• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Strike Cruiser from the 80s

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,888
Reaction score
2,165
Any info on this? I'd forgotten all about it then it came up on another board. All I've been able to find is

"A strike cruiser (proposed hull designator: CSGN) was a proposal from DARPA on the next generation of cruisers in the 1980's. It was to be a guided missile attack cruiser with a displacement of around 17,200 tons, armed and equipped with SM-2, Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles, an 8-inch gun, and the AEGIS phased array radar system.

A prototype strike cruiser was to be the refurbished USS Long Beach (CGN-9), at a cost of roughly $800 million, however this never came to pass.

Originally a dozen strike cruisers were projected. The cruiser was to have arsenal ship offensive capabilities coupled with Aegis defensive capabilities in a nuclear powered package. The class would have complemented the fleet defense Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (DDG-47) program. After the CSGN cancellation, the Aegis destroyers were expanded into the Ticonderoga-class (CG-47) Aegis cruiser program."

From Wikipedia :-[
 

TinWing

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
893
Reaction score
77
sferrin said:
Any info on this? I'd forgotten all about it then it came up on another board. All I've been able to find is

"A strike cruiser (proposed hull designator: CSGN) was a proposal from DARPA on the next generation of cruisers in the 1980's. It was to be a guided missile attack cruiser with a displacement of around 17,200 tons, armed and equipped with SM-2, Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles, an 8-inch gun, and the AEGIS phased array radar system.

A prototype strike cruiser was to be the refurbished USS Long Beach (CGN-9), at a cost of roughly $800 million, however this never came to pass.

Originally a dozen strike cruisers were projected. The cruiser was to have arsenal ship offensive capabilities coupled with Aegis defensive capabilities in a nuclear powered package. The class would have complemented the fleet defense Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (DDG-47) program. After the CSGN cancellation, the Aegis destroyers were expanded into the Ticonderoga-class (CG-47) Aegis cruiser program."

From Wikipedia :-[

The nuclear powered "strike cruiser" was reduced to an Aegis derivative of the Virginia class. Subsequently, there was a further reduction to the Spruance derived Ticonderoga class. So, the USN went from a 17,000 ton platform, to a 12,000 ton platform and finally settled on a 10,000 ton conventionally powered derivative of a destroyer.
 

Attachments

  • StrikeCruiser.jpg
    StrikeCruiser.jpg
    79.7 KB · Views: 2,509

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,888
Reaction score
2,165
Always wondered why the arms on the Mk 26 were so huge when all they could fire were Standard MRs. (Maybe ASROC and Harpoon but I honestly don't remember).
 

Anthonyp

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
There's more on the CSGN in Friedman's US Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History, while his US Destroyers book covers the CGN-42 class of proposed AEGIS nuke cruisers.
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
237
Mk 26 Launcher could fire Standard ER, Asroc and Harpoon
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,888
Reaction score
2,165
JohnR said:
Mk 26 Launcher could fire Standard ER, Asroc and Harpoon

Standard ER was the developement of Terrier which it could not fire. Nor could it fire an SM-2 Block IV with the short booster.
 

shokaku

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
14
Reaction score
8
The appearance of the strike cruiser is a confused thing :-\ - from different source:
the csgn-42 was probably the definitive CSGN (and not a modified Virginia);
the Long beach refit;
the Mk2 a study about a Invincible-style ship;
the csgn1 (one of the magnificent work you can find at http://s90.photobucket.com/albums/k279/shipbucket/ ) the first csgn configuration.
 

Attachments

  • CSGN42.jpg
    CSGN42.jpg
    45.4 KB · Views: 2,266
  • long beach refit.jpg
    long beach refit.jpg
    79.7 KB · Views: 2,136
  • CSGNMK-2.jpg
    CSGNMK-2.jpg
    118.6 KB · Views: 2,238
  • USACSGN1.gif
    USACSGN1.gif
    10.6 KB · Views: 2,191

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
237
To Sferrin.

