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

Strike Cruiser from the 80s

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,979
Reaction score
3,814
On a related note, this was found by CanisD over at Shipbucket: http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/5500035000.pdf
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,806
Reaction score
240
Was there any serious work done looking at giving the Virginias VLS?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
Not so far as I've heard. The only ships they seriously considered refitting with VLS in place of Mk 26 were the first five CG-47s and that plan fell through.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
774
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
index.php



Paraphrased:

Model of Reuven Leopold's proposed CSGN Mk 2 concept. Leopold, who had designed the Spruance-class guided missile cruiser and was technical director of the Naval Ship Engineering Center, designed the CSGN Mk 2 on his own initiative in 1975. Displacement was 18,896 tons light or 21,146 tons fully loaded. Dimensions: 666 feet (oa) x 79.8 feet x 25.5 feet. Hangar space for six VSTOL fighters in the island. (No mention made of the three smaller hangers that appear on the model. Could these be for LAMPS III helicopters?) Tank storage for 850 tons of JP-5 fuel. Typical aviation ordinance load would have been 172 tons, including 36 tons of CBU-100 Cluster Bombs (also called the Mk-20 Rockeye II), 31 tons of AIM-9 Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missiles, 36 tons of AIM-7 Sparrow medium-range semi-active radar homing air-to-air missiles, 44 tons of Mk 82 500-lb bombs, and 25 tons of 20mm ammunition. RGM-84 Harpoon canister launchers atop the island superstructure. Two Mk 26 missile launchers fore and aft. 8-inch gun fore. Concept M had a second 8-inch gun aft. Another concept had VLS launchers aft and to starboard of flight deck limited to RIM-66 Standard MR (SM-1MR/SM-2MR) medium range surface-to-air missile (SAM) without aft Mk 26 missile launcher.
Source:

Friedman, Norman. U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. 1984. pp. 421-22.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
256
Triton said:
Hangar space for six VSTOL fighters in the island. (No mention made of the three smaller hangers that appear on the model. Could these be for LAMPS III helicopters?)


Maybe garages for deck vehicles and accesses for ordinance elevators?
 

BlackBat242

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
11
Reaction score
3
marcd30319 said:
The second image appears to be the strike cruiser conversion for the USS Long Beach (CGN-9) which would have received two 8-inch/55 caliber Mark 71 gun mounts, fore and aft, as well as two Mark-26 twin missile launchers, also fore and aft.

However, other drawings & artist's conceptions of the CSGN-9 conversion show no aft Mk71, and two Tomahawk box launchers on the stern.

The CSGN-01 schemes usually show the Tomahawk launchers at the front of the superstructure, just aft of the Harpoon launchers.
 

BlackBat242

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
11
Reaction score
3
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)?

Actually, there are 4 Harpoon launch boxes (4 missiles each) and 2 Tomahawk launch boxes (also 4 missiles each), with the aft pair being the Tomahawk.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,979
Reaction score
3,814
XP67_Moonbat said:
https://books.google.com/books?id=_eMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=strike+cruiser+ADM+Mike+Metcalf&source=bl&ots=C9kY-mzzKd&sig=IYtcpwSJQOLpsC6cpcwQPI0SblY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_wjVVLOjF5PmgwTGiILIDA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=strike%20cruiser%20ADM%20Mike%20Metcalf&f=false
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,806
Reaction score
240
A slightly better version of an earlier image.
 

Attachments

  • LongBeach.jpg
    LongBeach.jpg
    862.4 KB · Views: 499

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,600
Reaction score
982
A comparison of the Strike Cruiser (CSGN) and the DDG-47 (to be Ticonderoga class) can be found here, I have snipped the comparison table for ease of viewing.

A brief description of original desire to install the Aegis system in nuclear ships, starting with CGN-38, can be found in this article about Aegis along with an artists impression of the later CGN-42 design. This is probably the same design as depicted in the artists impression @Grey Havoc linked to in another thread showing the CGN-42 sailing next to a DDG-47, also attached.

Edit: further CSGN/DDG-47 comparison attached, note the 1,000 tons of armour. Apparently the Computer Complex and Combat Information Centre (CIC) would have been located well below the main deck and protected by some portion of this armour too. It would have been a very tough ship.

CSGN lead ship cost estimate in 1977 was $1,371 million and $1,181 million for the follow ship (it had been $996 million the year before).
 

