The Ship Model Forum

DavidP wrote:that would be a fat cruiser for it's length. the Des Moines class heavy cruiser was 76.33' wide to her length of 716.5'. that 120' beam is even wider then the rebuilt Tennessee, West Virginia & California which where 624' long & 114' wide.

Fat finger! I will correct it. I meant 65' beam, not the 120' of a Montana

Thanks for catching what I should have proof-read!

The recent identification of the need of a new cruiser hull is most excellent. I don't see much reason to stray from the DDG-51 TOO much other than changing its dimensions. Seeing how the hull of the DDG-51 was originally designed upon was the Udaloy-class DD, the bow and the beam work out pretty well. A new CG based upon that should work well at 600' or 610'. That would produce a CG capable of performing AAW, local ASW, NSFS, and strike well.


600' Length
65' Beam
3x SPY-6arrays with Aegis
2x SPG-9B
2x Mk71 Mod2 8"60caliber guns (fwd and aft)
1x 76mmSR gun (aft of the CIWS mount)
160x Mk41 VLS (64 fwd and 96 aft)
4x Phalanx/SeaRam/CIWS
2x 21-cell RAM
4x 35mm Millennium Guns


I am torn about using my Kirov kit to represent this model or just wait until the Montana comes along...I might actually do both!

What do you guys think?

Fascinating! What kind of hull would you begin with? I believe a Tico widened to a Burke beam would be the basic.

I've been sniffing arround this forum for a bit throwing my 2 cents in. I have been contemplating this exact build but would make it a CGN. I like the CGN-42 project being discussed on another thread, but would prefer a cleaner slate to make something new.

The problem I see with the CGBL here is it is essentially an Arliegh Burke configured Ticonderoga. Other than possible RCS, and an all steel superstructure what new, or improved is it bringing? I agree with ex-navy in that understanding the ship's primary mission is first. I see 2 possible primary missions for this ship.
AAW Escort of CVN's.
The Centerpiece of a SAG

AAW Escort: Adding Nuclear powered escorts to a CVN battle group gives the carrier a much faster possible SOA and allows fewer supply ships to handle the needs of the group. I know one escort is insufficeint, but I just read that the USS Carl Vinson deployed with just 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer as her escort. There were 28 Ticonderoga Boats and I would prepose a 1 for 1 replacement. A CVN, 2 CGN's and 2 SSN's would make a very high speed, high endurance battle group.

Surface Action Group/ independant steaming: The Navy funds several nuclear prototypes used to train NNPS trainees before sending them to the fleet. This puts a large number of highly trained instructor operators ashore when they could be "earning their pay in a combat zone." (Sorry, flashback) If this function was transfered to a new class of large CGN the ships could support the ABM mission while training students and enjoying a lower op-tempo then most ships. When preparing to deploy, or during an emergency the crew could be filled out with reserves, and the ship deploy as part of a battle group, or as the centerpiece of a SAG.

I would have a minimum of 4 hulls, and better off 6. Instead of the normal'ish 18 month cycle the crew could enjoy say a 30 month cycle. When the ship leaves on its normal deployment with activated reservists filling out the company, and some sort of aviation, and SOC type unit embarked it could show the flag and exercize with our various nieghbors, and be on the scene at the outset of many of the smaller crisis that come up to evacuate embassies, or support a humanitarian mission. It could even function as a gateway force securing a key air field and denying it to an enemy long enough for air deliverd forces to arrive.

As we pass peak oil the Navy needs to start seriously looking at nuclear power. Nuke boats seem so expensive, but when you consider that all the fuel for 25+ years is paid for up front they are much more reasonable. I am contemplating what the above cruisers would look like. I don't much care about RCS as I believe it is over rated. I know some would argue otherwise, but it is my opinion. What weapons would you recommend for the SAG / training cruiser? What aviation capabilities? It would have to have some capabilities in all warfare areas but mostly AAW as the secondary mission is ABM. I like the look of the Arliegh Burkes but am not married to that design. Form must follow function.

I am contemplating a 1/350 build and followed, if successfull with a larger RC version. Need to finish the father son RC Fletcher I am working on now.

I think it is time to re-look at this project.

It has been a while since I have been able to log in due to recovery from surgery, a new job/new position and most of all limited time and computer issues both at work and home...

Dave I think this baseline study needs to be re-looked at with the downsizing of the Navy and the less then stellar performance of the Freedom and Independence Classes...

The CG-47 class are still around but have been upgrade to the MAX... The Burke's still can not handled all missions....

So here are my thoughts...

