PDA

View Full Version : USA - Van Valkenburgh Class Cruiser



Hoss
07 Apr 09,, 22:51
USA, Van Valkenburgh Class CG-74 to CG-96

Follow-on class, designed to replace the Ticonderoga Class cruisers using a stretched hull and technology currently in use in the Arleigh Burke Class DDG. By using existing Burke hull and systems, the Van Valkenburgh CGs will be ready to begin production in less than 5 years and at reasonable costs.

Specifications:

Length: 567 ft overall
Beam: 59ft at the waterline and 66ft extreme
Max Navigational Draft: 33ft
Displacement: 12,186 tons, full load
Speed: 35+ knots
Crew: 33 officers, 327 enlisted

Power Plant: 4 LM-2500+ Gas Turbines (140,000 SHP)
3 Allison 2500KW Gas Turbine Generators

Aircraft: 2 SH-60 LAMPS III or equivalent

Armament: 2 - 61 cell MK41 VLS
2 Harpoon quad launchers
2 MK32 MOD 14 Triple Torpedo Tubes
2 MK45 MOD 1 5/54 Lightweight Guns
2 MK15 MOD 2 CIWS
2 Rolling Airframe Missile launchers

Sensors: AN/SPY-1D
AN/SPS-67(v)3 Air Search Radar
AN/SPS-64(v)9 Navigation Radar
AN/SPS-55 Surface Search
AN/SQS-53C(v) Hull mounted Sonar
AN/SQR-19 Towed Array Sonar TACTAS
AN/SQQ-28(v) LAMPS
AN/SLQ-32A(v)3 Electronic Warfare Systems
AN/SLQ-25A NIXIE
AN/SPQ-9 Gun Fire Control
AN/SPG-62 Illuminators
AN/SWG-1A Harpoon Launch Control
AN/SWG-3A Tomahawk Launch Control
MK116 MOD 7 Underwater Fire Control Systems
MK36 MOD 6 Decoy System

avon1944
08 Apr 09,, 00:12
Is there any word on crew size or vertical launch tubes this cruiser will have? What its advantages of this cruiser over the USS Ticonderoga class cruisers?

TopHatter
08 Apr 09,, 00:28
Is there any word on crew size or vertical launch tubes this cruiser will have? What its advantages of this cruiser over the USS Ticonderoga class cruisers?

This is a hypothetical design that Hoss has thought up himself. It's not something that the Navy has considered building.

Although considering how badly the current cruiser program is going, maybe they ought to consider it. If I'm not mistaken, they've ordered more DDG-47 hulls to make up the shortfall of retiring ships.

Hoss
08 Apr 09,, 00:43
The Top is quite right! Crew complement would be on par with current Tico levels.

As far as added capability over the existing Tico's, you wouldn't see all that much. I didn't shoot for some new-fangled fantasmo-toys that wind up getting a new design cancelled after spending millions on research.

It's basically just a lengthened Burke hull, using the same equipment for commonality sake, with a few minor tweaks and upgrades thrown in, all while keeping an eye towards making it a cost-effective replacement for the Tico's.

TopHatter
08 Apr 09,, 03:05
I didn't shoot for some new-fangled fantasmo-toys that wind up getting a new design cancelled after spending millions on research.

In that case, you'll never get a job designing warships for the US Navy. As you're no doubt aware, they greatly prefer the approach that you just disparaged.

Question: Why Van Valkenburgh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Van_Valkenburgh) for the lead ship of the class?

Certainly wouldn't be the first time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Van_Valkenburgh_(DD-656)) a destroyer has held that name, but why the lead ship? Any personal connection there?

Doomarias
08 Apr 09,, 06:30
In that case, you'll never get a job designing warships for the US Navy. As you're no doubt aware, they greatly prefer the approach that you just disparaged.

Question: Why Van Valkenburgh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Van_Valkenburgh) for the lead ship of the class?

Certainly wouldn't be the first time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Van_Valkenburgh_(DD-656)) a destroyer has held that name, but why the lead ship? Any personal connection there?

My personal guess is that he thinks the name is cool as hell, which Id agree with. :))

Hoss
08 Apr 09,, 11:18
In that case, you'll never get a job designing warships for the US Navy. As you're no doubt aware, they greatly prefer the approach that you just disparaged.

Question: Why Van Valkenburgh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Van_Valkenburgh) for the lead ship of the class?

Certainly wouldn't be the first time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Van_Valkenburgh_(DD-656)) a destroyer has held that name, but why the lead ship? Any personal connection there?

