CSGN mk2

erik_t wrote:

Well, you're thinking about it from the wrong point of view. It's not intended as the centerpiece of a ASW escort flotilla, like an Invincible, and it's not intended as some sort of command-center-god-king of ship-hunting surface combatants like a Kirov. It's really a ship driven entirely by the introduction of the Tomahawk, and a return of a strategic role that had disappeared with the end of Regulus. AEGIS allows such a ship to operate fully independently in the face of quite significant air forces, and the multitude of hangars on this particular type would most likely be full of ASW helos, making it less vulnerable to a cheap kill by some pokey SSK. Ultimately it's all to leverage the period maritime strategy of applying USN resources to somewhat asymmetric vulnerabilities of the Soviet Union. In this case, it spreads the nuclear wealth over a much wider range of sea. When you consider it as a relatively (!!) inexpensive nuclear delivery platform that could only be decisively countered by a couple of Backfire regiments, whose weapons are a completely different intercept target than a ballistic missile, it makes quite considerable sense.

on this, the question raises.... the other CSGN mk 2 concept showed 2 mk 26. wouldn't that mean that there could be no tomahawks on board?

_________________
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

It can be assumed that box launchers were somewhere. The thing that put the 'S' in CSGN was the Tomahawk. If any drawing or sub-design shows no Tomahawk, it can safely be filed away in the Some-Dumbshit-Threw-This-Into-Proceedings category (which is a bigger file cabinet than you might think).

Hood wrote:

Looks good, I remember doing an AU version of this design some time ago kitbashed from Tico and Spruance parts. It's a odd ship to classify, it lacks the long-range punch of a Kirov but on the other hand lacks the aircraft capability of an Invincible. It's a kind of half-way house between the two. Very interesting, certainly such a ship is more useful now than it would have been during a Cold War WWIII-type scenario.

Theoretically it'd be very useful if we had some sort of magic airplane (basically a super-F-35B) but as I've talked with Tim the way I imagine it being at its most useful is as a super-ASW platform - i.e., a helicopter carrier. With the addition of a flight deck and extended hangar facilities along with what a typical destroyer offers on top of it, it would be a powerful escort vessel for a carrier battlegroup.

And of course, that was the original intention behind Invincible before Invincible herself became a carrier group centerpiece.

IIRC, the truth was somewhere in the middle: STOVL ASW assets

_________________
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

_________________
Serve the Nation! Be striped!

The adddition of a few fighters wouldn't do much for a carrier battlegroup. It would also have to be fast enough to keep up with a battlegroup and add some sort of weapons capability that couldn't be met by existing ships (i.e. Burkes and the carriers). With the sophisticated weapons and sensors it would be pretty expensive to build in any numbers. As designed it could be useful for convoy escort along with updated Perrys, giving the convoy air protection.

This of course is the second incarnation of the CSGN design, and yes it makes sense. The ship was to be the center piece of a SAG. These ships were to be sent into less risky areas that didn't warrant a carrier group.

They would have carried STOL and ASW as mentioned and they would have been the maintinance hug to keeping fleet choppers repaired.

It was said that these ships weren't meant to counter Kirov, but they were. The Tomahawks that were being planned for this ship were to be TASM-C\N (Tactical Anti-Ship Missile Conventional or Nuclear). These ships were being designed to work the surface environment. hence usually twice the load of Harpoons that you would find on a normal cruiser.

The TSAMs would have given her an effective weapons range to do surface battle at about 250 nautical miles. These anti-ship missiles would have no doubt been her primary mission, but given the vertical launchers on the ship, She could also carry weapons like Standard missiles and VL\ASROC, but seeing how she has that Mk. 10 that can handle the Standard the vertical launch cells would be used for Tomahawks and a few ASROC rounds. If my sources are correct she would have had an ASW center aboard as well, that makes since given the SQS-53 sonar....the original plan was for the ships to carry SH-3 Sea King ASW birds and the FV-12 to provide some fighter protection for the task force.

I have no doubt with the failure of the FV-12, that AV-8's would have been carried in their place. And as mentioned when they come in service F-35s would be embarked on her. In her later stages of operation the SH-3s would be replaced by SH-60F Sea Hawks.

Also given the modular construction of ships from that time, that forward missile launcher would be replaced by Mk 41 VLS cells to fire the Standard missiles from.

So yes the class makes since. Their primary mission being ASurW, with a good ASW\AAW capability. Also land attack becomes a possible role with replacing TASM with TLAM Tomahawks.

The design wasn't killed because it was a bad concept, but like so many other good concepts, it was killed by the Carter White House for being to expensive.

I have played this ship out on the table in Harpoon, and yes they would have been effective. They would have been a pain in the ass of the Soviet surface forces, and they are great ships for "showing the flag" and gunboat diplomacy.

Unfortunately most sources list the earlier concept as being the one that most likely would have been completed.

Are you planning on doing upgrades to the design.

Say for the 1980's giving the ship Sea Sparrow and Phalynx CIWS?

and in the 90's replacing the twin arm launcher with VLS for the AAW missiles?

why would I? apart from the fact that phalanx is already there, and that the Mk 26 would most likely not be replaced (they were not on the Kidd class, Virginia class.... so why would they be swapped here, as the only major difference in capabilities is that it can fire tomahawks) and sea sparrow would not be added before ESSM was available, using VLS.

_________________
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

acelanceloet wrote:

I stand corrected and failed to see the CIWS on the ship....sorry about that.

Shipbucket

Who is online