Apologies, the night before I hand been reading through my 1992/3 edition of Combat Fleets, and under the weapons systems section it listed the mark 10 and mark 26 launchers for Standard ER.

I've now cross checked in may Naval Institute and Janes Naval Weapons systems and you are totally correct. Mark 26 can only fire Standard SM2 MR.
 

MConrads

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Dec 1, 2006
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I have recently found some other nice views of above ships and some other 70´s and 80´s USN ship projects I wanted to share with you:

An Iowa class carrier conversion:

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d28/MConrads/USABB-61IowaCVSmod.jpg

The Long Beach Aegis Strike Cruiser refit:

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d28/MConrads/USACGN-09LongBeachAegis1.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d28/MConrads/USACGN-09LongBeachAegis2.jpg

An artist impression of the CGN-42:

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d28/MConrads/USACGN-42Aegis2.jpg

An artist impression of (one of the many incarnations of) the DGX project:

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d28/MConrads/USADDG-47DGXAegis1.jpg

And last but not least a model pic of the Bath Iron Works version of the Spruance class:

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d28/MConrads/USADD-963BathIronWorks_Spruance1.jpg

Please not that due to the size of the pics they will not remain in the Photobucket account forever;-)

Enjoy.
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,543
Reaction score
331
You're very generous sharing this highly interesting concepts with us. Thanks a lot MConrads :)
 

TinWing

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
893
Reaction score
77
MConrads said:
The Long Beach Aegis Strike Cruiser refit:

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d28/MConrads/USACGN-09LongBeachAegis1.jpg

It looks as if this was scanned from a big book with a very stiff binding. It is a pity that not all books are scanner friendly.

This is the first time I've seen the Long Beach Aegis conversion in a detailed drawing. I am entirely puzzled by the presence of two sonar domes? Why two?



MConrads said:
And last but not least a model pic of the Bath Iron Works version of the Spruance class:

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d28/MConrads/USADD-963BathIronWorks_Spruance1.jpg

Please not that due to the size of the pics they will not remain in the Photobucket account forever;-)

Enjoy.

Thanks. I'd forgotten that the Spruance-class was a winner take all contract. It appear that the Bath Iron works design was quite different than the Litton design. I wonder if the dimensions and specs were different as well?
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
208
Reaction score
143
shokaku said:
The appearance of the strike cruiser is a confused thing :-\ - from different source:
the csgn-42 was probably the definitive CSGN (and not a modified Virginia);
the Long beach refit;
the Mk2 a study about a Invincible-style ship;
the csgn1 (one of the magnificent work you can find at http://s90.photobucket.com/albums/k279/shipbucket/ ) the first csgn configuration.
Hm, you've got some nice scans, but the details are wrong. The CGN-42 (NOT CSGN-42) was indeed the last of the design line, but it was definatively down-rated compared to the CSGN. For one thing Friedman claims that C&C facilities were curtailed, and the MK-26 was the Mod-1 version which only held 44 missiles, instead of the 64 each that the Mod-2 on the CSGN would have had. Displacement was down to around 12,000 tons from 17,000 tons for the last CSGN design...
The drawing you have noted as the Long Beach refit is in fact the ultimate CSGN design, before the programme was put on hold and devolved into the CGN line. The differencees are easy to note: The LB deckhouse would have been more monolithic, and as as imortant, the LB conversion would have lacked the AN/SPS-49 long range 2D radar.
The MK-2 drawing is a contemporary of the definative CSGN, and explored the idea of a harrier carrying CSGN. Jack of all trades, master of none comes to mind.
The CSGN1 is indeed the very first CSGN design. A 8 inch gun would later be added, but I'll have to redraw that cannon first :)
And just for everyone here, my drawing of the CGN-42, completed yesterday. And I WILL do the CSGN next.
 