Attachments

  • CSGN_v_DDG-47.png
    CSGN_v_DDG-47.png
    251.2 KB · Views: 192
  • CGN-42_ii.jpg
    CGN-42_ii.jpg
    60.9 KB · Views: 194
  • CGN-42_ii.png
    CGN-42_ii.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 185
  • CSGN_DDG-47 Comparison .png
    CSGN_DDG-47 Comparison .png
    131.1 KB · Views: 127
Last edited:

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,600
Reaction score
982
Attached is some detail on the CGN-9 Long Beach Aegis conversion proposal from a 1976 House Armed Services Committee Hearing. This confirms the details of the proposed conversion, 2 x Mk-26 Mod-2 (for a 128 missile capacity) and a 8 inch Mk-71 gun in addition to Aegis, a in the new-build CSGN design. She would have had a significant life extension, the result seemingly being the equivalent of a new ship, though at $783 million that would have been necessary in order to justify the cost compared to the new-build CSGN design. Also attached is a high quality version of the portrait of Long Beach after her proposed conversion, note that she appears to have 24 Harpoon launch tubes but no box launchers for Tomahawk.

There is a portrait of an alternative configuration posted here that shows a second Mk-71 gun aft but such an arrangement would surely have reduced the capacity of the aft Mk-26, possibly down to the 24 rounds of the Mod 0/3 configurations.
 

Attachments

  • CGN-9 conversion 1 of 2.png
    CGN-9 conversion 1 of 2.png
    231.1 KB · Views: 83
  • CGN-9 Conversion 2 of 2.png
    CGN-9 Conversion 2 of 2.png
    144.5 KB · Views: 106
  • CGN-9 Aegis Conversion.jpg
    CGN-9 Aegis Conversion.jpg
    338.4 KB · Views: 109
Last edited:

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
note that she appears to have 24 Harpoon launch tubes but no box launchers for Tomahawk.

I think this is just an artifact of the timing of this design. When Tomahawk was initially planned for ships, the intent was to have a conventional tube/box launcher that would have looked like a slightly scaled up Harpoon box. That's what you see aft on the Long Beach drawing.

When the battleship reactivation happened, it was decided that Tomahawk needed some protection, possibly just to be consistent with the rest of the ship and possibly to provide better nuclear weapons safety. (FWIW, battleship Harpoon canisters are also heavier weight than normal ones.) In any case, once ABL was designed, it made sense to standardize on a single launcher type, so ABL was added on other ships where the armor probably wasn't strictly necessary.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,600
Reaction score
982
The attached exchange from a 1978 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, key narrative from then CNO Admiral Holloway, seems to be the definitive answer on the viability of Aegis modernisation for the CGN-36 and CGN-38 classes. In summary, the CGN-36 conversion was technically undesirable but probably possible, the CGN-38 was possible and viable but expensive and would have resulted in modern ships being out of commission for long periods. Also attached is an exchange involving Admiral Meyer from a 1979 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing suggesting the cost per conversion would have been $600-700 million in FY79 dollars.

I guess such conversions would have utilised the Aegis modular deckhouse concept, Deckhouse Mark 20, with the new deckhouses mounted on a revised and strengthened superstructure. Each of the loaded deckhouses for the CGN-38 would have weighed over 200 long tons each according to a 1988 article in The Naval Engineers Journal.
 

Attachments

  • CGN-36:38_Aegis Conversion 1978.png
    CGN-36:38_Aegis Conversion 1978.png
    257.2 KB · Views: 75
  • CGN-36:38_Aegis Conversion Cost 1979.png
    CGN-36:38_Aegis Conversion Cost 1979.png
    245.5 KB · Views: 55
Last edited:

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
I wonder if any sketch drawing exists in one of the archives?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
The attached exchange from a 1978 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing seems to be the definitive answer on the viability of Aegis modernisation of the CGN-36 and CGN-38 classes. In summary, the CGN-36 conversion was technically undesirable but probably possible, the CGN-38 was possible and viable but expensive and would have resulted in ships being out of commission for long periods. Also attached is an exchange involving Admiral Meyer from a 1979 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing suggesting the cost per conversion would have been $600-700 million in FY79 dollars.