Two Platforms should be developed from this study/proposed design;

1. A Crusier that is bigger then the CG-47 Class with the potential to be around for about 20 years.
2. A Destroyer/Frigate version
The DD/FF version would be a replacement for spruance and perry class ships that have been decommissioned without the limits of the burke.
Lets just call it a ddg for now but in all purposes it should be classified as a DE since it functions in mulitple missions such as ASW or protection of a battle group with limited AAW and ASUW...
lets the discussion begin....

Anything more on this? Seeing how the DDG-51 Flight III seems to be unable to accomplish the mission it is to fulfill under any circumstances, a new cruiser seems to be in order instead. The CGBL makes for an excellent subject, and a model would be watched with great interest.

Does anyone plan to pursue this subject? I am pursuing a 1/350 CGN-42 which may fill certain aspects of this type of ship which will be followed up by a CAG that would have AMDR and Aegis as its AAW system.

Oh, wait!!! Did I hear carr say he's going to build a CGBL?

TimothyC wrote:CGBL was a conceptual and mathematical model that was developed to evaluate cruiser proposals, and as not a baseline designed to be modified in and of itself.

Seeing how it laid out such specific elements such as CG-52 weapons package, DDG-51 building standards, and possibly built on an enlarged (not just lengthened) DDG-51 hull form, and such a specific depiction in the profile line drawing and painting, what do you think about building a 1/350 scale model of her? It can be done by kitbashing any of the Arleigh Burke-class line of models from Trumpeter or you could modify a Spruance-class hull to cosmetically match the angled hull appearance (radar cross section reduction requirements) of the DDG-51 hull.

So...what do you say?

As I said Timothy you are the expert on drawing...

Since you reference the burke flt III here are the drawing's I found.... and the DDV-7 purposed design

these designs are enlarged burkes....., while the DDV-7 is a burke flt I without Aegis.... Consider the following:

The flight III had a lot of potential but was rejected for what was called the DDV-9 design that would become the flt IIA current Config... as I said and repeat.... doing many things does not equal success, but doing one thing does.. I think this platform (CBGL) has merit and should discussed with a focus on either AAW and Command & Control;
Even go one step further have the lead ship function in that role, have another function as ASW/Convoy protection, while the third could be NGFS/Special OPS focus, fourth could have increased helo capability and last one TBD... ( I purposed a class consisting of 5 ships)... the time frame would be the lead ship being placed in service around 1995, the second 1999, the third 2002, the fourth 2004 and the last one if funded 2008...

navydavesof wrote:However, I think what ex-navy is going for is something that might be built today in a what-if sense, hence the 48-cell VLS and various things. I have done three similar equipment and weapons configurations confronting different threat and cost levels as well. Since the CGBL was the "cruiser guided missile base-line", it served as a base line to be configured to meet the range of threats accordingly.

CGBL was a conceptual and mathematical model that was developed to evaluate cruiser proposals, and as not a baseline designed to be modified in and of itself.

Bruce - I know you did not intend to, but by distributing a shipbucket based image without the scale bar or title block, you are in violation of the Shipbucket Fair Use Agreement. It's a very permissive agreement, but it is one who's enforcement is starting to be applied. As a staff member in the community I would be much obliged if you credited the drawing.

I also point out that the Flight 3 Burke has been drawn, so you don't have to kitbash quite so horribly to draw what you are drawing.

Quote [Navydavesof][I think your shipbucket drawing is pretty cool. I can cut and paste pieces of other ships together in the ship bucket world, but I cannot fabricate. Great job, sir!]
As david aka Navydavesof stated, I am complete agreement, your skills are impressive...

But as he also stated this a [Navydavesof][ Since the CGBL was the "cruiser guided missile base-line", it served as a base line to be configured to meet the range of threats accordingly.]

With that all said my goal is work out some plan to build this proposed idea as a model in 1/350......

As others have suggested prior to working on a design you need to state what the purpose of the platform will be and work from adding weapons and electronics/sensors to support that mission. So let start with my basic idea, the navy over the years has developed ships that are multirole and even when I was on active duty in mid 80's and early 90's this was shift from the single mission ie ASW or AAW..to a little of everything, which is not always possible you can't do everything well....
So my thought is to revert back to what A Cruiser was first design for which was protection of the HV (high value) Unit which could anything from a Carrier Battle group to Amph Assult Group.....