Attachments

  • USA CGN-42 AU.gif
    USA CGN-42 AU.gif
    13.8 KB · Views: 887

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
208
Reaction score
143
L.S.,

A picture I just finished. In it the four most commonly depicted CSGN variants that show up in various publications. The first one is basically derived from a nuclear frigate, and as such has no real armor. Note the lack of a cannon, and the early design of the Armored Box Launchers for the Cruise Missiles. The second is essentially version one, but with the addition of the Mk-71 8" cannon. Apparently there was room over for it. Heck, if it could be installed on the Hull...
The third is the "ultimate" CSGN design, weighing in at a cool 15-17,000 tones, having actual cruiser-like armor, and full taskforce C&C facilities aboard. The Mk-26 launchers would have held a full 64 weapons each.
Last is the CGN-42, which eschewed armor, had much reduced C&C facilities, and the launchers each held only 44 weapons. Basically a return to the nuclear frigate derived designs.
Enjoy.
 

Attachments

  • USA CSGN Evolution.gif
    USA CSGN Evolution.gif
    53.7 KB · Views: 1,452

M. A. Rozon

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
82
Reaction score
11
Love the Diagram. ;D


Would it be possible to get a list of vital statistics for the respective versions pictured above. I think I have definitive stats for CGN-42 but I would like to see numbers, equipment lists and their sources to clarify what I'm seeing.

Thanks in advance.
 

M. A. Rozon

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
82
Reaction score
11
Well, I did a little more digging. I understand now that the third one is the final version pictured in Friedman's U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History and so the stats for it are there. So I've got two of four. Definitive stats for the first two are lacking, however, so my request for information still stands:

Does anyone have definitive or reasonably solid stats and euqipment lists for the first two versions in Moshik's posted image?

Thanks in advance.

::)
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
208
Reaction score
143
Hi there,

Unfortunately I can't really help you with that. All I had to work from was a few pictures. Friedman's Cruisers mentions it only in passing, and gives it a 580 ft. lenght and mentions two Mk-26 Mod2 launchers. And that's basically it.

M. A. Rozon said:
Well, I did a little more digging. I understand now that the third one is the final version pictured in Friedman's U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History and so the stats for it are there. So I've got two of four. Definitive stats for the first two are lacking, however, so my request for information still stands:

Does anyone have definitive or reasonably solid stats and euqipment lists for the first two versions in Moshik's posted image?

Thanks in advance.

::)
 

M. A. Rozon

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
82
Reaction score
11
Of all the things to ring bells with, the length of 580 ft was it! I remembered something in Friedman's U.S. Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History and there it was.

For those who might be interested, This book has stats for the CSGN as of March, 1975 and December are in the data appendixes. Both are interim stages in the design process. The first has 2 x Mark 45 5-in/54 Cal guns while the second which matches the third drawing for length, has the 8-in/55 MCLWG AND a 5-in/54 cal Mark 45. So neither quite matches what is portrayed but they're close enough to give us the right idea.

From U.S. Destroyers here are the stats as of March 1975, which is the closest I have for the first two drawings:

Displacement;
Light 11800 tons
Full 12700 tons
LWL 580 ft
Beam 66 ft
Draught (Keel, I assume) 24 feet

2 Mark 26 launchers with a total of 128 SM-2 missiles although I would expect there would be some ASROC (at least 8 IMO) in the forward magazine
2 quad launchers with Harpoon
2 quad ABL for Tomahawk
1 8-in/55 cal MCLWG
1 5-in/54 cal Mark 45 gun
2 LAMPS 3 helicopters

If anyone has more offical stats for either of the first two drawings and/or their sources, I'd still be intersted in hearing from them.

