Shipbucket

Over the years, many people have discussed and drawn conventional powered strike cruisers. Some were small, many were even bigger then the CSGN designs they were compared to. So, to research what was actually a realistic design, I decided to start drawing.

I set myself some limitations though, so this personal design that would historically be very unlikely to be considered let alone be build, would be more or less what would be build IF a conventional strike cruiser was considered instead of the nuclear ones we all know and love.
- The design would have the same armament as one of the strike cruiser designs, being 2 Mk 26 launchers with 64 missiles each, a Mk 71 gun, 2 tripple Mk 32 SVTT, 16 harpoon missiles and 8 tomahawk cruise missiles. The ship would match this ship as much as possible in operational specifications, apart from cruising speed and range.
- The ship would be build to cruiser standards. That would mean able to operate independently, slightly heavier scantling then the DLG/Destroyer lines, flagship spaces, at least 15% LWL separation between main engine rooms, etc.
- The ship would use the AEGIS system as produced. That means the system space and components used on the Ticonderoga class, which are likely what would have ended up on CSGN/CGN-42 if they were ever completed as well.
- The ship would match the Technology level as set by the first few AEGIS ships, as this ship would be among those first generation.

The design process was very interesting to me. If I had gone for a steam powered ship I would be done in days, but with gas turbines I ran into a lot of issues with the intakes and uptakes. Why? When not being limited by the superstructure of the Spruance, there should be more then enough space for intakes, uptakes and radars right? Well, yes and no.
I fitted more on the ship then a tico. This meant a larger hull. I also imposed cruiser class standards on the ship, requiring more engine room separation. So, the intakes and uptakes came apart from each other considerably! However, the SPY-1 arrays on the Ticonderoga class are already one of the most separated in length of all the AEGIS ship designs. The further they are separated, the more issues with blind spots and targets crossing between radar arrays will exist....... so I decided that this separation had to be limited. In other words: On this much larger hull, the space fore and aft of the machinery where I could put the arrays was actually smaller!
After trying out multiple arrangements, such as the DG/AEGIS layout and layouts from the various CSGN designs, the one layout that worked well for this ship was not dissimilar to the Ticonderoga class: no 45 degrees angles for the arrays and offset funnels. No other layout would allow the uptakes, turbine removal routes and intakes to be set up as required by that generation of gas turbine ships and still keep the radar array deckhouses an acceptable distance from each other.
More volume in the superstructure was required though, which meant I had to extend the pilothouse and hangar fore and aft from the SPY-1 deckhouses.

The resulting ship has the following specifications:
- 580 ft WL length (176.78 m)
- 63 ft beam (19.20 m)
- 25 ft draft (7.62 m)
- 12211 tons displacement (11078 metric tons)
- Top speed of slightly over 30 knots.
- Cruising speed of 20 knots, 9000 nm range at this speed.
- 4 GE LM-2500 gas turbines (100000 hp, 80 MW) arranged in 2 independent COGAG plants each with 2 LM-2500's driving a locked-train double-reduction gear to a 5-bladed controllable-reversible pitch propeller.



The ship ended up smaller then the comparable CSGN concept, which makes sense when we compare the USN ships with nuclear power with the USN conventional powered ships with (Roughly) the same combat system:
- Virginia class - Kidd class
- CGN-42 - Ticonderoga class
The impact of the weight of the nuclear reactor, the added crew and safety systems to operate said reactor and the longer hull optimised for top speed instead of cruising speed is a large size driver.

I personally suspect this is about as close as it is possible to get to a conventional CSGN.

Thanks Erik_T for the help getting this to this level of realism!

Feel free to discuss I will likely write an more comprehensive article on this design (and possibly on the variations I tried) for the shipbucket wiki, so any thoughts and insights on the subject I might be able to use to write 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

I have nothing to add here that I didn't add in Discord messages. Great drawing, great concept exploration, glorious lattice.

This looks great Ace. I already like the Ticonderoga design but you have enhanced it even further. Wonderful drawing mate.

_________________
There is no "I" in TEAM but there is a ME


______________________
Current Worklist:
Redrawing my entire AU after a long absence from Shipbucket

Looks great and I love it, chimes well with some of my own alt-USN thoughts too.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

This is indeed great work and even more so as you actually had to "design" the ship from engineering point-of view and not just artistically pleasing drawing. It gives it shitloads of realism which is rare in AU and Personal designs.

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

Great drawing. great cruiser design! I love the big cruisers from the 70s but Nuke power was a one way street. I especially like the auto gun! How about two! With the Old BBs and CA gone I thoughta dedicated gunfire support cruiser would be useful 8" x 8", Other weapons would be defence missiles and guns.