Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement

[Jeff Head]

Proposal for an affordable, scalable, and capable "bridge" for Ticonderoga AEGIS cruisers (http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/newcg.htm)

http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/Photo-USN-NewCG.jpg
PROPOSED AEGIS "BRIDGE" CRUISER, USS SHANKSVILLE

By the late 20-teens, the oldest Ticonderoga cruisers of the United States Navy will begin to approach the end of their service life. DDX and CGX programs are languishing on cost basis. An interim, or "bridge" design is necessary to see US production through to the advent of the new, fully fleshed out, and feasable CGX program, or some future alternative.

http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/Photo-USN-Ticonderoga7.jpg
CURRENT AEGIS CRUISERS (Oldest is over 20 years old)

With the successful introduction of the KDX-III, Sejong class AEGIS DDGs for the Republic of Korean Navy (ROKN), which the United States worked closely with, it is clear that a cruiser size variant of the Arliegh Burke class of DDGs can be built, and built affordably.

http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/Photo-ROK-Sejong5.jpg
ROKN Sejong the Great AEGIS vessel

This page represents a hypotheticlal, proposed cruiser sized AEGIS vessel to supplement and "bridge" the Ticonderoga class that incorporates many of the desired future technologies proposed for the CGX, without the burdensom costs of an entirely new hull for those systems at too premature a date.

The proposed 10,000+ ton vessel would incorporate all of the following:

- 70-80+% commonality with Arliegh Burke Flight II Destroyers.
- New AEGIS SPY/AN-2 HPDR electronics and radar.
- The new 155mm Advanced Gun System (AGS), optimized for naval surface warfare and direct fire support.
- Use of the SM-6 missile as the principle long range air defense missile.
- Use of the SM-3 missile for ballistic missile defense.
- Use of Evolved Sea-Sparrow Missiles (EESM) for mid to short range air defense.
- Use of two RAM systems for close-in air defense (CIWS).
- Installation of heavy close range defense (20mm and 50-cal) for port or close-in littoral defense.
- Use of the new VL Harpoon III Anti-shipping missile.
- Use of the Tomahawk Tactical Missiles in the Land Attack Role.
- Heavy use of Mk-50 ADCAP (littoral enhanced) via VLA & triple launcher to combat new gen SS and SSNs.
- Use of manpower reduction technologies and policies learned from CVN-77 and CVN-78 programs.

Such systems and armament as is proposed for this vessel would create the most modern, most heavily armed, and most capable escort vessels on earth, and would allow these vessels to fulfill their own 35-40 year service life capabilities while retaining that world-wide position as technology and weapon system advances are incorporated into the design, which would be built with that in mind.

The initial vessles in class, the USS Shanksville, is a worthy suggestion for this class name given that locations recognition as the first victory in the global war on terror, and in keeping with naming many of the modern CG class after famous battle names.

http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/2view-US-nextgencg.gif (http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/2view-US-nextgencg.gif)
Profile and top view of proposed CG

http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/Photo-USN-NewCG2.jpg

[Jeff Head]

...
This is for all of you and your thoughts and comments.

[FuManChu]

How much do you think this would cost? You talk about an affordable replacement, but you've got a lot of different systems on that ship. Looks expensive to me. Then again maybe you were thinking something else would cost even more.

[Jeff Head]

How much do you think this would cost? You talk about an affordable replacement, but you've got a lot of different systems on that ship. Looks expensive to me. Then again maybe you were thinking something else would cost even more.Well, the South Koreans did the same basic design for about a billion, without the new SPY/AN-2 AEGIS (but the current AEGIS is expensive anyway and the US is developing SPY/AN-2 anyway), and without the new AGS (which is also being developed anyway).

Actually, with no Phalanx and no Harpoon, the use of the VLS cells is also optimized with TASM and VLA.

With the commonality to the Burke design, a lot of cost savings is already there...and with the incorporation of crew reduction techs like they are using on CVN-77, cutting maybe fifty crew off this vessel, the cost savings over the life are even more.