I guess such conversions would have utilised the Aegis modular deckhouse concept, Deckhouse Mark 20, with the new deckhouses mounted on a revised and strengthened superstructure. Each of the loaded deckhouses for the CGN-38 would have weighed over 200 long tons each according to a 1988 article in The Naval Engineers Journal.

Good find.

I'd take Adm Meyer's statement with a little grain of salt, because he had lots of incentive to make AEGIS retrofits look like a good idea. OTOH, they did have some very smart engineers and were able to shoehorn the system into the DDG-47, which was quite an achievement.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
I guess such conversions would have utilised the Aegis modular deckhouse concept, Deckhouse Mark 20, with the new deckhouses mounted on a revised and strengthened superstructure. Each of the loaded deckhouses for the CGN-38 would have weighed over 200 long tons each according to a 1988 article in The Naval Engineers Journal.
Is there any more information on the deckhouse concept? That sounds like an interesting read.

Also I cant believe that we dont have a full on Aegis infor thread somewhere around here...
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
In my excel Table together with the data posted by JFC Fuller I have 3+1 CSGN designs.
The three "Mark 1" versions:

Variant 1: (Smaller version)
Dimensions: 176,78 (wl) x 20,12 x 6,7m
Displacement: 11.800tons (standard), 12.700 (full load)
Engines: 60.000shp Westinghouse D2G Nuclear Reactors
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armaments:
2x1 127mm/54 Mark 19 Guns
2x6 20mm/76 Phalanx Mark 72 CIWS
2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM
2x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM
2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM
2x3 324mm Torpedo Launchers
2x Helicopters (SH-2 Seasprite)

Variant 2: (Larger, two gun version)
Dimensions: 203 (wl) 216,28 (oa) x 23,32 x 6,78m
Displacement: 15.902tons (standard), 17.172 (full load)
Engines: 60.000shp Westinghouse D2G Nuclear Reactors
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armaments:
1x1 203mm/55 Mark 32 Gun
1x1 127mm/54 Mark 19 Gun
2x6 20mm/76 Phalanx Mark 72 CIWS
2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM
2x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM
2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM
2x3 324mm Torpedo Launchers
2x Helicopters (SH-2 Seasprite)

Variant 3: (Larger, one gun more missile version)
Dimensions: 203 (wl) 216,28 (oa) x 23,32 x 6,78m
Displacement: 17.210 (full load)
Engines: 60.000shp Westinghouse D2G Nuclear Reactors
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armaments:
1x1 203mm/55 Mark 32 Gun
2x6 20mm/76 Phalanx Mark 72 CIWS
2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM
4x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM
2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM
2x3 324mm Torpedo Launchers
2x Helicopters (SH-2 Seasprite)

And the "Mark 2" version: (The flight deck equipped version)
Dimensions: 203 (wl) 222,5 (oa) x 24,64m (wl?)
Displacement: 22.070tons (standard), 24.648 (full load)
Engines: 60.000shp Westinghouse D2G Nuclear Reactors
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armaments:
2x1 203mm/55 Mark 32 Guns
2x6 20mm/76 Phalanx Mark 72 CIWS
2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM
4x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM
2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM
2x3 324mm Torpedo Launchers
6x VTOL Aircrafts (AV-8 Harrier)
2x Helicopters (SH-2 Seasprite)
 

A Tentative Fleet Plan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
187
Reaction score
307
In my excel Table together with the data posted by JFC Fuller I have 3+1 CSGN designs.
The three "Mark 1" versions:

Variant 1: (Smaller version)
Dimensions: 176,78 (wl) x 20,12 x 6,7m
Displacement: 11.800tons (standard), 12.700 (full load)
Engines: 60.000shp Westinghouse D2G Nuclear Reactors
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armaments:
2x1 127mm/54 Mark 19 Guns
2x6 20mm/76 Phalanx Mark 72 CIWS
2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM
2x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM
2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM
2x3 324mm Torpedo Launchers
2x Helicopters (SH-2 Seasprite)

Variant 2: (Larger, two gun version)
Dimensions: 203 (wl) 216,28 (oa) x 23,32 x 6,78m
Displacement: 15.902tons (standard), 17.172 (full load)
Engines: 60.000shp Westinghouse D2G Nuclear Reactors
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armaments:
1x1 203mm/55 Mark 32 Gun
1x1 127mm/54 Mark 19 Gun
2x6 20mm/76 Phalanx Mark 72 CIWS
2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM
2x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM
2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM
2x3 324mm Torpedo Launchers
2x Helicopters (SH-2 Seasprite)

