Shipbucket

I imagine they would have, given that it would make for a nice logical progression.

I was reading about the Battle of the Argonne Forest (September 26 – November 11, 1918), also known as the Meuse-Argonne Offensive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meuse-Argonne_Offensive

Although a decisive Allied Victory in World War I, the battle cost the lives of 26,277 Americans. It is known by some history scholars as "probably the bloodiest single battle in U.S. history", but is largely forgotten.
http://www.necrometrics.com/warsusa.htm#USBat

No United States Navy ship has been named for the Battle of Argonne Forest, not to be confused with the two ships named named for the area of Argonne, Wisconsin--U.S.S. Argonne. Due to its historical importance and number of American dead, I would like to propose that the CGBL be named U.S.S. Argonne Forest or U.S.S. Meuse-Argonne to commemorate the battle.

<Black Lantern Voice>CGBL Thread, RISE</Black Lantern Voice>

Release Candidate 1:

Very nice (drawing, that is, not the ship ).

quite nice, but I have a few comments, as usual

there are some lines you drew black while I would suspect them to be grey, because they look to be less then 90 degree angles. these are:
- the point where the helideck structure comes merged with the hangar structure, below the hangar door
- quite a few of the lines around the aft SPY-1 array, the one just next to the door below the SPG, the one where it merges with the outher structure, the 2 lines which connect the SPY-1 structure with the funnel.
- the lines aft of the forward intakes, but that one might be so close to 90 degrees that it is justified
- below the mainmast, next to the SLQ-32.

speaking of which, that surface puzzles me. the only way to make this geometrically fit, is by having a small deck below the SPY-1 array, which I doubt is the case. somewhere in there should be an triangular shape, or the structure below it is a bit angled with the ships side.

a few technical details:
- the intakes look a bit wrong to me. I know you added the lower ones outside of the plans, are you sure there are not some around the corner? the total surface of them should be about the same as the ones on the burke (well slightly bigger as the burke's ones are a bit lower in the structure IIRC)
- I am doubted the aft mast would be that bare. the SPS-49 would need some maintenance space, on which people can walk around, and the mast is an perfect place for some satcoms, antenna's etc. maybe add that ECM antenna spruance and tico have on the foremast as well.
- I would expect some sprit antenna's and some wire antenna's. those last one could be between the masts or on one of the 2 masts.
- I think the anchor should be slightly bigger, and an non-standard one would look nice too
- I see only one nav radar on the entire ship, you will need at least 2 or 3 (of which one is helicopter control mostly)
- some flag lines which end on the bridge or the deck just next to it would be nice, but one little problem is that they would hang in the smoke, so I suppose they might be on the aft mast.
- mooring gear would be nice to see
- some stairs to get to the phalanx platforms, mast platforms and the SLQ-32 would be nice

also, a few nitpicks on details:
- really, is the skeg that short and stubby? it seems to serve no real purpose and I would suspect it much bigger
- the propeller axis appears to be bend due to the last part being straight all of the sudden
- I would suppose the VLS to be one or 2 pixels higher in the ship, and with angled covers at the sides, as the burke has, IIRC.
- are you sure that door next to the Mk 141 should be angled like that? it looks like an flat piece there to me.
- the liferafts amidships have to be hand carried to the water in an emergency, seeing that letting them drop there ends with them laying on the deck.
- some fore- and- aft shading would give a lot more depth in the drawing.
- the bridge wing seems to be triangular in floor plan shape right now, I highly doubt that will be the case.
- may I suggest an thin slightly darker grey line to show the difference between main deck and bulwark forward.
- the propeller might be 2-4 pixels larger then the original (spruance?) one. (but not certain on that, larger hull but the same powerplant.... I am in doubt)
- on the burke, some small platforms stick out of the actual phalanx positions, I think for easy maintenance of the barrel. you might want to add these here if the positions are the same size.

What does such a large vessel give you over say a Burke????

Probably not a whole lot - hence why it was never adopted.

It's a baseline study, it was never intended to be adopted, but to be used as a measuring stick against which to judge future cruiser designs.

swin_lad wrote:What does such a large vessel give you over say a Burke????

Well, it's essentially a Ticonderoga designed to Burke survivability standards. So it's got two Mk 45 instead of one, dedicated L-band 2D air search, 128 cells instead of 96 (actually, given the era, probably 122 and 90), more space for command and control (flag accommodations particularly), and probably four rather than three SPG-62.

Most importantly, it carries two helos. At the time, it was not obvious that two helos (or even one!) could be accommodated on the basic Burke frame without losing major combat capability (eg the aft VLS block). The IIA was a triumph of ship design that could not have been predicted with certainty.

Very nice drawing, TJ.