Ideal Cruiser thread

[planeman]

Easy: It's the jack of all trades, but master of none. This thing will require its own fleet (not just 2 or 3 frigates and/or destroyers, but an entire fleet) of escorts because it just has 'sink me first, I am a VHVU (very high value target)' written all over it. This ship isn't even a cruiser anymore; it is more of an landing ship dock (LSD). A cruiser requires only two other escorts; a multi-role, air defence and anti-surface warfare destroyer, and a frigate that is designed with anti-submarine warfare in mind. The ship will invariably be top-heavy, which is a nightmare for stability on the open seas and for damage control.

A design that makes more sense is as follows:

Hull
- 10,000 tons displacement
- Powerplant: 4 x Ukraine-made DA80/DN80 gas turbines rated at 48,600hp

Weapons
- 16 x YJ-62 anti-ship/surface attack cruise missiles
- 2 x 48 cell HQ-9 air defence missiles
- 2 x compact single mount 100mm multi-purpose guns
- 6 x Yu-7 torpedo launchers
- 2 x Type 730 CIWS
- 4 x 12.7mm pinnacle-mounted machine guns

Sensors
- Type 517H-1 (NATO codename: Knife Rest) long-range 2D air search radar
- Type 348 Radar S-band active phased radar array
- Russian Band Stand fire-control radar (for anti-ship missile and main gun)
- Two Type 327G (EFR-1, NATO codename: Rice Lamp) fire control radar for the CIWS.
- Hull mounted sonar
- Towed sonar array
- ECM and passive radar warning system
- H/ZBJ-1 information processing system

Aviation:
- Two Kamov Ka-28 Helix or two Z-9 ASW helicopters

Where your concept is completely lacking is in land-attack/power projection. It also lacks the logistical utility to fullfill a meaningful power-projection role which sees world powers' warships pulling into ports in dangerous places to remove civilians and generally project power (Lebonon comes to mind but this is increasingly common).

Without meaning to sound overly assertive, where does this "it'll be top heavy" nonsense come from? It seems the popular slam on many designs without being backed up with any real analysis of weight distributions. A 12,000t LPD is not inherently unseaworthy, so there is no real reason to say that a ship that marries some of the logistics functionality of the LPDs (albeit with a RO-RO deck rather than wet dock) with land-attack-destroyer weaponary is going to be top heavy. And at any rate, you're suggesting fitting 96 HQ-9 cells with all the relevant sensors and whatnot, hardly a lightweight fit.

 

[Gollevainen]

the top weigth concern of ship that has both, logistic and attack nature comes from the simple fact that the logistic side requires lot of space and volume, mostly from the hull, so stuff that normally should be fitted there needs to be fitted above the main deck....and thats pretty much lead some level of topweigth proplems. Thats why it is essential in these armchair ship engineering to remember the golden rule, place all your heavy things to the main deck as much as it possiple....

 

[planeman]

the top weigth concern of ship that has both, logistic and attack nature comes from the simple fact that the logistic side requires lot of space and volume, mostly from the hull, so stuff that normally should be fitted there needs to be fitted above the main deck....and thats pretty much lead some level of topweigth proplems. Thats why it is essential in these armchair ship engineering to remember the golden rule, place all your heavy things to the main deck as much as it possiple....

Whilst the logic of keeping heavy items low is common sense, the assumption that a "cruiser" with a logistic capability is inherently top heavy is not. Compare for a moment the Danish Absalon class to the US Triconderoga class, noting that the Absalon has a roll-on-roll-off vehicle deck PLUS 16 SSMs and a VLS for ESSMs, which by your logic makes it top heavy and unseaworthy; the Absalon class has a beam of 19.5m compared to the Triconderoga's 17m and the Absalon, despite its great internal volume, has a lower superstructure than the Tric's.

 

[Pointblank]

Whilst the logic of keeping heavy items low is common sense, the assumption that a "cruiser" with a logistic capability is inherently top heavy is not. Compare for a moment the Danish Absalon class to the US Triconderoga class, noting that the Absalon has a roll-on-roll-off vehicle deck PLUS 16 SSMs and a VLS for ESSMs, which by your logic makes it top heavy and unseaworthy; the Absalon class has a beam of 19.5m compared to the Triconderoga's 17m and the Absalon, despite its great internal volume, has a lower superstructure than the Tric's.

A cruiser's role is sea control; it is meant to patrol and open sea lanes from enemy attack, escort friendly shipping, attacking enemy shipping, and finally protecting the task force from air attack. This set of requirements requires four important features: endurance, speed, anti-ship weaponry, and long range air defence. A cruiser is NOT meant to be landing troops; it is supposed to help escort the ships that are landing the troops. A cruiser is meant to be a fighting ship as it is meant to engage enemy targets, it is not an auxiliary, like a landing ship.

