CG(X) option two 23,000 ton BMD CGN(X)

erik_t wrote:

Certainly making good progress. A few comments:

Thank you for these suggestion Erik, I will address each one individually to the best of my limited knowledge

erik_t wrote:

Can you indicate on a little cartoon what arrays are what, and at what angles (relative to the bow) they are located? This would help understanding, and ease the visualization of excess arrays or blind spots in coverage.

I do plan on doing side and top views on this ship, so bear with me a little in my discovery process. I use the arrays from the DD(X) parts sheets. The biggest antenna (the aft one) is one panel of the SPY-3 system. The other is directly opposite on the port side and the third is directly in front of, and below the bridge. I'm not sure on the angles but I've just eyeballed based on the SPY-3 on Ford pictures and models I've seen. The second biggest panel right below the bridge windows on the starboard side is on antenna of the AMDR system. From what I've read this system can have either three or four panels and I have chosen to have three in order to be able to blend in with the SPY-3 set-up. The panels below the mast say the are satellite com panels. The ones smaller than those are radio freq com antennas (both trans and receive)

erik_t wrote:

Both of the major 24ish-foot arrays are a little lower than I'd like; the forward one poses a bit of HERO concern with regards to the RAM immediately in front of it, and the after arrays will lose view of the horizon in any pitching and rolling (since the hangar beneath is wide and rectangular!). Elevating both arrays a bit would solve this problem.

The two main array antennas are sitting at roughly 60 feet above waterline. Is this not high enough? Also, I don't have any experience with these new systems but the AN/SPS-48C(v) radar used a gyro reference so that when the ship rolled the transmitter would change frequency so that we would not radiate into the water close to the ship, thus eliminating that problem. I would think these new system would be capable of the same thing. I don't think that small corner of the top of the hanger deck would cause many problems in that area ether. the beams of the air search radar are not as picky about that kind of stuff as the navigation radars are, which is why you always want that's type radars as high as possible. I hope I made some kind of sense there

erik_t wrote:

CVNs can put about 70,000shp into a screw, but theirs are deeper than yours. Besides, four screws is right and proper on a cruiser.

Excellent

I'm thinking about that change soon

erik_t wrote:

Where and how big do you envision your reactors? It's helpful to have vertical access (we may envision never refueling, but ships have certainly been known to operate beyond their initially planned service life! Note the APHNAS program in the 1970s envisioned about a 60kshp reactor; I'm not aware of any design work on what would really be ideal, which is about an 80kshp plant. Nimitz plants, in any event, are too big.

being that the last reactor made specifically made for cruisers was the D2G I'm not really sure here. Some of the studies I've read have said something about two A1B's halved. In this case, I really do know how to make the baby, I've just built It a house.

As far as vertical access, I was still aboard the Virginia (....well...technically, I was stationed on a barge at that time haha ) when they started removing her whole forward deckhouse in order to get the reactors. So although it would be nice to have nothing on top of them, I'm pretty sure its not a deal breaker

erik_t wrote:

I'll maintain to my dying day that the SeaRAMs are silly. If you're worried about battle damage or whatnot, great! You should be. But that's an argument for a sub mainmast with SPQ-9B, not a reduced-capability CIWS.

As far as I've heard, AMDR will negate the need for SPQ-9B, and I was actually thinking along the same lines you are now. If you look at the previous versions I did have SPQ-9B on her before I added AMDR. As far as how good or bad of a system SEARAM is I haven't done the research, would you just go with the Phalanx 1B?

erik_t wrote:

You've got a long, low hull. I'd strongly consider a bow bulwark.

now I'm no expert in this area either. I always thought the bulwark looked cool. However, I did read that the reason the Tyco's had the bulwark is because they were so front heavy, as compared to the Spruance, and it tended to nose dive. This hull has the weight set back pretty far from the bow. As well, this bow is higher than the Virginia's was and there was no bulwark on her. So I would have to ask how other people feel about this.

erik_t wrote:

You've seemingly got an entire superstructure level aft that you don't need. Why not drop the VLS to main deck level, the helo deck to O1, and so on and so forth? This would nicely resolve the radar field of view issue noted above.

That's just debris left over from previous versions, its going away soon. The VLS is being put at the 01 level with future expansion in mind. From what I understand the strike cells are deeper, and if I've read correctly, so is the MK-57. I like the layout as is, and will probably not change it.

erik_t wrote:

The VLS amidships would seem to subject a lot of fragile weather-deck items to blast damage and personnel danger for very little real combat system gain, probably not even 10% of the cells overall. I would delete this GMLS.

Already gone

erik_t wrote:

As far as comms go, you seem very stunted. That mainmast would give you another platform for VHF and UHF antennas, with a better horizon, and perhaps a platform for a HF wire fan antenna. As it is, you seem to have... maybe a collection of phased-array transmit antennas?

This was another guesstimation On my part. In looking at renderings of DD(X) and CG(X) I noticed no radio antenna, so assuming its all built into the array's. I do miss my Virginia-esk forward leaning antenna above the bridge though. Give's the ship an attitude. cool look. Again, I'm no expert in this area, and I have posted asking this same question but nobody said anything specific.

erik_t wrote:

I'd consider a top view cartoon to see if you really need all of those sponsons all over the place for RAM, SRBOC, etc etc. I have a hunch you don't.

I will make a final determination on the sponsons when I do a top and side view. Stay tuned

erik_t wrote:

Is the little deckhouse atop the pilothouse intended for EO/IR and whatnot? It's way larger than necessary, if so. I'd leverage AAQ-37 DAS in this space.

YES! YES IT IS! haha, didn't think anyone noticed that. I have deleted it, for now, as I need more info. I read somewhere about a thermal imaging system for ships that would tie multiple cameras together, much like aegis tying antenna together, for an overall tactical picture all around the vessel. need to find more info, and I will read the link you provided. thank you for that

erik_t wrote:

Since you're looking like you want to control RCS somewhat, note your current lifeboat arrangement (rectangular cavities in the sidewall of the ship) is extraordinarily high in RCS. I would rethink this arrangement.

This has been another area on my mind. not quite sure how I'm going to do it yet. stay tuned

erik_t wrote:

You're sure got weight and volume to burn -- I'd consider those AGS to be the heavyweight 12rpm (10rpm?) version. No reason that I can see that those couldn't be in this style of gunhouse.

Yes, although these guns have the "lite" gunhouse, the guts are full sized. As you said, I've got plenty of room.

erik_t wrote:

I'd consider taking a page from the Europeans and throwing on SMART-L or something similar. There's a lot to be said for L-band for air search, and it's not like cost is an issue!

I will look into it, but I think I have the air search aspect covered in spades

I'd like to thank you again, and look forward to your future comments

erik_t wrote:

I'd think about Mk 57 VLS rather than Mk 41, since it will be able to take a much larger SM-3 (if the 27" weapon ever gets re-funded).

Shipbucket

Who is online