So, no, it will not be cheap...but it will be much cheaper than the CG-21, and will still give a lot of the new tech. I am afraid the CG-21 is going to go the way of DD-21 and end up producing only 8 or so vessels...and that would be very bad for the US Navy IMHO, to replace the 22 Ticos with only 8-12 ner vessels.

[bigstick61]

The only thing I would consider changing is adding CIWS and also a second gun. Having just one of something on a fighting vessel doesn't make much sense to me, and it was actually one of the Ticos which proved that it is good to have a second gun. The forward gun on the Vincennes jammed. Fortunately there was a second 5" gun which allowed it to stay in the fight. I think the AGS or something similar would be good for a cruiser; another weapon which could be good would be the 8"/55 MCLWG, although the GAS is the one under development, so its use makes sense. The one thing which would have to be corrected on the 8" piece would be the inability to fire AP projectiles. Also, what kind of directors does your proposed ship have for its main gun battery? Purely electronic, or both electronic (radar) and optical? The latter is my preference, and it is useful in case that the forces under EMCON1, as the Iowas proved in the 1980s. It allows the ship to still fight under such conditions, or if the sensors are down. I would also leave Harpoon in place, but have more than just 8 missiles. Other than that I think it is a good idea. Further questions: what kind of protection does it have and what speeds is the design capable of? In my opinion, a cruiser should be a fast warship, capable of at least 33 knots.

[tphuang]

I wouldn't bring back Tomahawk, I'd just go with the upgraded Harpoon that can be launched from the same VLS as the air defense missiles. If possible, add a L-band long range radar (something similar to S-1850M) that can detect ballistic missiles.

Also, does using SM-6 eliminate the need for SPG-62?

[Jeff Head]

The only thing I would consider changing is adding CIWS and also a second gun. Having just one of something on a fighting vessel doesn't make much sense to me, and it was actually one of the Ticos which proved that it is good to have a second gun. The forward gun on the Vincennes jammed. Fortunately there was a second 5" gun which allowed it to stay in the fight. I think the AGS or something similar would be good for a cruiser; another weapon which could be good would be the 8"/55 MCLWG, although the GAS is the one under development, so its use makes sense. The one thing which would have to be corrected on the 8" piece would be the inability to fire AP projectiles. Also, what kind of directors does your proposed ship have for its main gun battery? Purely electronic, or both electronic (radar) and optical? The latter is my preference, and it is useful in case that the forces under EMCON1, as the Iowas proved in the 1980s. It allows the ship to still fight under such conditions, or if the sensors are down. I would also leave Harpoon in place, but have more than just 8 missiles. Other than that I think it is a good idea. Further questions: what kind of protection does it have and what speeds is the design capable of? In my opinion, a cruiser should be a fast warship, capable of at least 33 knots.
The 16 TASMs effetively take away the need for the Harpoons. The US needs the TASMs back onboard anyway because many of the ships have no effective long range anti-shipping capability at the current time. The TASM uses the same seeker head as the harpoon, but employs the much greater range and larger warhead of the Tomahawk.

Two AGS would drive up the displacement and cost of the vessel, and that is why only one AGS is included .

This design should be able to be made capable of the 30+ knot speeds listed, which effectively means 33 knots. It's the same basic hull design as the Arleigh Burke...even closer to the KDX-III.

As to the CIWS, the RAM is proving to be more effective than the Phalanx, so two of them with a combined 42 missiles are included. With the SM6, the ESSM, and the RAM, you have the most effective layerd anti-air defense avaialble. And, by adding two Mk-38 20mm guns and the four 50-cals, you have the close range defenses adequately covered as well.

Anyhow, those are some of the thoughts behind the proposal.

[Jeff Head]

I wouldn't bring back Tomahawk, I'd just go with the upgraded Harpoon that can be launched from the same VLS as the air defense missiles. If possible, add a L-band long range radar (something similar to S-1850M) that can detect ballistic missiles.