So here are my basic missions that this platform " Must be able to perform"
1. AAW
2. Command and Control
3. Anti Surface Warfare (Close and Long range)
4. Intell Gathering and Analysis

How will this be done?
AAW:
will also include Cruise Missile protection
VLS armed with ESSM, SM-2, RAMS, NUKLA and CIWS....
Anti Surface Warfare:
Sh-60 with Hellfire and Penquin Missle, Harpoon, MK-38 and 5 inch
Command and Control, Intell Gathering/Analysis:
various electronic, UAV, Sh-60, SLQ-32, SLQ-19 and SQS-53
additional features would be Hangar space for two SH-60 with RAST, and Sonar Bouys...
Limited ASROC and Torp load out for protection of HV unit, this is a secondary mission until primary ASW units can assist..

With this all said, why not use a burke or a tycho.. as many has stated, they are platforms that do one thing great, not many, for example the tycho can do AAW but not ASW... In my mind this class would be a supplement to the burke and a replacement for the capabilites lost with focus of the navy going forward with LCS program...
My thought would be developing a model about 22-24 inches in length, with forward and aft 5-inch and VLS,, Still working on some ideas here is a quick line sketch of my thought, with Aegis, now I could also remove the Ageis and use the NTU system (SPS-48 and SPS-49) instead...
thanks
bruce aka ex-navy
edited 10.24.11:
Tim, that drawing was an early sketch of my litton DDM that I was going to build for the cold war group build, which was a cut/paste, from various drawings that I found via google. It was not my intention to take credit for someone else work, but to use as a example of what I thought it might look like ( I am a person who needs to see an example so that points can be adjusted or deleted).... I will let you remain the expert on drawing... but the rest of my statements remain unchanged...

TimothyC wrote:It's on the drawing.

Hi, Timothy!

I understand that you're dictating directly from the initial drawing. I think if the actual project were to have gone beyond the initial design stage, the size of the forward super structure may have increased, the space between the two super structures would have been utilized, and the SPS-49 would have been deleted. The HM&E upgrade the CGs are receiving now does not need the SPS-49 and has had it removed from the mast.

However, I think what ex-navy is going for is something that might be built today in a what-if sense, hence the 48-cell VLS and various things. I have done three similar equipment and weapons configurations confronting different threat and cost levels as well. Since the CGBL was the "cruiser guided missile base-line", it served as a base line to be configured to meet the range of threats accordingly.

All of that aside, I think your shipbucket drawing is pretty cool. I can cut and paste pieces of other ships together in the ship bucket world, but I cannot fabricate. Great job, sir!

ex-navy wrote:Tim, welcome, that site you speak about has some great design, however, people get wrapped around the looks then function. With that said, your design has a lot of merit and as you said a work in progress some thoughts for you to consider. As Navy Dave has described this was a study to make a crusier using burke tech. So my first thoughts would be the forward Super Structure needs major re-work may be you could rework a FLT-IIA Bridge and forward structure.
Ok with that all said, my plans are to build this design in 1/350 so let get the basics down:

I remind you that I'm drawing the design as it appeared in the 1980s, not a hypothetical 1990s version.

1. length should be 670 feet which would be slightly bigger then a tycho and CGN-38 Class.. so in 1/350 it would be about 24 "

LBP of 620 feet.

2. two sets of VLS 48 cells Forward that would be primary containing ESSM, SM-2, and ASROCS. The rear not sure if should be 64 or 120 Cells, with load out being mostly SM-2 and Tomahawks.

She's got a repeat of the Flight 3 Ticonderoga systems fit. This means that she's got two 64 cell VLS blocks with a 3 cell crane in each.

3. Forward and AFT Gun Mounts (spruance fit)

Yes, well, Ticonderoga fit.

4. Quad Racks of Harpoons x 4

The drawing shows two Mk-141s, which fits with the Flight 3 Ticonderoga systems fit.

5 CIWSx 2. Mk-38 x2, RAMSx2,NUKLA's and SLQ-32

The Mk-38 is presumed, but not placed. I'm not sure where exactly they would go, and thus I'm not placing them yet.

Not sure if The SPS-49 should be retained or not..

It's on the drawing.

6. Helo storage and handling for sh-60 x2 with RAST

Yes.

Electronics starting point would be what the TYCHO Class is getting during refit...
thanks

Tycho class?

Tim, welcome, that site you speak about has some great design, however, people get wrapped around the looks then function. With that said, your design has a lot of merit and as you said a work in progress some thoughts for you to consider. As Navy Dave has described this was a study to make a crusier using burke tech. So my first thoughts would be the forward Super Structure needs major re-work may be you could rework a FLT-IIA Bridge and forward structure.
Ok with that all said, my plans are to build this design in 1/350 so let get the basics down:
1. length should be 670 feet which would be slightly bigger then a tycho and CGN-38 Class.. so in 1/350 it would be about 24 "
2. two sets of VLS 48 cells Forward that would be primary containing ESSM, SM-2, and ASROCS. The rear not sure if should be 64 or 120 Cells, with load out being mostly SM-2 and Tomahawks.
3. Forward and AFT Gun Mounts (spruance fit)
4. Quad Racks of Harpoons x 4
5 CIWSx 2. Mk-38 x2, RAMSx2,NUKLA's and SLQ-32
Not sure if The SPS-49 should be retained or not..
6. Helo storage and handling for sh-60 x2 with RAST
Electronics starting point would be what the TYCHO Class is getting during refit...
thanks

navydavesof wrote:I am a member of the Naval Engineer's Society so I will see what I can find from their 2008 Symposium on the subject.