Variant 3: (Larger, one gun more missile version)
Dimensions: 203 (wl) 216,28 (oa) x 23,32 x 6,78m
Displacement: 17.210 (full load)
Engines: 60.000shp Westinghouse D2G Nuclear Reactors
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armaments:
1x1 203mm/55 Mark 32 Gun
2x6 20mm/76 Phalanx Mark 72 CIWS
2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM
4x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM
2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM
2x3 324mm Torpedo Launchers
2x Helicopters (SH-2 Seasprite)

And the "Mark 2" version: (The flight deck equipped version)
Dimensions: 203 (wl) 222,5 (oa) x 24,64m (wl?)
Displacement: 22.070tons (standard), 24.648 (full load)
Engines: 60.000shp Westinghouse D2G Nuclear Reactors
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armaments:
2x1 203mm/55 Mark 32 Guns
2x6 20mm/76 Phalanx Mark 72 CIWS
2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM
4x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM
2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM
2x3 324mm Torpedo Launchers
6x VTOL Aircrafts (AV-8 Harrier)
2x Helicopters (SH-2 Seasprite)
Probably best to replace "2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM" with 2x Mk 26 GMLS Mod 2 (64 rounds each), "4x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM" with 4x Mk 141 Harpoon Launcher (4 rounds each) and "2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM" with 2x Mk 143 Armoured Box Launchers (4 rounds each).
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
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?

Dredging up an old post. The double sonar domes probably indicate SQQ-23 PAIR, which had two transducers for PADLOC (Passive-Active Detection and Localization). But it may also be an error because, according to Freidman, Long Beach had SQQ-23B, which integrated the two PADLOC transducers into a single dome.
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
Probably best to replace "2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM" with 2x Mk 26 GMLS Mod 2 (64 rounds each), "4x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM" with 4x Mk 141 Harpoon Launcher (4 rounds each) and "2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM" with 2x Mk 143 Armoured Box Launchers (4 rounds each).

Nope in my excel table I state the armament of the ship not the type of launchers hence RIM-66, RGM-84 and BGM-109, the same way Dreadnought and Lord Nelson carries the same 12" Mark X cannons but in different turrets
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
Probably best to replace "2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM" with 2x Mk 26 GMLS Mod 2 (64 rounds each), "4x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM" with 4x Mk 141 Harpoon Launcher (4 rounds each) and "2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM" with 2x Mk 143 Armoured Box Launchers (4 rounds each).

Nope in my excel table I state the armament of the ship not the type of launchers hence RIM-66, RGM-84 and BGM-109, the same way Dreadnought and Lord Nelson carries the same 12" Mark X cannons but in different turrets
Thing is unlike with guns a missile performace and loadout is effected by it launcher as well.

The Mark 26 has far better performance then the MK10, 12 and 13. It can launch more missiles at a time then either of those.
Plus he Mark 26 could launch Arsocs, which you damn bet that the CSGN will have despite it not being listed.

Also could do Harpoon launches with that thing but that was a rare use thing.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
Also could do Harpoon launches with that thing but that was a rare use thing.

So rare I don't know if it ever happened in the fleet at all outside of experiments. Ships with Mk 26 still got separate Harpoon tubes, while ships with Mk 11 and Mk 13 (which definitely did shoot Harpoon) did not.
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
Probably best to replace "2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM" with 2x Mk 26 GMLS Mod 2 (64 rounds each), "4x4 RGM-84 Harpoon AShM" with 4x Mk 141 Harpoon Launcher (4 rounds each) and "2x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk CruM" with 2x Mk 143 Armoured Box Launchers (4 rounds each).

Nope in my excel table I state the armament of the ship not the type of launchers hence RIM-66, RGM-84 and BGM-109, the same way Dreadnought and Lord Nelson carries the same 12" Mark X cannons but in different turrets
Thing is unlike with guns a missile performace and loadout is effected by it launcher as well.

The Mark 26 has far better performance then the MK10, 12 and 13. It can launch more missiles at a time then either of those.
Plus he Mark 26 could launch Arsocs, which you damn bet that the CSGN will have despite it not being listed.