Also, does using SM-6 eliminate the need for SPG-62?The TASM uses the same seeker head as the Harpoon, but has a much longer range and a much bigger warhead. for many reasons, including the elimination of the Harpoon launch cannisters, the TASM is a good choice. One option would be a VL Harpoon...but then you are giving up range and throw weight.

The SM6 may well eliminate some existing electronics and guidance.

[bigstick61]

I agree that we need a long-range anti-shipping weapon, but I'm not sure the Tomahawk is the answer. I think that there needs to be a new design for a heavy SSM instead of simply modifying the TASM. So I'll stick by my stance that the ship should be equipped with the Harpoon. As for the secong gun, perhaps as a second gun it could be equipped with the Mk 45. I still think that on a warship, especially a cruiser, having more than one main gun is important. How much does an AGS unit cost and weigh? As for CIWS, the current Block is pretty useful and also contributes to close-in defense, and the Navy is likely to retan it for the foreseeable future. In terms of hull form, I think it should be more along the lines of the Spruance/Ticonderoga form, but somewhat enlarged, rather than the Burke one. In terms of speed, I'm not sure it would achieve 33 knots with the hull form you are using. The Burkes as it is can't make 33 knots, and in fact make just under 31 knots. The Flight IIA may be closer to 30. With heavier and more weapons on the same hull, I think that it would not be able to achieve 33 knots. The original Spruance-class was capable of speeds in excess of 33 knots, but the Ticos, which displaced much more due to the AEGIS system and for other reasons, could only make in excess of 30 knots.

[Jeff Head]

I agree that we need a long-range anti-shipping weapon, but I'm not sure the Tomahawk is the answer. I think that there needs to be a new design for a heavy SSM instead of simply modifying the TASM. So I'll stick by my stance that the ship should be equipped with the Harpoon. As for the secong gun, perhaps as a second gun it could be equipped with the Mk 45. I still think that on a warship, especially a cruiser, having more than one main gun is important. How much does an AGS unit cost and weigh? As for CIWS, the current Block is pretty useful and also contributes to close-in defense, and the Navy is likely to retan it for the foreseeable future. In terms of hull form, I think it should be more along the lines of the Spruance/Ticonderoga form, but somewhat enlarged, rather than the Burke one. In terms of speed, I'm not sure it would achieve 33 knots with the hull form you are using. The Burkes as it is can't make 33 knots, and in fact make just under 31 knots. The Flight IIA may be closer to 30. With heavier and more weapons on the same hull, I think that it would not be able to achieve 33 knots. The original Spruance-class was capable of speeds in excess of 33 knots, but the Ticos, which displaced much more due to the AEGIS system and for other reasons, could only make in excess of 30 knots.
Well, the TASMs were discontinued and pulled off the vessels in the 1990s. I believe it was a political decision and that, like eliminating the Spruances, and eliminating the ASW S-3As from the carriers, it was an extremely bad one.

But, I am game and will go with the VL Haproon III if that is the way it has to be...I just hate to see the range and the throw weight given up that the TSAM brings with it. The US has the technical capability to make ot work.

As to speed, I do not believe the Tico/Spruance hull is going to be a go. Too slow at this dsiplacement, and too much current productuoin and experience built into the Burke hull. Perhaps a better powerplant would help...but for all sorts of reasons, including cost and the need to avoid a debacle with the new CG-21 like we are seeing with the DD-21, I believe the Burke hull could be used to achieve the goal.

Another Mk 45 is possible...but the AGS and its munitions are already costly enough and more heavy on a one for one basis than the Mk 45. Using one of them in place of two Mk 45s and their associated relaoding and ammunition already keeps the vessel at 10,000 tons.

[bd popeye]

Good idea BUT the US Congress is not going spend any money on a new CG when the USN can't even get their s**t together in reguards to the LCS, DDX and CGX program. Dang shame too. The present day ships the USN has are top notch. Probaly the best in the world..BUT they won't last forever. They will eventually need to be replaced. By what who knows????