For the third drawing, here is what US cruisers has for the 1976 design;

LOA 709 feet 7 inches
LWL 666 feet
Beam at waterline 76 feet 5 inches and change
Draft 22 feet 4 inches
Reactors 2 modified D2G
6 ship service turbo generators
2 x 2000 Kw diesel generators
SHP 60000+ Horsepower
Speed 30 Knots+
4 quad launchers with Harpoon
2 quad launchers with Tomahawk
2 Mark 26 launchers with 44 missiles (SM-2 and ASROC) forward and 64 missiles aft
2 twin 12.75 inch torpedo tubes
1 8-in/55 cal MCLWG

Displacement:
Light 16035 tons
Full Load 17284 tons
Crew 454 officers and men.

There would, of course, be other add-ons like CIWS but this isn't mentioned in the tables

Again, thanks for patience and answers.

The drawing is great!

;D
 

Anthonyp

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Nice drawings, MishoshiK! Always a fan of your work, but I've got a special place for the CSGN.

Now, do any art/plans exist for the Refit Long Beach (besides the artwork in Friedman's Cruiser book)? I've got this ancient Revell model that wants to be refit into the proposed prototype CSGN... Currently, it looks vaguely like the actual ex-USS Long Beach looks today (no superstructure save the lower part of the aft one).
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
208
Reaction score
143
Anthonyp said:
Nice drawings, MishoshiK! Always a fan of your work, but I've got a special place for the CSGN.

Now, do any art/plans exist for the Refit Long Beach (besides the artwork in Friedman's Cruiser book)? I've got this ancient Revell model that wants to be refit into the proposed prototype CSGN... Currently, it looks vaguely like the actual ex-USS Long Beach looks today (no superstructure save the lower part of the aft one).
I'm going to be working on that, and my main source of inspiration is on the previous page of this thread, reply #8 MConrads. He's got two links to refit Long Beach, although one is a scan from Friedman's book.
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
208
Reaction score
143
M. A. Rozon said:
Of all the things to ring bells with, the length of 580 ft was it! I remembered something in Friedman's U.S. Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History and there it was.
-SNIP-

There would, of course, be other add-ons like CIWS but this isn't mentioned in the tables

Again, thanks for patience and answers.

The drawing is great!

;D
Thanks for the Stats. Amazing that the much larger 1976 design actually was supposed to have a smaller weapons loadout than the 5000 ton smaller 75 design.
As for the drawings, you guys are wellcome! I really enjoy drawing this stuff, and especially these "never were" designs tickle my fancy.

Edit: attached a Long Beach conversion picture I made five ears ago, before I settled on the 2 pixels= 1 foot scale. Guess I'll have to rework this one.
 

Attachments

  • USA CGN-09 Long Beach Aegis 1 AU.gif
    USA CGN-09 Long Beach Aegis 1 AU.gif
    27.7 KB · Views: 1,101

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
818
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
CSGN-01 concept artwork.

Specifications
LOA 709 feet 7 inches
LWL 666 feet
Beam at waterline 76 feet 5 inches and change
Draft 22 feet 4 inches
Reactors 2 modified D2G
6 ship service turbo generators
2 x 2000 Kw diesel generators
SHP 60000+ Horsepower
Speed 30 Knots+
4 quad launchers with Harpoon
2 quad launchers with Tomahawk
2 Mark 26 launchers with 44 missiles (SM-2 and ASROC) forward and 64 missiles aft
2 twin 12.75 inch torpedo tubes
1 8-in/55 cal MCLWG

Displacement:
Light 16035 tons
Full Load 17284 tons

Crew:

454 officers and men.

Up to four CSGNs were considered necessary to screen each aircraft carrier. The cost of the lead strike cruiser in FY 76 was estimated at $1.371 billion; she was to have been completed in December 1983.
The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. fleet (Seventeenth Edition) by Norman Polmar, page 135.
 