Also could do Harpoon launches with that thing but that was a rare use thing.

Actually not, the launcher only affects the ROF not the missile's performance that is effected by mostly the missile and partly the guidance system.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,802
Reaction score
2,020
Also could do Harpoon launches with that thing but that was a rare use thing.

So rare I don't know if it ever happened in the fleet at all outside of experiments. Ships with Mk 26 still got separate Harpoon tubes, while ships with Mk 11 and Mk 13 (which definitely did shoot Harpoon) did not.
630fa8e07663fbf2878930915ff7a1d7.jpg

A strange sight.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,979
Reaction score
3,814
Also could do Harpoon launches with that thing but that was a rare use thing.

So rare I don't know if it ever happened in the fleet at all outside of experiments. Ships with Mk 26 still got separate Harpoon tubes, while ships with Mk 11 and Mk 13 (which definitely did shoot Harpoon) did not.

If I remember correctly, the additional Harpoon deck launchers were primarily intended to provide a 'snapshot' capability against marauding Soviet FAC-Ms and torpedo boats. Another reason for them was a perception in official quarters during the latter part of the 1970s that USN ships were underarmed compared to their Soviet counterparts, and therefore needed more visible armament for PR as well as practical purposes. I believe that an additional reason in the case of the Virginia-class cruisers during the 1970s may have been a perceived need to maximise available magazine space for SAMs for the Virginia's primary carrier defense role. This may have even led at times to reloads not being carried for the on deck launchers during this decade, though I am not certain of this.
 
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,979
Reaction score
3,814
note that she appears to have 24 Harpoon launch tubes but no box launchers for Tomahawk.

I think this is just an artifact of the timing of this design. When Tomahawk was initially planned for ships, the intent was to have a conventional tube/box launcher that would have looked like a slightly scaled up Harpoon box. That's what you see aft on the Long Beach drawing.

When the battleship reactivation happened, it was decided that Tomahawk needed some protection, possibly just to be consistent with the rest of the ship and possibly to provide better nuclear weapons safety. (FWIW, battleship Harpoon canisters are also heavier weight than normal ones.) In any case, once ABL was designed, it made sense to standardize on a single launcher type, so ABL was added on other ships where the armor probably wasn't strictly necessary.

I think that you may be mistaken with regards as to those aft launchers, and that they are actually additional Harpoon deck launchers, since the Mk 26 Mod 2 launchers were able to fire Tomahawk missiles.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
note that she appears to have 24 Harpoon launch tubes but no box launchers for Tomahawk.

I think this is just an artifact of the timing of this design. When Tomahawk was initially planned for ships, the intent was to have a conventional tube/box launcher that would have looked like a slightly scaled up Harpoon box. That's what you see aft on the Long Beach drawing.

When the battleship reactivation happened, it was decided that Tomahawk needed some protection, possibly just to be consistent with the rest of the ship and possibly to provide better nuclear weapons safety. (FWIW, battleship Harpoon canisters are also heavier weight than normal ones.) In any case, once ABL was designed, it made sense to standardize on a single launcher type, so ABL was added on other ships where the armor probably wasn't strictly necessary.

I think that you may be mistaken with those aft launchers, and that they are actually additional Harpoon deck launchers, since the Mk 26 Mod 2 launchers were able to fire Tomahawk missiles.
Well thats interesting.


I have always head that the MK26 was straight up not Tomahawks capable, point blank period end of story.

Got any sources? Will love to read more on that since it be useful for my story...


Also it will not surprise me if the Tubed Tomahawks launcher concepts was designed to be interchangeable with Harpoon tubes, will make intel gather PITA* and design/loadout work easy with an Unrep able to change the load out in hours...
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
I'm going to have to come back to the issue of Mk 26 and Harpoon/Tomahawk in a couple of days, when I have time to do some proper research, but I'm fairly certain it's not true. Harpoon was certainly planned, but I don't think implemented. Tomahawk might have been studied at one point, but nothing close to real-world.

For the idea of Harpoon-style Tomahawk tubes, see this picture from earlier in the thread. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...rom-the-80s.813/page-2#lg=thread-813&slide=18

The Tomahawk and Harpoon quad launchers are right next to each other in this painting. You can see they are very similar, but Tomahawk is noticeably larger.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
Rechecking my Friedmans cruiser and hybrid ships books showed that there was a few versions of the Mark 2 Strike Cruiser.

