Crazy huge CGN du jour

Post any drawings you have made that do not pertain to an Alternate Universe scenario and are not a never-built design.

Moderator: Community Manager

Message
Author
User avatar
Thiel
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark

Re: Crazy huge CGN du jour

#51 Post by Thiel »

You could mount two quad launchers in front of the bridge like it was done on the Peder Skram Class.
The launchers are light enough that the soft patch wont have any trouble supporting them, and compared to the size of a nuclear refueling, removing them in order to do it is nothing.
You may have to move the liferafts a bit aft though, just to be on the safe side.
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.
MihoshiK
Posts: 1035
Joined: October 16th, 2010, 11:06 pm
Location: In orbit, watching you draw.
Contact:

Re: Crazy huge CGN du jour

#52 Post by MihoshiK »

Thiel wrote:You could mount two quad launchers in front of the bridge like it was done on the Peder Skram Class.
The launchers are light enough that the soft patch wont have any trouble supporting them, and compared to the size of a nuclear refueling, removing them in order to do it is nothing.
You may have to move the liferafts a bit aft though, just to be on the safe side.
I don't see why anyone thinks this thing wouldn't have enough VLS for VL Harpoon. It's got 231 VL tubes, that's nearly TWICE the loadout of a Ticonderoga class cruiser!
I mean, normal Harpoon load for a ship was eight missiles. If you double that, you would still have 215 tubes left for other missiles. Seriously, this ship is a BEAST.
Would you please not eat my gun...
Image
User avatar
Thiel
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark

Re: Crazy huge CGN du jour

#53 Post by Thiel »

MihoshiK wrote:
Thiel wrote:You could mount two quad launchers in front of the bridge like it was done on the Peder Skram Class.
The launchers are light enough that the soft patch wont have any trouble supporting them, and compared to the size of a nuclear refueling, removing them in order to do it is nothing.
You may have to move the liferafts a bit aft though, just to be on the safe side.
I don't see why anyone thinks this thing wouldn't have enough VLS for VL Harpoon. It's got 231 VL tubes, that's nearly TWICE the loadout of a Ticonderoga class cruiser!
I mean, normal Harpoon load for a ship was eight missiles. If you double that, you would still have 215 tubes left for other missiles. Seriously, this ship is a BEAST.
True, but it's not unlikely that it would replace two or three Tico's in a CVBG.
And it has the advantage that you won't have to introduce a new launch system.
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.
acelanceloet
Posts: 7512
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands

Re: Crazy huge CGN du jour

#54 Post by acelanceloet »

was the VLS launched version of the harpoon even build?
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin
MihoshiK
Posts: 1035
Joined: October 16th, 2010, 11:06 pm
Location: In orbit, watching you draw.
Contact:

Re: Crazy huge CGN du jour

#55 Post by MihoshiK »

acelanceloet wrote:was the VLS launched version of the harpoon even build?
Yes. I've actually got pictures of a trial firing somewhere on my PC.

Edit:

Image
Would you please not eat my gun...
Image
erik_t
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US

Re: Crazy huge CGN du jour

#56 Post by erik_t »

Interesting; I didn't know such was ever tested. I'll need to revise mine!

Exclusion of Harpoon canisters was a conscious AU-ish decision on my part. There are lots of places you could put them, but the idea never really excited me. Lord knows she'd sail with empty cells already (as is apparently quite common in the USN). And with so many weapons systems already, I wanted to avoid a more Soviet flavor...
orihara
Posts: 7
Joined: August 10th, 2010, 12:41 am

Re: Crazy huge CGN du jour

#57 Post by orihara »

I thought the VLS Harpoon launch was simply something that would be done if someone paid for the work to be done, not something that had actually been tested. I think the ship does look cleaner without the Harpoons, and really, no OTH Harpoon shot has ever been done, in which case you're better off with launching Standards in SSM mode.
User avatar
klagldsf
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm

Re: Crazy huge CGN du jour

#58 Post by klagldsf »

It does beg the question as to why wasn't Harpoon deployed operationally from Mk 41, especially given how many tubes apparently sit empty. At the very least, it would've meant decks clean of Mk 141 launchers earlier than as happened (as Harpoon is actually getting supplanted with SM-3 as it turns out, and Harpoon's eventual replacement will be the ArcLight multi-role hypersonic cruise missile).
User avatar
Thiel
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark

Re: Crazy huge CGN du jour

#59 Post by Thiel »

I'm guessing cost. Sure, you could get rid of the Mk 141, but you'd have to buy brand new boosters or conversion kits for all your missiles and train your personnel in their use. Quite a lot of hazzle when you already have a perfectly workable solution.
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.
erik_t
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US

Re: Crazy huge CGN du jour

#60 Post by erik_t »

Because, honestly, who cares about ship-launched Harpoon? If you had more money (and open VLS cells) than sense, sure, but there are better things to do.
Post Reply