70's-80's CSG

Shipright wrote:

It looks like he has fueling stations just under where the helicopter tail rotor is drawn as well as under the forward harpoon launcher so there is no need for the stpres station to also take on fuel, though do to the normal alignment of replenishment ships they would only be able to fuel from one station if also using the stores kingpost, the replenishment ship would be too far forward to connect to the aft station.

I would recommend putting the harpoons back in front of the forward superstructure (just eight, sixteen is overkill) and putting the kingpost there while moving the forward fueling station either between the boats or forward besides your break enclosure. I don't think there is enough beam there to mount harpoons on both sides of the superstructure right there anyway (have you done a notational top down to check?) and even if they were you are firing the exhaust directly against a bulkhead. In fact, the aft set have their exhast pointed at a water tight door which would warp closed permanently after a single fire most likely, or at the very least have its seals melted!

Alternatively you could put the retractable kingposts amidships so they are in front of the ABLs when extended. That provides for much better stationkeeping (think about it, if you tension a span wire on a bow station you are basiclly pulling the bow direcly into the replenisment ship which then has to be compensated for. Also, having the replenishment ship that far forward during an UNREP means you probably have his wake action interacting with your stern) and lets you use all your UNREP stations, stores and fuel, at the same time.

Also alternatively you could compromise and put the retractable kingposts just in front of the superstructure.

It looks like you forgot to color the base of the aft director.

Thank you shipright. As stated in a previous, there is a retractabe kingpost (is that the correct name) amidships right in front of the ABL's. I cut the catwalk back right there so more room is available. I thought that refuling station just aft of there could be used in conjunction with that un-rep satation. I have to be honest, I'm not the most knowledgable person in that field. I was an unrep line handler, but being on a nuke i didnt see alot of fueling aspects. So I will try to decipher what youre telling me to do, but its a little foggy to me exactly where the fueling stations need to be. I am re-thinking the harpoon placement as I type. Again, thank you for helping out

bezobrazov wrote:

Please check the latest versions of the CGN:s California and South Carolina for RL-examples of retro-fitted Harpoons and the UnRep masts. http://shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Re ... 201997.png

Very nice, Thank you for pointing that out bezo

erik_t wrote:

At this point, I find myself feeling like you can (should) improve the disposition of the directors. There's no reason for them to be as crammed together as they are, especially aft.

I find the location of the aft Phalanx especially galling, in that it is blocking the field of view of the after directors. The CIWS is very much a last ditch system; by all means you should hope to shoot someone down with Standard instead. Why subordinate the superior system to the inferior one? Indeed, I'd rather get rid of it entirely, and survive on the two beam mounts, rather than block the illuminators this way. Lots of Shipbucket artists seem to do this, so I'm not trying to single you out. This is just well-enough thought out that I think you should dedicate a little more thought to the layout.

Also, what year is this depiction? SPS-49 could (and eventually would) replace SPS-40.

Thank you Eric, I really enjoy your input. My aft director set-up is still in progress, which is why it looks incomplete. I havent had that moment yet when I say to myself "Oh Yeah, thats it" I would like to discuss your thoughts on the rear CIWS Vs SM-2. First, and formost I think it very important to underdstand that NO ship is ever going to be able to cover all threats all the time, and manuvering your ship to best bring all systems to bear will always be a factor. Second, let say I completely remove that mount so my director will be able to address a threat that is approaching from dead astern. The only threat my CIWS mount would be blocking from that director would a a sea-skimming missle. Now, again if the CIWS is moved so the dierector can engage this threat with an SM-2 its ot going to be able to lock on untill the incomming missle is with-in the radar horizon (at that director's hight I'll say roughly 20 miles), assuming the MK-26 is ready to shoot, I'm not going to be able to fire directly at this incomming missle because my MK-71 is in the way. coincidentally, I believe that is the exact reason they put the MK-26 in front of the gun mounts on Virginia. So you have to launch the SM-2 up and over the MK-71 and now the missle now has to aquire the incomming threat and dive back down on it. All of this is going to take a lot of time. probably to much time. I think in that scenerio the CIWS is going to be a better bet. I have raised the directors a but though, and lowered the CIWS by having its underneath equipment in the overhead (and in the middle of) the hanger deck.

The year is about 1975 and I covered the SPS-40 question either in my first post or shortly there after. The ships will be upgraded with the SPS-49 about 81, and the new ships after that time period will have them mounted as original equipment.

Shipright wrote:

Its all I have to contribute thus far. But soon, soon...

@sabotage181 - Are those ABLs two deep for 16 weapons or just one deep side by side for 8? If its the first then just like the harpoons I would take a look at beam space as I don't think you have it (The Iowas have them mounted this way and it uses most of their 108ish foot beam). If its the latter you should rotate one of the launchers so you can fire strikes of either side of the ship. Its not really a big deal for land attack missions but at this time period they still had TASMs which might require a certain ship attitude when firing for tactical reasons

bring on the contributions! I really enjoy the feedback, and thank you for causing me to think about all aspects of lay out. Ok, I did do a crude overhead and based on a 70' beam, four ABLS would fit but It would be very tight. not sure if it is feasable or not. If anyone would like to take a look at that, I'd be happy to hear more thoughts. Unless I get more info, I'm going to go with two, one facing port the other reversed. and I might go ahead and re-mount the two aft ABL's. this is a strike cruise after all, so I'd like her to be able to one-up a destroyer

Thank you Shipright

acelanceloet wrote:

the forward and aft generators are not strictly emergency generators.
but yeah, she needs some of them. you can go with whatever you want, gas turbines are lighter but take more fuel and diesels are heavier but more fuel efficient. on an nuclear cruiser, I would go for diesels so the range is larger, but on an gas turbine ship you can do whatever you want, as it feeds from the main fuel supply and thus does not cut your range that much anyways.
the beam seems to be 1/9 of the waterline length. that is, for the spruance, california, virgina and burke an good estimate. so I think that 70 feet is an good estimate.

Thank you ACE, I amm currently rethinking the generator issues

Judah14 wrote:

What an interesting design! I hope to see the Aegis version, altough I think it will be similar to the Ticonderoga cruisers in the radar set-up and superstructure modifications.

Thank you Judah, The Aegis version will pop-up soon after I have all the kinks worked out of this baseline. It looks like a mix between the Tico and Burke, minus any RCSing

Again, I want to thank everyone for all your help

Joe

ok, here's the latest.

Shipbucket

Who is online