Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

70's-80's CSG
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4497		 Page 1 of 23
Author:  sabotage181 [ August 26th, 2013, 12:56 am ]
Post subject:  70's-80's CSG
Hello again everybody. So as you may all know, the idea of strike cruisers fascinates me. So my mind got rolling again on the subject, and to why none were ever built. I'm thinking because all the proposals were nuclear powered and maybe to cost prohibitive at the time. So this is my submission.

[ img ]

I'll make a detailed write up of this later but it'll go along these lines. All the strike cruiser proposals were rejected because of high costs of nuclear power. At the same time the Spruance class was being designed and built. A lot in the navy were unhappy with the Spruance because they thought the Russians would thing these ships were weak because of the lack of visible weaponry. That's a true statement by the way. So this is how I would build a strike cruiser to complement the Spruance class.

As usual, this is a WIP and I would love to her input about design and weapons and so forth.

Rough dimensions are 610 feet length by 65 wide. I'll have to figure out the rest as I go along

Hope you all enjoy
Author:  Judah14 [ August 26th, 2013, 3:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 70's-80's CSG
Hmm, the drawing of the Standard Missile is an old drawing. Check the latest US weapon parts sheet for the newest drawing of the Standard Missile.
Author:  Rodondo [ August 26th, 2013, 3:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 70's-80's CSG
Good start! Though there's a few stray pixels, especially around the sonar dome ;) Not sure if the radars are up to date but I know little about them so don't take my word as gospel
Author:  Judah14 [ August 26th, 2013, 4:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 70's-80's CSG
Well, the SPS-49 and SPS-48 are from the up-to-date US Radars sheet.
Author:  acelanceloet [ August 26th, 2013, 8:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 70's-80's CSG
I have some doubts......
I suppose this ship would sail on an spruance powerplant? you have removed the air intakes.... ;)

the size looks about right. the strike cruisers were often bigger, but an comparision between virginia and kidd show that nuke ships tend to be bigger.
what I have doubts about, would be the general arrangement. the superstructure seems to have little space for the intakes, and the radar arrangement seems less then ideal. the Mk 26 are mod 0, I suppose? otherwise the tomahawks are on top of the plenum vents.
I am also in doubt about that remodeled Mk 26, but I have voiced that earlier on and you are free to use whatever parts you want, so I'll keep it at that.
you have a lot less weight at the bottom due to the propulsion plant having a lower weight and, with the in and uptakes, an higher CoG. this might urge you to reduce topweight and thus make the current radar and weapon layout too heavy.
the SLQ-32 seems to be badly placed underneath the phalanx, and the platform would certainly need some structural support.

also, you may want to keep an eye on the project DX thread I am working on, for updated spruance drawings...... the propeller, helideck, air intake housing and uptakes for example have been updated on those and might look better on this ship too (if you want, PM me and I'll sent you the spruance 1975 WIP)

it is an interesting proposal though, although it might lack the firepower the strike cruisers had (they all had typhon or aegis, and especially in case of typhon nuclear power was needed or the system would lack power) so I think the reason for the strike cruisers not being build is a bit more complicated then just this.

and a last small remark: I suppose this is still WIP? otherwise I'd like to ask for crediting, as I see a lot of parts reused from other drawings.
Author:  sabotage181 [ August 28th, 2013, 11:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 70's-80's CSG
Rodondo wrote:
Good start! Though there's a few stray pixels, especially around the sonar dome ;) Not sure if the radars are up to date but I know little about them so don't take my word as gospel
Judah14 wrote:
Hmm, the drawing of the Standard Missile is an old drawing. Check the latest US weapon parts sheet for the newest drawing of the Standard Missile.
Thank you guys :P I'll check on the missiles but as of yet I've only re-colored them.
acelanceloet wrote:
I have some doubts......
I suppose this ship would sail on an spruance powerplant? you have removed the air intakes.... ;)

the size looks about right. the strike cruisers were often bigger, but an comparision between virginia and kidd show that nuke ships tend to be bigger.
what I have doubts about, would be the general arrangement. the superstructure seems to have little space for the intakes, and the radar arrangement seems less then ideal. the Mk 26 are mod 0, I suppose? otherwise the tomahawks are on top of the plenum vents.
I am also in doubt about that remodeled Mk 26, but I have voiced that earlier on and you are free to use whatever parts you want, so I'll keep it at that.
you have a lot less weight at the bottom due to the propulsion plant having a lower weight and, with the in and uptakes, an higher CoG. this might urge you to reduce topweight and thus make the current radar and weapon layout too heavy.
the SLQ-32 seems to be badly placed underneath the phalanx, and the platform would certainly need some structural support.