I lived in Arizona, prior to my dad being stationed in Hawaii back in the early 80's, (highlight of that was boarding the USS New Jersey after reactivation, man what a beautiful ship!) so when we moved there I had an immediate attachment to the USS Arizona.....Kidd is already well known and there's a new DDG with that namesake in queue, so I figured Van Valkenburgh would be pretty cool.

jlvfr
08 Apr 09,, 12:06
Speed: 35+ knots


Why do you need such high speed? On an 12000 ton +hull, you could save a lot of $$ by dropping it to 30-31...

Dreadnought
08 Apr 09,, 13:20
I lived in Arizona, prior to my dad being stationed in Hawaii back in the early 80's, (highlight of that was boarding the USS New Jersey after reactivation, man what a beautiful ship!) so when we moved there I had an immediate attachment to the USS Arizona.....Kidd is already well known and there's a new DDG with that namesake in queue, so I figured Van Valkenburgh would be pretty cool.

I like the name of the class. It fits in well.

zraver
08 Apr 09,, 13:57
flatten the forward up-swept hull lines, your blocking the forward feild of fire in a pretty wide arc. if the ship is tryign to chase pirates or has a AshM coming down its throat....

JA Boomer
08 Apr 09,, 18:32
USA, Van Valkenburgh Class CG-74 to CG-96

Follow-on class, designed to replace the Ticonderoga Class cruisers using a stretched hull and technology currently in use in the Arleigh Burke Class DDG. By using existing Burke hull and systems, the Van Valkenburgh CGs will be ready to begin production in less than 5 years and at reasonable costs.

Hoss, It doesn't appear to me that you have stretched the section of the ship where the Mk41's are located. This is especially true in the case of the forward launcher, we'll need far more space to put a 64 canister launcher where a 32 canister launcher currently resides.

Also, did you think about putting a forth illuminator on the class? To match the capabilities of the Tico's? I also remember from somewhere that the height above water of the SPY arrays on the Tico's is greater than the Burke's, giving them expanded range for the AESA radar, did you in any way try and improve this aspect on the Burke to get it closer to the Tico?

gunnut
08 Apr 09,, 19:36
I would delete the Phalanxes and the Harpoon canisters. Enlarge the forward superstructure and raise the 2 forward facing SPY-1 to match the 2 rear facing emitters. If not for function, at least for aesthetic reasons.:tongue: Add a 4th illuminator to match the Tico class.

I personally believe an evolved Burke is far more practical than CGX or DDX.

Hoss
08 Apr 09,, 21:09
Why do you need such high speed? On an 12000 ton +hull, you could save a lot of $$ by dropping it to 30-31...

The length-to-beam ratio of the hull has improved with the added length, combined with the extra power that is gained by using the LM2500+ (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/eng/lm2500.htm) turbines, you get the extra speed. Better to have it and not need it type thing. Purely unintentional.

Hoss
08 Apr 09,, 21:10
flatten the forward up-swept hull lines, your blocking the forward feild of fire in a pretty wide arc. if the ship is tryign to chase pirates or has a AshM coming down its throat....

It's exactly as the Burkes are.....so if it works for the Burkes, it'll work for the Van Valkenburgh's.

Hoss
08 Apr 09,, 21:23
Hoss, It doesn't appear to me that you have stretched the section of the ship where the Mk41's are located. This is especially true in the case of the forward launcher, we'll need far more space to put a 64 canister launcher where a 32 canister launcher currently resides.

Also, did you think about putting a forth illuminator on the class? To match the capabilities of the Tico's? I also remember from somewhere that the height above water of the SPY arrays on the Tico's is greater than the Burke's, giving them expanded range for the AESA radar, did you in any way try and improve this aspect on the Burke to get it closer to the Tico?

I wondered if anyone would catch my little discrepancy! I noticed it last night before calling it a night, but figured I fix it tomorrow. The proper adjustments have been made to the forward VLS.

As for the SPY array height difference, no I made no major changes to directly address this, although the freeboard has been increased from the basic Burke design, which will help mitigate some of the differences between the Tico height and that of the Van Valkenburgh. I tried to maintain the Burke's lower RCS and lower metacentric height, so I think I struck a nice balance between the Burke and Tico.

Hoss
08 Apr 09,, 21:31
I would delete the Phalanxes and the Harpoon canisters. Enlarge the forward superstructure and raise the 2 forward facing SPY-1 to match the 2 rear facing emitters. If not for function, at least for aesthetic reasons.:tongue: Add a 4th illuminator to match the Tico class.

