx Mark 72 CIWS
2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM
2x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM
2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM
2x3 324mm Torpedo Launchers
2x Helicopters (SH-2 Seasprite)
Variant 2: (Larger, two gun version)
Dimensions: 203 (wl) 216,28 (oa) x 23,32 x 6,78m
Displacement: 15.902tons (standard), 17.172 (full load)
Engines: 60.000shp Westinghouse D2G Nuclear Reactors
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armaments:
1x1 203mm/55 Mark 32 Gun
1x1 127mm/54 Mark 19 Gun
2x6 20mm/76 Phalanx Mark 72 CIWS
2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM
2x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM
2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM
2x3 324mm Torpedo Launchers
2x Helicopters (SH-2 Seasprite)
Variant 3: (Larger, one gun more missile version)
Dimensions: 203 (wl) 216,28 (oa) x 23,32 x 6,78m
Displacement: 17.210 (full load)
Engines: 60.000shp Westinghouse D2G Nuclear Reactors
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armaments:
1x1 203mm/55 Mark 32 Gun
2x6 20mm/76 Phalanx Mark 72 CIWS
2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM
4x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM
2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM
2x3 324mm Torpedo Launchers
2x Helicopters (SH-2 Seasprite)
And the "Mark 2" version: (The flight deck equipped version)
Dimensions: 203 (wl) 222,5 (oa) x 24,64m (wl?)
Displacement: 22.070tons (standard), 24.648 (full load)
Engines: 60.000shp Westinghouse D2G Nuclear Reactors
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armaments:
2x1 203mm/55 Mark 32 Guns
2x6 20mm/76 Phalanx Mark 72 CIWS
2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM
4x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM
2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM
2x3 324mm Torpedo Launchers
6x VTOL Aircrafts (AV-8 Harrier)
2x Helicopters (SH-2 Seasprite)
This is the first time I've seen the Long Beach Aegis conversion in a detailed drawing. I am entirely puzzled by the presence of two sonar domes? Why two?
Probably best to replace "2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM" with 2x Mk 26 GMLS Mod 2 (64 rounds each), "4x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM" with 4x Mk 141 Harpoon Launcher (4 rounds each) and "2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM" with 2x Mk 143 Armoured Box Launchers (4 rounds each).
Thing is unlike with guns a missile performace and loadout is effected by it launcher as well.Probably best to replace "2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM" with 2x Mk 26 GMLS Mod 2 (64 rounds each), "4x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM" with 4x Mk 141 Harpoon Launcher (4 rounds each) and "2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM" with 2x Mk 143 Armoured Box Launchers (4 rounds each).
Nope in my excel table I state the armament of the ship not the type of launchers hence RIM-66, RGM-84 and BGM-109, the same way Dreadnought and Lord Nelson carries the same 12" Mark X cannons but in different turrets
Also could do Harpoon launches with that thing but that was a rare use thing.
Thing is unlike with guns a missile performace and loadout is effected by it launcher as well.Probably best to replace "2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM" with 2x Mk 26 GMLS Mod 2 (64 rounds each), "4x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM" with 4x Mk 141 Harpoon Launcher (4 rounds each) and "2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM" with 2x Mk 143 Armoured Box Launchers (4 rounds each).
Nope in my excel table I state the armament of the ship not the type of launchers hence RIM-66, RGM-84 and BGM-109, the same way Dreadnought and Lord Nelson carries the same 12" Mark X cannons but in different turrets
The Mark 26 has far better performance then the MK10, 12 and 13. It can launch more missiles at a time then either of those.
Plus he Mark 26 could launch Arsocs, which you damn bet that the CSGN will have despite it not being listed.
Also could do Harpoon launches with that thing but that was a rare use thing.
Also could do Harpoon launches with that thing but that was a rare use thing.
So rare I don't know if it ever happened in the fleet at all outside of experiments. Ships with Mk 26 still got separate Harpoon tubes, while ships with Mk 11 and Mk 13 (which definitely did shoot Harpoon) did not.
View attachment 641667Also could do Harpoon launches with that thing but that was a rare use thing.
So rare I don't know if it ever happened in the fleet at all outside of experiments. Ships with Mk 26 still got separate Harpoon tubes, while ships with Mk 11 and Mk 13 (which definitely did shoot Harpoon) did not.
A strange sight.
Also could do Harpoon launches with that thing but that was a rare use thing.
So rare I don't know if it ever happened in the fleet at all outside of experiments. Ships with Mk 26 still got separate Harpoon tubes, while ships with Mk 11 and Mk 13 (which definitely did shoot Harpoon) did not.
note that she appears to have 24 Harpoon launch tubes but no box launchers for Tomahawk.
I think this is just an artifact of the timing of this design. When Tomahawk was initially planned for ships, the intent was to have a conventional tube/box launcher that would have looked like a slightly scaled up Harpoon box. That's what you see aft on the Long Beach drawing.
When the battleship reactivation happened, it was decided that Tomahawk needed some protection, possibly just to be consistent with the rest of the ship and possibly to provide better nuclear weapons safety. (FWIW, battleship Harpoon canisters are also heavier weight than normal ones.) In any case, once ABL was designed, it made sense to standardize on a single launcher type, so ABL was added on other ships where the armor probably wasn't strictly necessary.
Well thats interesting.note that she appears to have 24 Harpoon launch tubes but no box launchers for Tomahawk.
I think this is just an artifact of the timing of this design. When Tomahawk was initially planned for ships, the intent was to have a conventional tube/box launcher that would have looked like a slightly scaled up Harpoon box. That's what you see aft on the Long Beach drawing.
When the battleship reactivation happened, it was decided that Tomahawk needed some protection, possibly just to be consistent with the rest of the ship and possibly to provide better nuclear weapons safety. (FWIW, battleship Harpoon canisters are also heavier weight than normal ones.) In any case, once ABL was designed, it made sense to standardize on a single launcher type, so ABL was added on other ships where the armor probably wasn't strictly necessary.
I think that you may be mistaken with those aft launchers, and that they are actually additional Harpoon deck launchers, since the Mk 26 Mod 2 launchers were able to fire Tomahawk missiles.
Which book is this? I have his one on US Cruisers and I have Layman and McLaughlin on Hybrids but I'm not familiar with a book on hybrids by Friedman.Rechecking my Friedmans cruiser and hybrid ships books showed that there was a few versions of the Mark 2 Strike Cruiser..
Which book is this? I have his one on US Cruisers and I have Layman and McLaughlin on Hybrids but I'm not familiar with a book on hybrids by Friedman.Rechecking my Friedmans cruiser and hybrid ships books showed that there was a few versions of the Mark 2 Strike Cruiser..
I'm going to have to come back to the issue of Mk 26 and Harpoon/Tomahawk in a couple of days, when I have time to do some proper research, but I'm fairly certain it's not true.
That is the book.Which book is this? I have his one on US Cruisers and I have Layman and McLaughlin on Hybrids but I'm not familiar with a book on hybrids by Friedman.Rechecking my Friedmans cruiser and hybrid ships books showed that there was a few versions of the Mark 2 Strike Cruiser..
Pretty sure he's talking about two books here: US Cruisers by Friedman, and The Hybrid Warship by Layman and McLaughlin.
I have a mention of an 18,000-ton version with a below-deck hangar for up to 18 Harriers in Norman Polmar's Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet, 13th Edition. Polmar describes it as somewhat similar to the WW2 Independence-class light carriers, but it's not clear if that's in appearance or just in relative capability.