Attachments

  • csgn-1-pic1.jpg
    csgn-1-pic1.jpg
    27.6 KB · Views: 717

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
818
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
AEGIS-modified Virginia-class nuclear powered guided missile cruiser (unbuilt CGN 42 class) concept art. The proposal was to take a Virginia-class hull and nuclear powerplant and create the CGN 42 much like the Ticonderoga Class is based on the Spruance Class. Originally, the Carter Administration proposed that one CGN 42 class ship be built for each nuclear powered carrier. According to Friedman, "CGN 42 was herself considered an austere alternative to the nuclear strike cruiser, or CSGN." Page 324, US Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History (Revised Edition)
 

Attachments

  • cgn-42-pic1.jpg
    cgn-42-pic1.jpg
    26.3 KB · Views: 744
  • USACGN-42Aegis2.jpg
    USACGN-42Aegis2.jpg
    108.2 KB · Views: 1,240

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
818
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Concept art of DDG 47, later designated CG 47 Ticonderoga, steaming alongside the canceled Aegis-modified Virginia-class cruiser, CGN 42.
 

Attachments

  • DDG47withCGN42.JPG
    DDG47withCGN42.JPG
    56.5 KB · Views: 867

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
818
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
DG/Aegis concept from 1972. According to Friedman the ship was "too austere even for Admiral Zumwalt." Price was limited to $150 million in FY 72 dollars.

Note the limitation of the two illuminators and the single Mk26 launching system, with gas turbine propulsion. The demise of DG/Aegis has been blamed variously on proponents of nuclear propulsion and on the rather limited capabilities of this austere ship.
Page 321, US Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History (Revised Edition)
 

Attachments

  • DGAegis.JPG
    DGAegis.JPG
    68 KB · Views: 967

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
818
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Mid-1970s concept of an Aegis-modified USS Long Beach to strike cruiser configuration. It was believed that it was quicker and cheaper to create a class of strike cruisers starting with USS Long Beach than to create an entirely new class of ship.The USS Long Beach conversion and the CSGN were cancelled by the Carter Administration in 1977 in favor of the more austere CGN 42 class.
 

Attachments

  • LongBeachCSGNconversion.JPG
    LongBeachCSGNconversion.JPG
    93.9 KB · Views: 495

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
818
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Strike Cruiser Mk II design with a flight deck similar to the Soviet Kiev Class intended to operate V/STOL aircraft and helicopters. Displacement was 24,648 ton fully loaded and length 666 feet. It could support six V/STOL aircraft and two helicopters housed at flight deck level in the expanded island. Armament included two Tomahawk,four Harpoon launchers, and two Mk 26 Mod 2 missile launchers. Friedman, US Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History(Revised Edition), page 346.
 

Attachments

  • CSGNMK-2.jpg
    CSGNMK-2.jpg
    118.6 KB · Views: 403

Just call me Ray

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
674
Reaction score
13
Triton said:
Mid-1970s concept of an Aegis-modified USS Long Beach to strike cruiser configuration. It was believed that it was quicker and cheaper to create a class of strike cruisers starting with USS Long Beach than to create an entirely new class of ship.The USS Long Beach conversion and the CSGN were cancelled by the Carter Administration in 1977 in favor of the more austere CGN 42 class.

What other ships would've been converted? The Albanies were of similar dimensions, IIRC.
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
237
What other ships would've been converted? The Albanies were of similar dimensions, IIRC.
[/quote]

No chance for Albanies - they were worn out by this time, if anything was more likely then Salem, Newport News or Des Moines but they had been well used. I don't think any war program ships would have been considered at this stage, Long Beach was the only realistic choice.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,965
Reaction score
376
Great work with your CSGN Evaluation drawings MihoshiK
Its puts the designs in perspective!
It a great pity the US navy never persuade the CSGN (1976) design.
With both its true cruiser like armour, displacement, weapons and senor fit, it would have been a very powerful and useful contribution to both the U.S and NATO.
It would have more than likely spurred the Soviets into building larger and more expensive ships to counter it, which it could ill afford in reality!

