CSGN mk2

[acelanceloet]

not entirely finished (some small detailing and the top view to be done) but I'd like comments on this one for now.

credits: me, Timothyc & Erik_T

a question for this one: how should I do the mooring gear at the stern and amidships? on the bow it is just like normal cruisers, but I have 3 options on the stern: mount mooring gear on the flight deck, in hatches or in cutaways.

other then the mooring gear, the sideview is finished (apart from the points that you guys might point out, of course)

[erik_t]

I don't see enough of Timothy's or my work to merit inclusion of our names.

I think the aft VLS should be a 64 (61) cell block.

Mooring-wise, I'd copy the aft end of Tarawa or Wasp.

Otherwise I think it's coming along nicely.

[TimothyC]

I'm with Erik, I don't see enough of stuff we've done on there to get our names included. I would like to try tweaking the bridge area (just adding a few more details) tomorrow if you don't mind.

[klagldsf]

So why did they design this ship with both VLS and Mk 26?

[TimothyC]

So why did they design this ship with both VLS and Mk 26?

IIRC because neither VLA or Sea Lance were even concepts yet. Ergo the Mk-26 for SM-2s and ASROC and the Mk-41 for Tomahawks and SM-2s.

[erik_t]

IIRC because neither VLA or Sea Lance were even concepts yet. Ergo the Mk-26 for SM-2s and ASROC and the Mk-41 for Tomahawks and SM-2s.

That's my understanding as well.

I think I'd un-stagger the Harpoon canisters as well.

[Thiel]

Wow, that's a lot Harpoons.

[acelanceloet]

@ timothyc: of course you can! I was not really certain about how to do that (I have not very much experience with US ships...) so that would help a lot
for the VLS: I just put the block on it that fitted the best into the area shown on the drawing. but I could change it for an 64 cell, indeed... that seems more logical to me as well.

btw, erik_t, what does un-stagger mean? I can't quite get what you mean with that sentence

what also should be said, is that the VLS was added in the later concepts for the ship. originally there was an extra mk26 at the stern as well.
and for the credits, I just credited EVERY part, so I would not get into a new war for those but if you think it isn't necessary...

[bezobrazov]

I'd definitely would've reduced the number of Harpoons. With the exception of the mammooth Iowa-class, no US vessel has ever shipped more than two quads! And the staggering of them is not necessary at all. I agree here with erik_t. It means that you've shifted the positions of the port and starboard canisters so they don't face eachother directly. But in this case it's not necessary to have that arrangement. Also, since it's a nuclear-powered vessel, I'd go ahead and repaint the black mast and radars etc in the ship's hull color. Look at other USN nuclear vessels for reference on this!

[TimothyC]

I'd definitely would've reduced the number of Harpoons. With the exception of the mammooth Iowa-class, no US vessel has ever shipped more than two quads!

The Harpoon loadout was one of the features of this design, as the ship was large enough to mount them. I remind you that the Long Beach CSGN refit proposals did mount 4 quads as well. Many ships that had Harpoon added after construction simply didn't have the volume or the weight growth room to take more than 2 quad launchers, but all of the CSGN designs did (as the Harpoon launchers were part of the design from close to if not day one).