The Danes I know are suffering from mission bloat with the Absalon, the ship is meant for a command and control role, because the Danes in their ever ingenious thinking added a support role to it, when in reality, both roles would be better served in two separate platforms. A similar threat is also emerging for another NATO navy, the Canadian Navy. Their planned Joint Supply Ship (JSS) is expected to carry fuel and supplies for the fleet, act as command centers for task forces, and carry and support troops and the associated vehicles with an onboard vehicle deck, which now makes it in effect, a LSD and a fleet oiler and supply ship in one. On top of this, there was thought (which was eventually scrapped) of adding in fleet air defence to the mix! All of this to replace two fleet oilers and supply ships; this is mission creep, and that is something you want to avoid in a design. You design a ship for two specific roles, it cannot be a jack-of-all trades ship, because every time you add missions or roles with a ship, the ship will invariably get larger, and more unwieldy. What if you need an air defence ship to escort a carrier group and simultaneously, another ship to help form a logistics fleet to support a landing? A ship can't be two places at once.

 

[bd popeye]

Golly, Planeman I wish I could bring you to San Diego or Norfolk to visit a USN ship. Say an CVN, DDG, LHD and LPD. That way you could see for yourselves a bit about how warships are constructed. Then you could become more astute in your ship designs.

Your basics idea are good. They really are.

As far as sea worthyness a Tico class CG is very sea worthy. Dispite it's low profile. I went to sea on a "Family & Friends Day" cruise one day in Nov 2003 on my son's ship CG-50. It rode very smooth. The sea state was quite normal..1m to 1.5 meters.

 

[Sea Dog]

Never been on a Tico, but have deployed on an Arleigh Burke DDG. I have seen Tico's in action though, and Popeye is right. Their sea-keeping abilities are excellent. And their command & control facilities are bar none the best in the world. They're truly the ideal cruiser as they are totally suited to true multi-mission surface action.

And Golly and Popeye are both correct. And I've pointed out earlier that there are tradeoffs in what you can put on a ship of a certain size based upon weight, and manpower. These considerations require alot of planning and thinking. Something the Soviets did not do very well. The more equipment you put on, the more crew you need to man the systems on different watch's. These people can't run the systems 24 hours a day. And more people mean more human resource logistics. The more of that you put in, the more endurance you may have from that perspective. But then you end up crowding out your crew. Or having to make tradeoffs into what you can actually put on in terms of weapons and sensors. Vicious cycle historically.

 

[sumdud]

A crusier is too precious itself to be escorting. It's more of the leader of the fleet.
Here's my drawing for my concept design, a Tri-boat. (Note: I am not sure how to draw the propellors and the rudders...actually, the hull...Especially then there is an inlet for a waterjet intergreted with the rest of the propulsion outputs.) I used a waterjet for better steering.

Dimensions based and modified from Golly's design. Too tall? Too stuffed?(Don't know how to have stealth AND have enough weapon ports)

 

[Sea Dog]

Very nice, sumdud. Seems to be a reasonably balanced platform. How many of each type of missile would you place. 8 or 16 ASM's? 48 or more SAM's? And I'm asuming you will have 4 Type 730 guns. 2 on each side for total point defense coverage?

 

[sumdud]

Thanks, Sea Dog.
Here are the specs I made from pg 3. (Specs are changed)

Meanwhile, here is what I had in mind for a cruiser (Very big):

Displacement: >11,500 tones loaded
Length: ~175 m
Beam:~20+m

I am thinking of a Trimaran design, with a SWATH/submarine hull in the central hull shaped similar to that of the Song and Agosta subs, while the side hulls are to be of wave piercing design.

Propulsion: Either Nuclear or conventional turbine

This will be the command ship, and is to have all necessary equipment for C4I
Aegis Style AESA/PAR paneling (the 2 aft panels possiblt located further back.)
Hull mounted Sonar, towed/VDS

Weapons:
2 universial VLSs back and back totalling ~140 launchers would be used for (this is 1 way of fit)
~80 HQ-9s
~40 PL-9/HQ-7s/HHQ-16s/Tor-M1 (Whatever it may turn out to be) four to a launcher
~15 ASROC missiles (CY-2?)
~25 LACMs (HN-3?)
YJ-62/YJ-8X ASMs capable

4 x 4-cel YJ-62 SSM

4 x Type 730 + 2 x LD-2000 ADGMS
2 x 155mm main gun, 1 front, 1 aft
2 x tri torpedo launcher (2X324+533mm?)
(273mm/300mm) MLRS system

~4 x 25mm guns (or 37mm)
~6 x 12.7mm HMG (14.5? China is changing its standard and I doubt it'll keep the 14.5)
D/C Mortar
Depth Charge/Mine

Water cannons
2-4 search lights
Submarine ROV
6 dinghies

~3 heavy/5 light helicopters
UAV capable

Onboard hospital.
(Maybe)Extra complement for 100.

I have 2 masts for you-know-what reason.
The 16 YJ-62s are fitted on the top in the same manner as Singapore's Formidable Frigates (With the ship being so wide, this should not be a problem at all, and there should be enough space in the middle for me to fit a MLRS system) So the 16 SSMs should take as much length of the ship as 8 side by side SSMs
The 6 CIWS (Middle two fitted w/ missiles) are in green.
I didn't put inthe manned cannon and HMGs though. (If 37mm, I mean Type 76A, capable of auto, semi, and manual)

 

[Pointblank]

I think you guys will have to remember to keep in mind the capabilities of Chinese shipyards and their technological experience. Sure, it is great to use completely new and untested hull designs, but you guys have to remember that Chinese shipwrights may not be as experienced as their Western counterparts with the new hull forms. It may be best to stay within the traditional hull forms for such a design until there is ample proof that the Chinese have experience designing and building such hullforms.