Jemiba said:Just found, where I wouldn't have searched for it, in the "Enzyklopädie
der Raketen & Lenkwaffen" (Encyclopedia of rockets and missiles): A
side view of the DDG 47
HeavyG said:The Ticonderoga class was mostly derived from the Spruance class with the biggest change being the massive superstructure to accomodate the SPY-1 radar system. The Virginia class was probably the closest class to resembling the strike cruiser. I had read somewhere that in fact the strike cruiser was going to be a modiified Virginia class with changes to the superstructure to accomodate the Aegis sensor system.
Triton said:Photographs of brass model of CGN-42 on display at Rickover Hall of the United States Naval Academy.
pometablava said:From Aviation & Marine magazine
RyanCrierie said:Triton said:Photographs of brass model of CGN-42 on display at Rickover Hall of the United States Naval Academy.
Hey now! I took those photos. ;D
Okay, since this seems to be the CSGN, CGN, CGN-9, and DDGX thread....
blackstar said:pometablava said:From Aviation & Marine magazine
That one is just rather odd. The helicopter doesn't look like a Seasprite or Seahawk. I suspect that the rest of the drawing is off as well.
starviking said:blackstar said:pometablava said:From Aviation & Marine magazine
That one is just rather odd. The helicopter doesn't look like a Seasprite or Seahawk. I suspect that the rest of the drawing is off as well.
It seems to resemble a YAH-63, the Bell copter that lost to the YAH-64.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,532.msg6402.html#msg6402
It does. Not that that makes any sense...
blackstar said:starviking said:blackstar said:pometablava said:From Aviation & Marine magazine
That one is just rather odd. The helicopter doesn't look like a Seasprite or Seahawk. I suspect that the rest of the drawing is off as well.
It seems to resemble a YAH-63, the Bell copter that lost to the YAH-64.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,532.msg6402.html#msg6402
It does. Not that that makes any sense...
I suspect that the rest of the drawing is off as well.
pometablava said:I suspect that the rest of the drawing is off as well.
It's a possibility, of course, but I'm not so sure. It's true that we can find such kind of drawings on respectable magazines like AW&ST but the article in Aviation&Marine International, where I found the drawing, looks authoritative to me. The article also covers some other drawings already posted in this topic.
The article is from October 1976 issue
pometablava said:I posted this drawing to see if anyone could see the YAH-63. Congratulations to starviking!
pometablava said:I was very surprised with that detail but I agree with you too about it makes sense to place a naval combat helo in a strike cruiser.
Is Aviation & Marine an American magazine?
I suspect that the drawing was off because the artist was speculating and did not have first-hand information.
As with the Sea Apache, I wonder what the stated rationale for the aircraft was - air-to-ship attack, air-to-ground, or even sensor platform?
Abraham Gubler said:I would be very skeptical of identifying this mystery helo as the Bell AAH entry. For one it’s much bigger than the Bell AAH, has a completely different tail and also what appears to be a large sliding side door. It’s clearly just a notional helicopter drawing.
starviking said:I was looking for old views of the YAH-63 and came across a page that also has the Boeing Vertol YUH-61A (UTTAS) - it certainly seems to fit the bill better, and was entered in the Navy's LAMPS III competition.
With an allowance for artist's error
Abraham Gubler said:I very much doubt this image has anything to do with the AHH and/or Sea Apache program. The Sea Apache (known as Grey Thunder) wasn’t conceived until 1984 and then as a replacement for the USMC’s AH-1S Sea Cobra and for the USN. The USN retained a naval attack helicopter requirement for some time to replace its gunship configured Hueys from VietNam. Unlike ASW helos the roles of this chopper was escort of small ships (amphibious assault craft), SEAL support and general coastal interdiction roles. Because of the carrying capacity of the Apache Harpoon and Penguin was quickly added to the list for ASuW. Later as the Sea Apache was evolved combat air patrol was added which saw considerable streamlining added to the Apache. It’s only with the MH-60R that the USN has regained this littoral attack helicopter capability.
I would be very skeptical of identifying this mystery helo as the Bell AAH entry. For one it’s much bigger than the Bell AAH, has a completely different tail and also what appears to be a large sliding side door. It’s clearly just a notional helicopter drawing.
Summary
The decade of the 1970s brought new challenges and uncertainties to the U.S. Navy. Accustomed since World War II to unequivocal dominance at sea, the Navy struggled in the 1970s with the pressures brought about by rapidly advancing technology, the block obsolescence of large numbers of World War II ships, and a vigorous challenge at sea from a Soviet navy growing in strength and confidence.
This struggle has continued into the 1980s. It is nowhere more evident than in that category of warships known as surface combatants--cruisers, destroyers, and frigates. Surface combatants are used in a variety of naval missions, including escorting aircraft carriers as part of a carrier battle group. During a major war, carrier battle groups are intended to be the Navy's primary instrument for gaining control of the seas and for attacking the enemy base structure and forces from the sea. Frontal assaults against Soviet homeland bases would almost certainly encounter stiff resistance from Soviet naval and air forces. Battle groups might also be required to confront additional, although probably less formidable, threats distributed widely over the world's oceans.
Additional tasks undertaken by surface combatants include their employment in surface action groups and as escorts for amphibious forces, underway replenishment groups, and convoys. Surface action groups are naval strike groups that do not contain an aircraft carrier. They are used today in the Middle East and the Carribbean, and could provide forces responsive to other crises in the Third World. Amphibious forces invade land areas from the sea. Underway replenishment groups replenish fuel, ammunition, and stores for warships at sea and are essential for sustained naval operations away from home waters. Merchant ship convoys will almost certainly require vigorous protection against enemy interdiction, as they have in past wars. All of these functions will require surface combatants beyond those needed for carrier battle groups.
Looking ahead to the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Navy faces a substantial drop in the surface combatant force level as the ships delivered in the late 1950s and early 1960s reach retirement age. At the same time, the challenge posed by the forces of potential adversaries has continued to grow.
In addressing this challenge, several related questions must be considered:
* How large a surface combatant force will the Navy have in the 1990s, given the number of new ships already authorized and the ships now in the fleet that will not yet have reached the end of their service lives?
* How might recent technological developments affect the likely role of future surface combatants?
* Given these technological developments, and alternative views of naval strategy, what mix of surface combatants might be considered within whatever budget level the Congress selects?
These questions are the focus of this paper.
The second image appears to be the strike cruiser conversion for the USS Long Beach (CGN-9)