I personally believe an evolved Burke is far more practical than CGX or DDX.

The missing 4th illuminator has arrived!

Juggling around the SPY placement for aethetic reasons isn't worth the effort! :tongue:

As for the Phalanx and Harpoons, I tend to like them and think they serve a purpose.

gunnut
08 Apr 09,, 21:35
The missing 4th illuminator has arrived!

You could have just said "the 2 forward facing illuminators are arranged in a side-by-side configuration" :P



Juggling around the SPY placement for aethetic reasons isn't worth the effort! :tongue:

Nooooooo! Must fix ugly radar placement!!!



As for the Phalanx and Harpoons, I tend to like them and think they serve a purpose.

They do. But I thought they have been deleted from the new Burkes.

JA Boomer
08 Apr 09,, 22:02
The proper adjustments have been made to the forward VLS. The missing 4th illuminator has arrived!

Excellent!



As for the Phalanx and Harpoons, I tend to like them and think they serve a purpose.

I have been wondering about this recently. What is the right combination of .50 cal mounts, 25mm Bushmaster cannons, RAM Launcher, ESSM, and Phalanx? Is ESSM enough to ward of incoming missiles, or would you prefer a combination of Phalanx and RAM? If ESSM is sufficient, do you retain the Phalanx mount for defense against small, fast boats, or would 25mm cannons be better equiped to handle those threats

Many possibilities, no right answer I suppose.


I really like your ship Hoss, looks good and you know it can fight. Would you go even further in the design changes as to further clean up the Burke-style superstructure and make it more stealthy? What about adding extra structure for the boat launches and such as they do on the stealthy Frigates around the world so these and other tid-bits aren't on deck and reflecting radar...?

Hoss
09 Apr 09,, 03:07
Adjusted the SPY panels and enclosed the boats and cranes.

Hoss
09 Apr 09,, 03:19
Consequently, the Van Valkenburgh's SPY-1 panels are just barely higher from the waterline than the Tico's now. :biggrin:

JA Boomer
09 Apr 09,, 04:49
Consequently, the Van Valkenburgh's SPY-1 panels are just barely higher from the waterline than the Tico's now. :biggrin:

do you mean slightly higher or lower??? I didn't think the rear arrays on the Burkes were higher than ANY of the Tico's.

Hoss, are you just using Paint for your drawings like others on WAB, or are you using other software, you seem to be able to crunch out any changes fairly quickly ;)

Also, where did you get those very accurate line drawings of the Burke and Tico classes?

Hoss
09 Apr 09,, 11:12
do you mean slightly higher or lower??? I didn't think the rear arrays on the Burkes were higher than ANY of the Tico's.

Hoss, are you just using Paint for your drawings like others on WAB, or are you using other software, you seem to be able to crunch out any changes fairly quickly ;)

Also, where did you get those very accurate line drawings of the Burke and Tico classes?

If it was a normal Burke, you'd be correct. The Van Valkenburgh's have more freeboard than either the Tico or the Burke, which gets the SPY-1 panels up over the height of the Tico's.

MS Paint for the win!!! It's really not all that hard.

JA Boomer
09 Apr 09,, 16:57
MS Paint for the win!!! It's really not all that hard.

Wow, it's still somewhat hard to believe haha. Where did you scoop the line-drawings to start off with?

Stitch
09 Apr 09,, 16:59
Why not go all the way and use an AN/SPY-3 instead of the older -1? If you're going to upgrade the Burkes, why not use the best? Or is that too expensive?

Hoss
09 Apr 09,, 17:45
Wow, it's still somewhat hard to believe haha. Where did you scoop the line-drawings to start off with?

Shipbucket (http://www.shipbucket.com/)

Over 700+ line-drawings of just about every ship imaginable....and some that people just dreamed up!

Hoss
09 Apr 09,, 17:49
Why not go all the way and use an AN/SPY-3 instead of the older -1? If you're going to upgrade the Burkes, why not use the best? Or is that too expensive?

We certainly could, assuming the technology is actually ready to go. I can't edit my original post anymore for some reason, or I'd change the specs to reflect the move to AN/SPY-3 AESA.

JA Boomer
14 Apr 09,, 20:39
Does anyone know if there is an optimal placement for the heli-deck on a surface ship? Is it more difficult for the helicopter crews to land on the deck if it is in the middle of ship such as the Tico's, or even if they have to go over a deck gun such as on the Van Valkenburgh here, as compared to being at the very stern on the Perry's or Burke's.

