The Ship Model Forum

Hey, guys, does anyone remember the "strike cruiser" from the 1970's/1980's? A good friend of mine sent me a picture of the conceptual painting (below)

The original envisioned weapons capacity was:
Sensors:N/SPY-1A multi-function radar
AN/SPS-49 air search radar
AN/SPS-10F surface search radar
AN/SPS-64 navigation radar
AN/SPG-62 (x4) fire control radar
AN/SQS-53 bow-mounted sonar
AN/SLQ-32 ECM suite
AN/UYK-7 computer processing
Armament:
2 x Mk-26 missile launchers for SM-2MR and ASROC
• 64 missiles forward
• 64 missiles aft
2 x quad Mk-143 ABL launchers
• BGM-109 Tomahawk (8)
4 x quad Mk-141 tube launchers
• RGM Harpoon (16)
1 x 8-in/55 cal MCLWG (forward)
2 x Mk-15 Phalanx CIWS (amidships)
2 x triple Mark 32 SVTT
• Mark 46 torpedo
Aircraft carried: 2 x SH-2F LAMPS I helicopters

The ship's dimensions were:
• Displacement: 16,035 tons (light)
• 17,284 tons (full load)
• Length: 709 feet 7 inches (216.3 m)
• Beam: 76 feet 5 inches (23.3 m)
• Draft: 22 feet 4 inches (6.8 m)

I have been building a few CGN/CSGN/USS Rancocas super structures lately, and I am getting pretty good at it. Since I have a few of them I was thinking about building a Long Beach converted to house the Aegis weapon system in its prototype "strike cruiser" configuration and one of the follow-on strike cruiser-class some time later this year. Even though the Long Beach was to be a "strike cruiser", it and the CSGN strike cruiser-class are not the same. The Aegis Long Beach would have just been so bad ass it would have fallen into at least a "strike cruiser" if not a "heavy cruiser" type.

What kit should I bash to meet the needs to make a model of this fine ship type?

Here is what Vince Peicyk painted in the 1980s while employed at Lockheed Martin. This was a visualization of what was developed for the CGSN-class.



I would like to hear what people might have to say about:

- What kit that should be used to make a model of this?
- What accessories/after market parts?
- What kind of equipment and weapons do you think it would have wound up having in the 1980s/1990s if actually built?
- Does 709 feet really sound right? That's nearly as big as the Long Beach with less armament! Is this really the recommended length? The picture's length to beam ratio is more like 1/8, so at 76', 608' is more proper for the ship's length.

It should make an interesting companion build to the CGN-42 to builds someday later this year.

In the meantime please watch the CGN-42 build!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

She's a sleek looking ship, that's for sure.

As an aside, the painting doesn't completely match the specs. For instance, I see 8 Mk141 Harpoon launchers (6 forward + 2 aft) and no ABL's. Also, there's a lot of available deck space for additional equipment.

What scale were you considering?

You must consider that this picture was painted in 1976. As with any ship design there are changes, before, during, and after construction. Because the picture had to be photographed at an angle to eliminate glare, some of the proportions are distorted. What appears to be harpoon launcher at the side of the ship just forward of the deck house are a bit larger than the "harpoon" launchers one level up and in board. Could they be tomahawks prior to the armor boxes of the 80's? Sad to say, Vince is no longer around to ask.

Bill

I am pretty sure the long Harpoon-looking launchers you see there are representations of the original tomahawk anti-ship missile launchers. TLAMs that are in VLS canisters are inside of tubes, and I am willing to be they are the same tubes they slid inside the Mk143 ABLs. Those may very well be the same as what would have been stacked on the Mk141 type rack launchers.

I would like to do a 1/350 of the strike cruiser...maaaaaaaaaaaaaybe even a modern version reflecting the Navy's current CGN need, too? One way or the other it's going to be a big bi@#h of a model!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I think you've got about, what, 25 modelling projects in progress or on the books?!

In 1/350, there aren't any good choices for a hull to use as a basis, that I'm aware of. Thinking wildly outside the box, here, the Independence class carrier model might be usable with some work. If I remember correctly, wasn't it a Cleveland class cruiser hull? Of course, that's throwing away a lot of kit just to get a hull that would then have to be modified. You're probably better off scratch building a hull.

Of course, a modernized Cleveland cruiser... Hmmm... Number 26?

lol, yes, Bob, I know. I am doing CGN-42 and a few DDG-51s right now. I have a list of projects. This one is a long-range project that has been cued. Suggestions and ideas are the name of the game for this one.

Unless I were to carve my own hull I think it would just be a butchering of an existing kit.

Long range schedule, indeed.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The last version proposed was based on the Virginia class hull, so you could steal that hull from a few places.

If you are after the 1976 version, I don't think you have anywhere to take a hull from - you'll need to scratchbuild.

The modified CGN-9 can likewise use a resin or plastic kit hull ( I have a resin one waiting in my loft...)

I know that the CGN-42, or Aegis Virginia-class, was going to look similar and have similar armament, but it was never called a "strike cruiser". Unless you have resources saying different I think this might be accurate. The last surface combatant-type ship before it turned into the Kiev-type ship I have seen referenced was a big bastard. It was this thing (pictured) that was bigger than the Long Beach. There is a lot of potential for a ship like that with the "modern" profile.

