CGBL

[TimothyC]

She's a bit CSGN Mk2 and a bit Invincible, both in design and in mission. I've been trying to find a good set of contacts for Mr? Sims to see if he could point me in the correct direction for more info on both CGBL and MEU.

I am very interested in what you find out, TimothyC.

Do you know how many VLS cells the CGBL had?

CGBL was to have a strait combat systems reuse of the systems from the Flight 3/4 (ie VLS) Ticonderogas. This means that they would have had 122 usable VLS cells, and a crane in both the fore and aft arrays.

[TurretHead]

Do you know how many VLS cells the CGBL had?

Regarding the MEU or CG V/VSTOL:

[The United States Navy studied a cruiser alternative in the late 1980s] variously entitled a Mission Essential Unit (MEU) or CG V/STOL. In a return to the thoughts of the independent operations cruiser-carriers of the 1930s and the Russian Kiev class, the ship was fitted with a hangar, elevators and a flight deck. The mission systems were Aegis, SQS-53 sonar, 12 SV-22 ASW aircraft and 200 VLS cells. The resulting ship had a waterline length of 700 feet, a waterline beam of 97 feet, and a displacement of about 25,000 tons.

Source:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ld-war.htm

I don't quite understand why the pennant number is 1. Wouldn't this type of ship have a CGH pennant number?

It looks like there are three Mk 41 VLS on this ship. Two forward in the stepped arrangement and a third aft of the island and on the starboard side. Which would mean 183-192 cells which is close to the 200 in that quote.

The hull number "1" could mean a range of things. It could just be an arbitary number for the CGBL program or it could indicate that such a ship would have a new hull classification symbol and this would of course be the first: CVG, CGV, CGH, CSG, whatever none have been allocated to a new build before.

Anyway its a cool looking ship and would be awesome in Shipbucket to the new carrier standard (left, right and top views).

[Triton]

I guess CGVV or CVVG was also possible for Veloplane VSTOL like the earlier CVV carrier concept in the late 1970s.

[Triton]

Do you believe that the naming convention for the Ticonderoga-class would have continued with the CGBL in that ships were named for battles? Or do you believe that these cruisers would have been named for cities within the United States of America and its possessions as was the naming scheme in the past?

[TimothyC]

Do you believe that the naming convention for the Ticonderoga-class would have continued with the CGBL in that ships were named for battles? Or do you believe that these cruisers would have been named for cities within the United States of America and its possessions as was the naming scheme in the past?

To the best of my research CGBL was a mathematical and design model for the evaluation of future cruiser designs, and as such it was never considered for production.

[Colosseum]

CGBL-xx USS Houston has a nice ring to it.

[klagldsf]

Do you believe that the naming convention for the Ticonderoga-class would have continued with the CGBL in that ships were named for battles? Or do you believe that these cruisers would have been named for cities within the United States of America and its possessions as was the naming scheme in the past?

The named for battles thing was itself an aberration...though during the Cold War cruisers were named as leftover from the old naming convention to admirals to states (and keep in mind even during the "codified era" we had everything from patrol boats to 20,000 ton vessels named for cities and don't give me that "named for small towns" junk Y U KNO LIEK TACOMA?) Though there's still a very interesting pattern that emerged:

"Traditional" Cruisers incl. CGs = the old system (we'll discount the ex-frigates as true aberrations)
Nuclear cruisers = states (once again with aberrations but we'll consider those few and far between)
AEGIS-equipped cruisers = battles

There's actually a lot of natural progression in this once you consider the absence of battleships - nuclear cruisers would naturally take up the mantle from them hence the state tag. And previous to the AEGIS cruisers were were two types of vessel that were named for battles once naming systems were codified: aircraft carriers...and battlecruisers (and indeed aircraft carriers inherited them from converted battlecruisers). It's a somewhat intriguing implication: the idea that AEGIS cruisers would through their sensors suite and actual available firepower be able to significantly dictate surface-to-surface engagements in addition to air engagements when since WWII up to that point cruisers were almost strictly anti-air warfare vessels (or at least I imagine this probably ran though a few admirals' minds when it was realized Flight II ships would be able to embark large numbers of T-ASM).

CGBL might return to being named after states as they'd be larger and more powerful still...but it's a moot point. As TimothyC said, it's not even so much an engineering study as is a baseline study (hence the name) for the specific engineering and mission goalposts any future cruiser design would need to meet. And then somebody decided to render up a doodle for it. Really if it weren't for that doodle CGBL would be nothing more but a glorified bulletpoint presentation.

[Triton]

Maybe, though a fuel-efficient aircraft baseline developed for Boeing Sonic Cruiser presentations to airlines became the basis of the Boeing 787.

[TimothyC]

Maybe, though a fuel-efficient aircraft baseline developed for Boeing Sonic Cruiser presentations to airlines became the basis of the Boeing 787.

There were several cruiser proposals in the 1990s that Friedman outlines in his updated printing of US Destroyers. Most of them were not all that similar to the CGBL design - with the exception of the split superstructure which did show up on a couple of occasions.

[Triton]

Maybe, though a fuel-efficient aircraft baseline developed for Boeing Sonic Cruiser presentations to airlines became the basis of the Boeing 787.

There were several cruiser proposals in the 1990s that Friedman outlines in his updated printing of US Destroyers. Most of them were not all that similar to the CGBL design - with the exception of the split superstructure which did show up on a couple of occasions.

I find drawings of Never-Built Designs here on Ship Bucket and artist's impressions from the Navy or shipyards to be the inspiration for What if... scenarios. Part of the fun is coming up with ship names that would likely have been chosen for these designs, if built, by the then Secretary of the Navy. In the case of the CGBL, what names Secretary of the Navy John Lehman might have come up with. If John Lehman would have named these ships for battles, cities within the United States or its possessions, or the names of states or possessions, or if he would get inspiration from elsewhere. Any name that would be given to this design would be fictional.

I hope that my comments were not interpreted as assertions to the likelihood that the CGBL design would have reached production or a statement concerning support for the design by decision makers within the United States Navy or within the United States government.

I am just playing What if... scenarios. I understand that the Reagan Administration considered building the CGN-42 (Aegis-equipped Virginia-class) design. I often wonder if CGN-42 though CGN-46 would have been named for states or for famous battles.