Hoss
14 Apr 09,, 20:44
Yeah, I'm not sure the heli-pad layout I have would be the best and have actually opted for different layouts in other ships I've done. Making ships is an easy way to pass some time.

jlvfr
14 Apr 09,, 20:59
Don't like that 5" right behind the helipad. If the chopper tries to land in rough seas, it might very well bump into it...

Hoss
14 Apr 09,, 21:43
Don't like that 5" right behind the helipad. If the chopper tries to land in rough seas, it might very well bump into it...

Removed the Harpoon canisters and moved the 5" mount back a bit. Should make things a little better.

gunnut
14 Apr 09,, 21:45
We know these would definitely NOT work.

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Never%20Built%20Designs/GB%20FF%20Advanced%20Technology%20Frigate%201991%2 01.gif

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Never%20Built%20Designs/GB%20DDH%206000t%20Design%201.gif

Dreadnought
14 Apr 09,, 21:51
Does anyone know if there is an optimal placement for the heli-deck on a surface ship? Is it more difficult for the helicopter crews to land on the deck if it is in the middle of ship such as the Tico's, or even if they have to go over a deck gun such as on the Van Valkenburgh here, as compared to being at the very stern on the Perry's or Burke's.

*Optimal would be the middle of the aft deck. Your higher block LAMPS helos are pulled into their hangars on a set of rails and electric winch.;)

*Refuelling the helos becomes a concern as well. Some are landed on the flight deck aft and some stand off the aft deck in hover for refueling pending conditions.

Hoss
14 Apr 09,, 21:54
We know these would definitely NOT work.


Wow! Those are fugly!!!

JA Boomer
14 Apr 09,, 22:26
*Optimal would be the middle of the aft deck. Your higher block LAMPS helos are pulled into their hangars on a set of rails and electric winch.;)

What do you mean by "the middle of the aft deck" Dread? Like how the heli-pad on the Tico's is towards to middle of the ship and not right on the stern? And how would that help with the trapping/winching of the LAMPS birds?

Hoss
14 Apr 09,, 22:40
What do you mean by "the middle of the aft deck" Dread? Like how the heli-pad on the Tico's is towards to middle of the ship and not right on the stern? And how would that help with the trapping/winching of the LAMPS birds?

You want your flight deck on the center-line on the stern of the ship...or the aft deck. Optimal would be more like an Arleigh Burke, than a Tico. At the rear, in the middle, as low as possible.

JA Boomer
14 Apr 09,, 23:02
You want your flight deck on the center-line on the stern of the ship...or the aft deck. Optimal would be more like an Arleigh Burke, than a Tico. At the rear, in the middle, as low as possible.

So by "center-line" you mean located on the main deck of the ship and not raised way up like on the Spru-Can's and Tico's right???

Also, if the best place for the heli-pad is at the very stern of the ship, and it's easier not to fly over deck guns or missile launchers, then wouldn't it make sense to pace the rear cannon of the Van Valkenburgh up above the hangers just aft of the rear Mk 41 launcher? Or would this create too much weight up top as is said of the Perry's?

gunnut
14 Apr 09,, 23:07
So by "center-line" you mean located on the main deck of the ship and not raised way up like on the Spru-Can's and Tico's right???

I believe in this case, center-line means not offset to port or starboard side, as in "in the middle" if you look down on the ship.



Also, if the best place for the heli-pad is at the very stern of the ship, and it's easier not to fly over deck guns or missile launchers, then wouldn't it make sense to pace the rear cannon of the Van Valkenburgh up above the hangers just aft of the rear Mk 41 launcher? Or would this create too much weight up top as is said of the Perry's?

The weight is one thing, but I believe physical limitation is the main obstacle. A turret extends a few decks down, depending on the size. If the turret is placed on top of the hanger, then it either extends into the hanger or the top of the hanger needs to be raised a few decks to accommodate the gun.

JA Boomer
14 Apr 09,, 23:12
I believe in this case, center-line means not offset to port or starboard side, as in "in the middle" if you look down on the ship.

This is what I thought as well, I just didn't think it made sense, as I have never seen a surface ship with the heli-pad offset of either port or starboard.


The weight is one thing, but I believe physical limitation is the main obstacle. A turret extends a few decks down, depending on the size. If the turret is placed on top of the hanger, then it either extends into the hanger or the top of the hanger needs to be raised a few decks to accommodate the gun.