also, you may want to keep an eye on the project DX thread I am working on, for updated spruance drawings...... the propeller, helideck, air intake housing and uptakes for example have been updated on those and might look better on this ship too (if you want, PM me and I'll sent you the spruance 1975 WIP)

it is an interesting proposal though, although it might lack the firepower the strike cruisers had (they all had typhon or aegis, and especially in case of typhon nuclear power was needed or the system would lack power) so I think the reason for the strike cruisers not being build is a bit more complicated then just this.

and a last small remark: I suppose this is still WIP? otherwise I'd like to ask for crediting, as I see a lot of parts reused from other drawings.
Ace, can you look me straight in the face after seeing a Tico and tell me you think this ship to top heavy.... :shock:
I tease of course, but tico'c HAVE to have added ballast wouldn't they? I'm sure the same thing could be done in this case. I like your DX and I wish you would post more pics. As for power plant yes, same as Spruance and Ticonderoga. I have been throwing an extra turbine to each engine room however. I will think about that later. Or perhaps I shall add the possibility to my back story. Yes the SLQ-32's are pushed out and on a platform under the CIWS. I lifted that from the Virginia class and I can tell you that this set-up works just fine. I thank you for pointing out the in-take set-up. I always just assumed intake was on the stack itself. I have added intakes although the front is hidden behind the CIWS. As for as credits, YES, This is very much WIP. As you will be able to tell here in a minute I am using most parts as place holders and re-drawing my own parts to replace them. Once finished I will credit properly. OH yeah, one more thing. What is Typhon? I've never heard of that. please send me a link

I appreciate your invaluable help Ace.

OK, now down to business. I feel I need to add to the backstory a little.....so without further adieu

*Alternate History*

As the Spruance Class was in research it was decided that a bigger ship would be built concurrently. The Planners and researchers concluded that a ship built as a cruiser was needed. They felt the Spruance was good as a destroyer but they wanted to build a ship that would replace the aging fleet of conventional cruisers. The first flight would be built with the current AAW suite but with an eye toward upgrade to the still in development Aegis Spy-1 system. All other systems were also to be built with and eye toward modularity. They were also to be equipped with the MK-71 MCLWG from the beginning, as the admirals wanted to renew the fleets GFS capabilities. The power plant on the first flight was to be the same as the Spruance class but with room to expand to a total of 6 main turbines as future weapons systems may require.


OK, I'll expand that as I think of anything else

so here is my latest up date. I've lengthened her a bit and lowered the ABL's to the main deck. I think the draft is to shallow as I just used my Leahy hull as a guide for this. I will fix that next go round

[ img ]

oh, also I as showing this ship at the moment with some future upgrades such as SAT domes and RHIB
Author:  TimothyC [ August 29th, 2013, 1:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 70's-80's CSG
She's really got a super-Kidd feel to her - I'm not sure about the extra turbine, but I'd really like to see how this goes.
sabotage181 wrote:
OH yeah, one more thing. What is Typhon? I've never heard of that. please send me a link
the Typhon Combat System was a predecessor of AEGIS, and used the AN/SPG-59 radar with the RIM-50 and RIM-55 missiles (early on they were known as SUPER-TALOS* and SUPER-TARTAR)

*Oddly, the RIM-50 was Terrier sized, but used a ramjet sustainer, which was a feature that belied it's origins).
Author:  sabotage181 [ August 29th, 2013, 3:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 70's-80's CSG
TimothyC wrote:
She's really got a super-Kidd feel to her - I'm not sure about the extra turbine, but I'd really like to see how this goes.
sabotage181 wrote:
OH yeah, one more thing. What is Typhon? I've never heard of that. please send me a link
the Typhon Combat System was a predecessor of AEGIS, and used the AN/SPG-59 radar with the RIM-50 and RIM-55 missiles (early on they were known as SUPER-TALOS* and SUPER-TARTAR)

*Oddly, the RIM-50 was Terrier sized, but used a ramjet sustainer, which was a feature that belied it's origins).

Thank you Timothy. So typhon was the Long beach and Enterprise install? That didn't work out very good.

I appreciate your enthusiasm

After looking at this for a while, I like it a lot better. Lowered everything. Now just need to figure out where to put my ABL's.
[ img ]

**the ABL between the forward MK-26 and the gun accidentally got left in here. It will be gone next update
Author:  erik_t [ August 29th, 2013, 4:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 70's-80's CSG
That's starting to feel like a whole lot of ship on not very much hull.
Author:  TimothyC [ August 29th, 2013, 4:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 70's-80's CSG
sabotage181 wrote:
Thank you Timothy. So typhon was the Long beach and Enterprise install? That didn't work out very good.
Nope, Long Beach and Enterprise had SCANFAR, which consisted of the SPS-32/33 combo, and predated TYPHON. A simplified Typhon installation was tested on the Norton Sound with mixed results. It's my understanding that a lot of the lessons learned on Typhon went into AEGIS.
Page 1 of 23 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/