Concept K, was basically a standard CSGN hull with a flight deck slap on it.

Concept L, The one that has already been posted and the one with the most work done seemly, or the one found, either way. It was to have the side hanger garage on the flight deck with 6 VTOL jets and 4 helicopters were to be. Had 1 Mk71 8 incher, 1 Mk26 GMLS fore and a 61 cell vls module stern. Some versions of it like the model had a second MK26 inplace of the VLS. And 6 quad launchers of either harpoon or tomahawk. This design used an opitimized hull. 666 feet over all with 79.8 foot beam and drawing a 25.5 foot draft.

Concept M, was the above BUT bigger with an add Mk71 on the stern and a proper hanger deck for 18 VSTOL Jets and a few helicopters.

Got to say will love to see Concept M.
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
231
Rechecking my Friedmans cruiser and hybrid ships books showed that there was a few versions of the Mark 2 Strike Cruiser..
Which book is this? I have his one on US Cruisers and I have Layman and McLaughlin on Hybrids but I'm not familiar with a book on hybrids by Friedman.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
Rechecking my Friedmans cruiser and hybrid ships books showed that there was a few versions of the Mark 2 Strike Cruiser..
Which book is this? I have his one on US Cruisers and I have Layman and McLaughlin on Hybrids but I'm not familiar with a book on hybrids by Friedman.

Pretty sure he's talking about two books here: US Cruisers by Friedman, and The Hybrid Warship by Layman and McLaughlin.

I have a mention of an 18,000-ton version with a below-deck hangar for up to 18 Harriers in Norman Polmar's Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet, 13th Edition. Polmar describes it as somewhat similar to the WW2 Independence-class light carriers, but it's not clear if that's in appearance or just in relative capability.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
I'm going to have to come back to the issue of Mk 26 and Harpoon/Tomahawk in a couple of days, when I have time to do some proper research, but I'm fairly certain it's not true.

Just posting here to confirm. I've looked at every source I can get my hands on, and Tomahawk in any form was too long, too large in diameter, and too heavy to fit in the Mk 26.

Harpoon definitely could fit, and there are manufacturer drawings showing it in the magazine. But to the best of my knowledge, it was never actually fielded.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
Rechecking my Friedmans cruiser and hybrid ships books showed that there was a few versions of the Mark 2 Strike Cruiser..
Which book is this? I have his one on US Cruisers and I have Layman and McLaughlin on Hybrids but I'm not familiar with a book on hybrids by Friedman.

Pretty sure he's talking about two books here: US Cruisers by Friedman, and The Hybrid Warship by Layman and McLaughlin.

I have a mention of an 18,000-ton version with a below-deck hangar for up to 18 Harriers in Norman Polmar's Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet, 13th Edition. Polmar describes it as somewhat similar to the WW2 Independence-class light carriers, but it's not clear if that's in appearance or just in relative capability.
That is the book.

Well there is also the Through Deck Cruiser.
Which came out roughly the same time.

But honestly I would not be surprised if this is one of those X Program became Y program to keep it alive type of thing cause there are a few of the designs out there.

Like the MEU.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
1,800
The need for the Strike Cruiser was partially met by reactivating the four Iowa class battleships. These were initially planned to have a later conversion to add a flight deck for VSTOL/Helos as well as larger numbers of Harpoon and Tomahawk. However, it proved more useful and economical to fit Tomahawk on Spruance class destroyers and focus airpower on carriers and LHA/LHDs.
The nuclear escorts were something of a 50s/60s gimic. Only one or two were available for the Enterprise and Nimitz groups. With fleet replenishment techniques improving, conventional escorts were as effective. Cost as ever was the driver for not building nuclear escorts after the Virginias.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
1,804
I'm not sure that the hybrid Iowas were much more than speculative doodling. Some concepts were sketched up but a lot of the work was much like that as other aborted concepts using the Iowa hulls - exploratory work and thinking outside the box. There was much less willpower to actually spend that much rebuilding them.

I don't think the nuclear-powered escorts were cost effective, I can see why the high speeds and long endurance and reduced fuel requirements for a carrier task force was attractive, but in reality they offered little in terms of increased combat capability to offset the extremely high costs and limited build rates.
 

Similar threads

Top