Ya, but the Mk 41 extends way down on the Burke's as well, and the Burke's have one just ahead of the hangers, so a simple extension and mounting of the cannon shouldn't be too much of a problem in my mind.

Hoss
14 Apr 09,, 23:15
So by "center-line" you mean located on the main deck of the ship and not raised way up like on the Spru-Can's and Tico's right???

Also, if the best place for the heli-pad is at the very stern of the ship, and it's easier not to fly over deck guns or missile launchers, then wouldn't it make sense to pace the rear cannon of the Van Valkenburgh up above the hangers just aft of the rear Mk 41 launcher? Or would this create too much weight up top as is said of the Perry's?

Start thinking Port and Starboard...left and right. Where they meet in the middle (as if you were looking from overhead) is your center-line. The center-line runs the length of the hull. In the middle is the least movement as the ship rocks back and forth. Hence, the need to keep your heli-pad as low as possible as well. The closer you are to your metacentric height, the less motion occurs. (Similar to waving your arm over you head, the closer to you shoulder you are, the less your arm actually moves, whereas your hand moves quite a bit)

I opted to leave the stern gun alone, as it simply wouldn't fit behind the stern Mk 41 launcher. The internals wouldn't allow it, as I have things envisioned.

jlvfr
14 Apr 09,, 23:25
But now we loose the Harpoons :confused:

gunnut
14 Apr 09,, 23:37
But now we loose the Harpoons :confused:

Why would the USN need Harpoon missiles?

Hoss
15 Apr 09,, 00:11
But now we loose the Harpoons :confused:

We'll just move them into the VLS cells and go that route.


Why would the USN need Harpoon missiles?

Why do the Tico's still carry them on the stern?

gunnut
15 Apr 09,, 00:32
Why do the Tico's still carry them on the stern?

Didn't have time to remove them?

I think it was GunGrape who said USN didn't even bother buying block II Harpoons.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showpost.php?p=630876&postcount=10

There was a picture of that Tico which ran aground outside Hawaii without the Harpoon tubes (but still has the racks). She just completed an overhaul.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showpost.php?p=614077&postcount=35

JA Boomer
15 Apr 09,, 03:12
*Optimal would be the middle of the aft deck. Your higher block LAMPS helos are pulled into their hangars on a set of rails and electric winch.;)

Dread, do you also mean that the very stern of the ship is the optimal placement for the heli-deck, as opposed to the middle of the ship somewhere?

jlvfr
15 Apr 09,, 09:57
Why would the USN need Harpoon missiles?

Considering the increase on coastal water operations, which put ships in danger of attack by missile craft, SSMs are even more inportant today than before...

Hoss
15 Apr 09,, 11:04
Dread, do you also mean that the very stern of the ship is the optimal placement for the heli-deck, as opposed to the middle of the ship somewhere?

The very stern, in the middle, is the optimal place.

Dreadnought
15 Apr 09,, 13:19
Dread, do you also mean that the very stern of the ship is the optimal placement for the heli-deck, as opposed to the middle of the ship somewhere?

Yes, particulary for refueling and arming. It also opens up the view for the pilot to be able to see the glide slope indicator which tells the pilot when the ship is in a lull and when the ship is emerging from the lull. I'm sure that many here have seen the helo crash out there on youtube. The pilot was coming down with the helo and the ship was coming up on a wake. Literally he hit a brick wall and crashed the aircraft over the side. In addition the amidships section would certainly be a target to any incoming missle since this section houses your powerplants down below. You dont want too many explosive or flammable materials around the midship section as if it were to get hit it would increase the chances of damage to the powerplant and any other ships vitals. It is also much easier to deal with a fire in the hangar or the aircraft when on the stern section. Ships these days are not built with the same kind of protection that older ships that did house aircraft in the midsection were and thats why they are put on the stern section among other considerations such as weight and height and the location of many aerials for communications etc. Even the Des Moines class heavy cruisers still carried them on the stern albeit in a flush deck hangar below and they were well armored ships as compared to todays kevlar and other modern materials used for protection.

Dreadnought
15 Apr 09,, 13:27
Why do the Tico's still carry them on the stern?

*Less blast shields needed,Less chances of a deck fire, Immediate lift off and away from the ship without any damage to the superstructure incase the lifting booster were to fail and fall off, easier to reload the launchers as well and a clear path to guide the missle without any worries of interfearence, and ofcoarse ships overall balance. Also mid-coarse correction for the missle can come straight from the helo once launched if the target changes.

