Shipbucket

Actually, I can think of a number of reasons to put a larger rifle on modern warships, but that doesn't make it practical or even advisable to do so.

Well, the main purpose of the cannons is to provide an immediately artillery support for the marine infantry, and to destroy targets that doesn't cost the anti-ship missile to their destruction.

_________________
Serve the Nation! Be striped!

Ok, a bit stream of consciousness, but here we go:

• The Hull.
  • You've obviously started from the CSGN Mk 2 hull, rather than the Mk 1. The Mk 2 hull was much beamier so that it could have the aviation strip and the full hanger/island/superstructure. Because you don't have that here, I'm not sure if you've used too much beam or not.
  • The Mk 2 hull was also a lot deeper, again related to the aviation component. You can get away with a less deep hull overall, and a bit less freeboard. This will tie into some Gun-VLS-Aviation configuration later.
• Guns.
  • As others have noted, the post-war USN never used a 76mm as a secondary (well not quite 100% true for the 1940s and 50s, but true after that).
  • This ties in with the fact that the only USN ships to mount that gun were the OHPs and the Pegasus class PHMs.
  • You've got four Mk 66 twin 5" turrets. That's way to many. Other than the occasional fire support ship, I don't recall ever seeing more than 2 on a single design, and only then when they were the only guns, but I'll get to that later.
  • The turret in the C position is just in a crappy place. It blocks the bridge view, and it's way to high on the structure.
  • All of the gun equipped CSGN designs that I have seen mounted an 8" Mk 71 forward. It's a very useful mount for anti-surface work, and a CSGN has the structure to make full use of it with a significant ammo magazine. I'd use that to replace the front two Mk 66 mounts (It would be placed on deck between where the current mounts are).
• With the C mount removed, that superstructure it sits on can be removed.
• With more space on the bow, you can increase the VLS size - I'd move to a minimum of 80 cells, and 96 is very plausible in that space.
• The Sea Sparrows and all of the associated systems have to go. Not only were there never any Mk 29 GMLSs ever placed on any of the AEGIS ships, there were never any plans to do so. NSSM was always used by the US as a self defense system, and here it represents weight without capability. What makes matters worse in this case is that the mounts can't rotate without hitting the deck directly forward of them.
• If you absolutely must have something other than Phalanx for a CIWS, look at something like a surface launched version of the AIM-95 AGILE (it would be a lot like a RAM system only a decade or two earlier).
• Aviation
  • The Decision to embark two harriers is baffling. It just doesn't make any kind of sense to me whatsoever.
  • Much more likely is a serious number of LAMPS helos - 3+. These would give you the ability to keep a solid ASW screen up without relying on other ships.
  • Remember, you're the biggest ship in a task group that doesn't include an amphib or a carrier, and that means that you can operate aircraft in conditions where no one else can, so it's best to make use of that, and embark a significant number.
  • If you must have a fixed wing aircraft, then look at the Type-A STOVL/VTOL designs the USN evaluated. These aircraft for Grumman, LTV/Vought, and Lockheed would have offered ASW/AEW/ASuW/Light COD on a single airframe. Only the Grumman G-698 got to the early hardware stages and is thus the most defined.
  • If you do go this route, I'd not let the number of helos drop below 2, and the VTOLs below 3.
  • I would however, strongly advise against fixed wing, as you don't have a deck to do STOVL (which offers major improvements in range and payload over VTOL).
• Now we get to the aft structure in general.
  • The CSGN designs mostly had the helo pad on an elevated platform while the GMLS was located on the main deck. I'd consider doing that here.
  • I'd also question the utility of an aft gun on this ship, which would clean up the stern a bit.

There are other issues, but these are the major ones off the top of my head.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

I don't know if this has been asked before but just curious is that a well deck at the rear of the ship

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

Either to allow for limited independent amphibious operations or (as Tim already talked about before) to allow for ammo barges to dock directly inside. Both are hardly mutually exclusive.

With a well deck, its aviation facilities, and its firepower, it'd make a pretty good commando support platform.

It isn't a well deck, it's just the way the stern curves that gives that impression. While there were cruiser designs in the 1990s that had small well decks, this wasn't designed that way.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

1st version of the Strike Cruiser.


With
1 8 inch and 2 5 inch for ASuW. forward VLS should hold ASROC and Standard missile's only and 2nd tommahawks only.
The ship has capacities for over 6 SH-60 helicopters in her hangar but will carrie 4 at standard or optional other helicopters like CH-53 and CH-46 even USMC cobra's should be an option , aft of the hangar the ship has two landing spots for any size helicopter.

_________________
Vi coactus
Door geweld gedwongen
Forced by violence
------
Caption signing treaty with England by Johan de Witt

[Working List]
None

Ah. Yeah, that's much better than the first design. Very nice. I could think of a few things I'd do differently, but that's not a bad design.

Thanks but what would u do different? as a real armerican u could be better in US designs.

_________________
Vi coactus
Door geweld gedwongen
Forced by violence
------
Caption signing treaty with England by Johan de Witt

[Working List]
None