Paper from American Society of Naval Engineers (ASNE):
"The CGBL –a Product Improved Version of the CG 52"
Philip Sims
ABSTRACT
There are indications that the next cruiser design will be a large ship, both in dimensions and displacement. It will inevitably be compared to the existing cruisers of the CG 47 class. The CG 47 class was a mod-repeat of the DD 963 class and carried over many “big destroyer” legacies such as an aluminum superstructure and a compensated fuel system. The mod-repeat ships had extremely limited service life reserves.
In the mid-1980s, the Navy desired to evaluate future technologies for future ships but using the CG 47 as a starting point invoked that ship’s inherent features which often confused the evaluation. For example, fitting a composite superstructure showed little change over an aluminum superstructure ship although the Navy policy was not to use aluminum but steel in the future. A composite superstructure would show weight savings over a steel superstructure ship. A modern features
CG was needed to evaluate future technologies so a 1986 study created the CG Base Line (CGBL). It was a “product improved” version of the VLS variants of the CG 47 class (CG 52 onward) with full design margins, full service life reserves, lean ballast fuel system and all electric auxiliaries.
Military mission improvements included radar cross section reduction, a steel superstructure with increased fragment protection, and a Collective Protection System. The changes increased the dimensions of the ship to a waterline length of 620 feet, a beam of 69 feet and a full load displacement of 13,675 tons.
Since the combat system (over half the cost of the ship) and the main machinery was unchanged, the cost increase was
much less than the size increase would indicate. The major increase in displacement was due to a low-cost-perton steel superstructure and features that could reduce cost such as combat system modularity and generous internal volume easing construction. The resulting ship was more survivable, faster, had much better seakeeping and could accept a major mid-life modernization. The paper describes the ship impact of each of the changed features. The size of the DDG 1000 and the CG(X) alternatives are easier to explain if compared to the CGBL rather than the CG 52.
Timothy, do you also intend to draw the Mission Essential Unit (MEU) or CG V/STOL concept?
Edited Two posts into one.
-TimothyC
As for the document, yes I have that and I've referenced it in my work.
As for the MEU, it's on the long term plan, but school, this, CPCX, HIMS Alinga, and the National Security Cutter call come first (not in that order - HIMS Alinga and the CPCX work are Christmas presents for people).
I'd work with someone on MEU (I'd basically be an adviser) if they have the experience to do it justice.
I wonder if Secretary of the Navy John Lehman would have named this class U.S.S.Bunker Hill, or the name of another famous battle, or if he would have gone back to naming cruisers for United States cities?
TimothyC wrote:
As for the document, yes I have that and I've referenced it in my work.
As for the MEU, it's on the long term plan, but school, this, CPCX, HIMS Alinga, and the National Security Cutter call come first (not in that order - HIMS Alinga and the CPCX work are Christmas presents for people).
I'd work with someone on MEU (I'd basically be an adviser) if they have the experience to do it justice.
Look forward to seeing the CPCX, HIMS Alinga, and the National Security Cutter.
TimothyC wrote:I'd work with someone on MEU (I'd basically be an adviser) if they have the experience to do it justice.
if there are better refs around then those blurry artist impressions, I might try it somewhere in the near future it depends on how much free time I have.
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
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.
TimothyC wrote: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?
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.
it depends on how much free time I have.
Thank you Kim for the crest