I already have a Long Beach that will be getting a CSGN-/CGN-9 make over

...and I have figured out the hull for the CSGN. Thank you.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I have two versions envisioned for the CSGN model. One version is the original proposal of the above mentioned capabilities. These are pretty much the SPY-1A, Mk71 Mod0 MCLWG, two Mk26 Mod2 64-missile launchers, 16 TLAMs, and 16 Harpoons.

As many of you have probably suspected, the second I have in mind is the "modernized" version. This version would take advantage of future technologies. In such a model I would feature alternative major equipment such as the Mk71 ModX 8"/60caliber MCLWG, the proposed Mk71 155mm/60caliber MCLWG, or the AGS 155/60caliber gun, the electromagnetic rail gun, the Mk 41 VLS or the Mk57 "advanced" VLS, and on the electronic front it would be an option of the SPY-1/SPY-4 Volume Search Radar or the Air Missile Defense Radar (AMDR).

In addition to this, one should consider that the survivability requirements were actually picked back up since WWII. The survivability requirements were that the ship can take up to 5 cruise missile or five 1,000lb bomb hits. This leads to the question about survivability. What can we do to the ship that can withstand these impacts and still maintain mission effectiveness?

I wonder if in the modernized version of this class of vessel I should include a stern boat deck that would house its RHIBs.

Thinking about the possibility of this stern boat deck, should I include internal lighting for the boat deck and helo hanger?

Thanks for the interest!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Do you have an idea of what this might look like? Size?


You know my thoughts: redundancy, armored turrets, alternate backup systems, separation to the extent possible, etc.


Most of the advantages of a stern boat deck don't seem to apply here. I can't see a heavy cruiser (the modern version of the battleship) doing interdiction, anti-piracy, anti-smuggling, or even SOF ops. Those are the tasks that would benefit from a stern, rapid launch, RHIB deck.

While CGN-42 didn't carry the 'Strike Cruiser' moniker - it did come out of the Strike Cruiser studies, so I tend to group it in with the CSGN. Personal preference on my part, I suppose. Of course, it didn't have the survivability intended for the CSGN, so I can see separating it.

Dr Leopold's CSGN Mk 2 concept L as depicted in Freidman's U.S. Cruisers has always been compelling to me - rather it ships Harriers or Helos.

Version wise Dave, both will be interesting, and I've had to compartmentalize some of the what-ifs I want to do by putting a flag in the sand by picking a year, and building to that, then projecting another refit with another semi-fixed date in your timeline.

Finally gathering some parts for mine - retirement ceremony next month - I plan to do some work this fall/winter.

So, is that hull you have 721x71, 716x77, or 673x71?

Congratulations! More time for model building!


None of the aobve I am going to make it match the 709' x 76' as best I can.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The only source I would have to model is based on the same pictures you can find on the net.

I would make it with a rectangular barrel I think. Who knows?

The safety involvedin using a boat deck instead of trying to launch and recover from shelters on the sides of a ship would be a lot better. I guess the only real question would be if the maintenance on the boat deck would be greater than shelters on the side of the ship.

Concerning SOF ops, they launch from anywhere including LHDs and CVNs. With the level of communication capability this ship would have it would probably be involved in SOF operations one way or the other, hosting or communicating with. One would not have thought that the brand new Aegis armed Ticonderoga-class CG or nuclear powered CGNs would have been running NGFS off Lebanon either...but they did.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

..

I would look at the stern boat deck issue from slightly different viewpoints.

1. Would it be cost prohibitive?

2. Would it increase or decrease the operational capabilities of the ship?

3. Could it be configured to launch and recover some manned craft other than a RHIB or two?

4. Would the ability to launch/recover special ops increase or decrease the adversary's uncertainty to the ship's mission, thus focusing attention away from some stray "airliner" that just dropped a HALO mission, for instance?

Not to beat the SOF horse, so to speak, but turn the question around. If a giant Chinese cruiser showed up off the American coast within RHIB distance wouldn't we watch the ship like a hawk thereby rendering any attempt at SOF ops unfeasible? Admittedly, many of the third world or lesser tier nations that we might want to run ops in probably don't even have the capability to keep watch like that, thus rendering the issue moot. The point is that a great big ship seems like a poor way to start a "stealthy" mission that involves a RHIB.

for sure this is a consideration on the SOF angle, but like I said, it's a lot safer to launch and recover boats like this, especially if you're launching boats to ferrying people from ship to ship (most of the time what RHIBs do).

Not sure but probably not.

Increase.

Probably not. I don't see much need for anything else, either.

Yes.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

With the '80s version it would have these boats on the sides of the super structure.


Has everyone else noticed that the super structure is standind up so tall? It's way up there, the SPY panels starting at the O-3/O-4 level! Wow!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

At the time of the illustration, the only SPY-1 mounting was aboard USS Norton Sound, and that was rather high up, and radars had always been mounted high to increase range until that point. That and the projected need for space for the computers on the time may have driven the idea that the arrays, and therefore the superstructure, would be high.

Starting at the 0-3/0-4 probably felt low at the time, considering Long Beach and the converted CGs...

As far as the stern ramp goes, my opinion would differ based on time and mission.

A 1975 CSGN probably wouldn't have had it, as the USN didn't seem to re-embrace ramp style small boat ops until rather recently. That doesn't mean they shouldn't or couldn't, just that they didn't.

A CSG/CSGN of today intended to be able to operate independently should have it, under the assumption that the vessel could be operating without additional vessels with this capability.