JA Boomer
15 Apr 09,, 17:39
The very stern, in the middle, is the optimal place.

Hoss, why does everybody keep saying "in the middle", has there EVER been a surface warship that somehow mad its heli-deck slanted to either port or starboard?

Dreadnought
15 Apr 09,, 17:48
Hoss, why does everybody keep saying "in the middle", has there EVER been a surface warship that somehow mad its heli-deck slanted to either port or starboard?

*Russian carrier flightdecks (Like the one the Indians and China now posses) were tilted/canted 5-7 degrees.;)

JA Boomer
15 Apr 09,, 18:10
*Russian carrier flightdecks (Like the one the Indians and China now posses) were tilted/canted 5-7 degrees.;)

Ya Dread, but I was just thinking more along the lines of Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers. There just doesn't seem to be enough beam on these types of warships to permit the flight decks being off-center.

Dreadnought
15 Apr 09,, 18:31
Ya Dread, but I was just thinking more along the lines of Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers. There just doesn't seem to be enough beam on these types of warships to permit the flight decks being off-center.

Well they (russian built carriers) "cant" or angle the deck so they dont have to go through the walkdown process of foreign matter getting sucked into a jets engine and destroy it. The USN (since they are flat) has the flight crews eyeball the entire deck before launching her airwings. Its SOP just like testing the cats. You wouldnt need to do this for helo launches though as it would be diffacult to damage an engine with foreign matter on the deck. VSTOL aircraft would be different and would require walkdowns.

Dayton3
22 Apr 09,, 19:29
Very nice looking ship designs everyone.

Unfortunately, it looks like the navies of the world are getting the shaft funding wise nowadays.

Gun Grape
23 Apr 09,, 01:53
You wouldnt need to do this for helo launches though as it would be diffacult to damage an engine with foreign matter on the deck. VSTOL aircraft would be different and would require walkdowns.


You still do a FOD walkdown for helo ops. The walkdown isn't just to catch items that could be ingested in the engine. Its also , to remove objects on the flight deck that can be propelled into a airdale or other equipment.

Gun Grape
23 Apr 09,, 01:59
Your Van Valkenburgh looks OK, but cannot compare with the actual USS Van Valkenburgh decked out in Measure 31,9d camo. Now there is a fighting ship:cool:

maximusslade
23 Apr 09,, 04:17
Why do you need such high speed? On an 12000 ton +hull, you could save a lot of $$ by dropping it to 30-31...

I havent been able to get through the entire topic yet, so if it is already been answered, sorry. I would have this speed so as to keep up with those fast CVNs.

TopHatter
23 Apr 09,, 04:36
I havent been able to get through the entire topic yet, so if it is already been answered, sorry. I would have this speed so as to keep up with those fast CVNs.

Exactly! Otherwise you end up like the Perry-class frigates: Going balls to the wall 24/7 just to keep station with the CVBG that you've been shoehorned into...even though your design specs said NOTHING about escorting a bird farm!

maximusslade
23 Apr 09,, 04:40
Shipbucket

Over 700+ line-drawings of just about every ship imaginable....and some that people just dreamed up!

I thought I recognized the artwork. I am also a member of the Wolf's shipyard forums as well, are you? One suggestion for your drawings, dont save them as jpg's. Your lines start to blur and you get that pixelation crap. Save your bmp's as png's and you get the smaller file size with the clarity.

As a fellow amature ship designer (a link to some of my work, you may recgognize it http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=44036&page=21 ), I have to say I am liking your concept. In my mind it is a practical method of replacing the tico's when the time comes.

My suggestions: replace the Phalanx with the Goalkeeper. From what I have read it is a superior system. Add a RAM launcher along with the cannon. I think a multitier defence is a good idea. Lose the 5'' mounts and go with the 155mm gun. It doesnt have to be the AGS, but it seems that the USN and our allied navies are leaning toward that caliber gun.

Consider the use of nuclear power. I am a fan of it and I know the navy is seriously looking at the use of nuclear power for the next class of cruiser. As far as your internal arrangment would be effected, plan on two reactor compartments, two engine/generator rooms, and an emergency desiel room. As far as changes that would make externally, it would eliminate the need for uptakes so you would free up a lot of space in your superstructure for more arrays and/or weapons.

Keep the harpoons. They are on my design too, but mine are launched from the VLS. But whether you have em coming from VLS or from the current launcher that is your call.

Keep it up!