Regards
Pioneer
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,295
Reaction score
1,257
Just found, where I wouldn't have searched for it, in the "Enzyklopädie
der Raketen & Lenkwaffen" (Encyclopedia of rockets and missiles): A
side view of the DDG 47
 

Attachments

  • DDG-47.JPG
    DDG-47.JPG
    24.3 KB · Views: 607

Jax-Jason

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
8
Reaction score
1
I scanned these from a 1980's era Norman Polmar book (don't remember which one).

One is one of the CGSN concepts, the other 2 are Burke concepts.

SCAN0001.jpg


SCAN0002.jpg


SCAN0003.jpg
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,888
Reaction score
2,165
That strike cruiser looks to have the Mk71 8" gun. :)
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
237
Thanks Jax-Jason you have saved my sanity. I have been driving myself insane for quite some time trying to find that picture of the Burke with the 5" gun aft, I knew I'd seen in somewhere but I have not been able to find it.

Love the picture of the Flight Deck CSGN model - I've only seen the profile line drawings before.

From reading about this design I've believed that concepts similar to this is was the way to go for the future.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
818
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Photograph of the Strike Cruiser Mark II cropped to remove white space and text and saved as an attachment for archive purposes.
 

Attachments

  • StrikeCriuserMarkII.JPG
    StrikeCriuserMarkII.JPG
    71.5 KB · Views: 2,045

pathology_doc

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,001
Reaction score
263
sferrin said:
Always wondered why the arms on the Mk 26 were so huge when all they could fire were Standard MRs. (Maybe ASROC and Harpoon but I honestly don't remember).

AFAIK they were there to provide additional stabilization to ASROC, due to its lack of a guidance system. They retract up out of the way when Standard and Harpoon are fired.
 

Howedar

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
58
Reaction score
1
Mk 26 had substantial growth capacity over Mk 13, so some of the additional size makes perfect sense.

.................................Mk 13................................Mk 26
Max Length..................186in.................................200in
Max Diameter...............13.5in...............................14.75in
Max Weight..................1500lb...............................2200lb
 

RP1

I see the truth in it.
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
473
Reaction score
279
Website
rp-one.net
AFAIK they were there to provide additional stabilization to ASROC, due to its lack of a guidance system. They retract up out of the way when Standard and Harpoon are fired.

Correct. Friedman has pictures of both configurations. Note that it is the forward part of the launch rail that retracts up into the arm, so it can be difficult to see.

RP1
 

Firefly 2

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
461
Reaction score
8
Wow, that Strike Cruiser Mark II CSGN is something to behold.
A few questions:

Wouldn't the missile ramps eventually have been replaced by VLS systems?

What was the rationale behind the extensive Harpoon package ( I count at least 5*4 cells, if the configuration is symmetric there would be 6 quadruple launchers... Triple the normal complement)?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,888
Reaction score
2,165
Firefly 2 said:
Wow, that Strike Cruiser Mark II CSGN is something to behold.
A few questions:

Wouldn't the missile ramps eventually have been replaced by VLS systems?

What was the rationale behind the extensive Harpoon package ( I count at least 5*4 cells, if the configuration is symmetric there would be 6 quadruple launchers... Triple the normal complement)?

Probably so you'd have more missiles to shoot. Same reason the Iowas had four quad Harpoon launchers and eight quad Tomahawk launchers. US destroyers and cruisers have never really been tasked with surface warfare as their primary mission which is why they only carry eight (if that). It's also why the US hasn't developed a long range, high speed, large antiship missile.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,691
Reaction score
1,903
VLS was still somewhat controversial and untrusted when these designs were floated. Also, these proposals were coming at a time when it was popular to criticize US designs for lack of visible armament and sensors relative to their Soviet counterparts. Using the prominent Mk 26 instead of the low-visibility Mk 41 VLS was a deliberate marketing choice.

The large number of Harpoon was probably a reflection of the ship's intended role as a Surface Action Group centerpiece. The embarked aircraft (VSTOL-A) were to be used for long-range target acquisition, and the Harpoons (and possible Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missiles in some iterations of the design) would be used to prosecute those targets.
 

Similar threads

Top