Hello! I'm the guy on Shipbucket and Secret Projects who dug up the line drawing that is seen in this thread and I would love to get a copy of any info you find on the Ship so that I can improve my current WIP Shipbucket version [Image Link to the current WIP].

here is the line drawing I found, while doing some research... I know it is very basic, but it a good starting point...
As david said, this is the way to go, that looks like an enlongated burke.
So what would be add to the design?
RAMS, MK38.. ???
What time frame should this have be started.. ???
My thoughts are around the early 90's as they started to phase out the Older Crusiers such as Truxton,branbridge...etc..
Thanks.

ex-navy wrote:Thanks dave for the input, how are things going, sorry been so busy with my course work.. I found a nice line drawing the other day while doing some research, needs to be resized for submission.. It shows a basic layout that could be worked with.. I also thought up a name for the class how about the Montana Class CG with 5 ships purposed....
take care
Bruce aka ex-navy

You are welcome, Bruce. I look forward to the pictures you can scan and print. I have been reading the reports wirtten when they re-examined the CGBL after CG(X) was canceled. I am taking some of the findings and applying them to the CGN-42 project I have going on.

The basic parameters that were laid out for the CGBL offer a good starting point for a hull and basic geometry for a super structure. I may try my hand at a CGBL one day.

Thanks dave for the input, how are things going, sorry been so busy with my course work.. I found a nice line drawing the other day while doing some research, needs to be resized for submission.. It shows a basic layout that could be worked with.. I also thought up a name for the class how about the Montana Class CG with 5 ships purposed....
take care
Bruce aka ex-navy

carr wrote:...(water wings)...

lol. You said "water wings"

..

WOW. A whole lot of the Navy's dumb decisions in ship acquisition really make sense now. 20/20 hindsight helps a lot. It's like the holes in the Swiss cheeze all of a sudden line up.

The reports on the CGBL state that because the DDG-51 class was being produced in mass the DDG-51 became the focus of alteration and modification. While this should lead right into the CGBL development, the mid to late 1990s through the 2000s was side tracked by a fascination with building a fleet of "future stealth ships", completely revolutionizing the US Navy. This included the CG(X), DD(X) FFG(X) and a "street fighter". There was even the suggestion of a stealth carrier. The concept of a conventional cruiser was discarded for the concept of a cruiser belonging to the Navy after next: the CG(X).

Why has this CGBL not been more hotly pursued? Well, the idea for a conventional cruiser was out of the picture for so long that it was kind of forgotten about.

The reality of that stealth fleet was that it was technologically too far away. The capabilities and requirements of those ships were scaled back and drawn down to the maximum of what we could actually do. However even though we could physically build the lowest possible concept they dreamed of in the DD(X), a.k.a. DDG-1000, the ship turned out to be several times the promised cost. With DDG-1000 being unaffordable it was guaranteed that the CG(X) would, too be unquestionably unaffordable. The CG(X) also had so many unanswered basic questions and conflicts, such as would it be nuclear powered or conventional, would it be an larger version of the enormous DDG-1000 or have a conventional hull, that it was completely dropped.

Now, instead of the CG(X), the DDG-51 Flight III developed in 1989 is being redesigned in FY2012 to accommodate a larger radar and the associated equipment (such as cooling plumbing and other requirements) to try to approach what CG(X) might have been able to do. However, because these radars weigh so much more than the SPY-1 the hull was designed for, the Flight III is also looking at being delivered at the beginning of a 30 year life with no possible growth margin.

Because starting off your career with no way to grow your capabilities is a horrible idea it might be prudent to re-examine and develop the CGBL. Missions need to first be developed and then capabilities and weapon systems assembled to accomplish those missions. NAVSEA has put together an excellent list of missions for a future cruiser to accomplish. The Flight III would not be able to accomplish those. A real "cruiser" as opposed to a "big destroyer" needs to be made.

The development in the papers and the numbers supplied look like an excellent place to start, especially if someone wanted to begin a model of this kind of ship.

Who's going to start?