Hey Hvyc!
HvyCgn9 wrote:A new build ship could do away with aft turret and have a Burke style double hanger
That is true, and that is actually one of the later design propositions during the '80s for their reactivation. My question is: Why?
As carr and I have reminded ourselves a number of times in similar discussions the question on any realilistic WIF (the exercise here) is: How do you answer mission requirements? Is this supposed to be a support ship or a really powerful command ship (lots of helos and communications equipment)? Are you suggesting it have only 2 SH-60s, because if it is, only a slight modification to its current hanger's elevator will accomodate 60s, and 2 can be stored in the designed delow-deck hanger.
If its mission is supposed to be a heavy cruiser-sized helicopter carrier, a CAH, then the aft turret can go, and the hanger needs to be a lot bigger than what a Burk's gives you, such as one that can fit perhaps 2-4 CH-53s or 4-6 SH60s. If it is supposed to be a gunfire support ship however, then there is no amount of helicopters that can justify the deletion of the aft 8" mount. The above-deck hanger really adds to the cool-factor, but an above deck hanger is one of the biggest wastes of topside space, especially if you already have a hanger below decks.
I would make the case that the only reason to have a heavy cruiser like this in the first place is the fact it mounts lots of rapid fire 8" guns, the only reason that's good is because they are good support weapons, and the only reason that makes a difference is because we have
absolutely no effective gunfire support capability in the Navy. That makes the only reason to initially construct one of these is as a support weapon. Granted, gunfire support would not at all be its only mission, but it would be the heart of its missions. The 8" guns are reasonably effective offensive weapons, and because an 8" HC round has the same affect on a ship as a Harpoon ASM in a sea battle they would devastate any modern enemy combatant. So while it already has a helo servicing and maintenance capability, I would say keep the after turret, expand the existing hanger if needed to accommodate 2 SH-60s and retain the aft turret. Anything else would significantly shift its role to a helicopter carrier with guns.
...Burke superstructure, double set of (2x 61)VLS cells aft of funnel and retain both fwd 8" turret's with enlarged magazines.
I am all about the enlarged magazines. That is a fine idea. Our VLS no longer has the strike down cranes (why the number was 61-cells in the first place) so they would be in modules of 8 so 32 or 64. I would break them up into 4 arrangements of 32 if we were going to have that many VLS tubes aboard. Since this is going to get into a fight with the shore, I would hate for a single hit to take out 1/2 of my missile battery.
�with the raised bridge of the Japanese Kongo/Burke DDG.
Ewww, come on man! We're not trying to make this thing ugly as sin. Why do you want the bridge to be so much higher? The Japanese did it so their SPY array could have a further radar horizon. O-4 level bridge is well high enough to see what you're shooting with gunnery, and most of the control would be below decks anyway inside of CIC. Since she needs no Aegis, and an O-6 bridge is excessive (look at the ultra high bridges on Albany and Columbus), I am curious why would you want a bridge raised so high.
Add in 8 gas turbines for drive (They have 4 shaft's don't they??)
No, they only have 2. They only have 1 as of now. Eight turbines would give them about twice as much power as they need to make 33 knots, so they would probably be able to make 38 knots or so with double the power plant. Four engines and 33 knots is great. I do think the ship needs to have 2 rudders instead of 1 though.
I would put a maximum of NTU or SPY-5 on it if cost permits. NTU is a heavy AAW system, and that makes the ship an AAW asset, too. While that gives the ship a capability very near Aegis it also might lead to mission creep.
I look forward to hearing any rebuttle!
navydave
EDIT: I do think the CAH could be a really neat looking ship, and I am going to be buliding a model of one modeled in the '80s for one of the guys who was going to refine the design for reactivation and modification at Long Beach Naval Shipyard.