The biggest plus I do see is that the hull design is already in existance. The weapons systems are "off the shelf"..Looks good on paper...However I agree with what my man tphaung posted;

I wouldn't bring back Tomahawk, I'd just go with the upgraded Harpoon that can be launched from the same VLS as the air defense missiles. If possible, add a L-band long range radar (something similar to S-1850M) that can detect ballistic missiles.


Also I would have CWIS fore and aft....

You should run for congress and push thsi program through..yea right!

[Tasman]

I think this is a great concept Jeff. It further develops the ideas we can see in the new South Korean KDX-III, Sejong class AEGIS DDGs and by using a proven hull form it should avoid many of the risks associated with a completely new design. I have always followed the old adage of not fixing something if it is not broken and I think the Burke class is an excellent starting point for further evolution.

The new weapons incorporated into the Shanksville class would probably be used regardless of hull form chosen (though I'm not sure about what would be involved to reinstate the anti ship variant of the Tomahawk) so these will not add anything to the costs compared with the costs of just about any other design that will provide the capability required in the future. On the other hand I can see substantial savings in using an 'evolved' approach to the USN's next cruiser.

The use of the 155mm Advanced Gun System (AGS), optimized for naval surface warfare and direct fire support seems a common sense choice for a new cruiser.

Likewise the mix of SM-3, SM-6 and ESSM for BMD and air defence is logical.

I have concerns about the ability of Phalanx to stop a missile before it is close enough for its disintegrating body to cause significant damage even if it is hit (a bit like Kamikazes hit by 20mm and 40mm guns in WW2) and I like the inclusion of RAM to backup the ESSM. The combination of SM-6, ESSM and RAM would provide an excellent layered defense. The installation of a heavy close range defense (20mm and 50-cal) for port or close-in littoral defense would also provide a last ditch defense against airborne targets. I would like to see the close range guns mated to RWS like the Typhoon or Mini Typhoon systems being introduced into the RAN.

It would be great to see the Tomahawk TASM reintroduced in an advanced capability form. If not I would consider the latest variant of Harpoon. What is the current status of Harpoon so far as clearance to be fired from VLS cells?

Selection of the Tomahawk Tactical Missiles in the Land Attack Role seems straight forward as is the use of the Mk-50 ADCAP to combat SSKs and SSNs.

Cheers


BTW, I think the choice of name for the first of class is excellent. Now what was the name of that book I read recently that named a new American ship USS Shanksville? :D


Edited additional comment:

I do agree with what bigstick61 says about the benefits of a second gun. However, the aft VLS would probably have to have the number of cells substantially reduced to fit it in and the above deck weight of the gun might cause stability problems.

[bigstick61]

Well, the TASMs were discontinued and pulled off the vessels in the 1990s. I believe it was a political decision and that, like eliminating the Spruances, and eliminating the ASW S-3As from the carriers, it was an extremely bad one.

But, I am game and will go with the VL Haproon III if that is the way it has to be...I just hate to see the range and the throw weight given up that the TSAM brings with it. The US has the technical capability to make ot work.

As to speed, I do not believe the Tico/Spruance hull is going to be a go. Too slow at this dsiplacement, and too much current productuoin and experience built into the Burke hull. Perhaps a better powerplant would help...but for all sorts of reasons, including cost and the need to avoid a debacle with the new CG-21 like we are seeing with the DD-21, I believe the Burke hull could be used to achieve the goal.

Another Mk 45 is possible...but the AGS and its munitions are already costly enough and more heavy on a one for one basis than the Mk 45. Using one of them in place of two Mk 45s and their associated relaoding and ammunition already keeps the vessel at 10,000 tons.

I think that instead of incorporating them into VLS, to just stick with canisters. As for the Tomahawks, a development which could change my opinion, at least for cruisers, is the Fasthawk concept. One of the criticisms of TASM was its slow speed. A faster TASM with more capabilities, such as the ability to do various manoeuvers to avoid being hit by anti-missile systems would be good. I do personally prefer that cruisers have a heavier anti-ship outfit than smaller vessels.

As for hull form, it was just an idea. My point was that I do not believe the Burke hull form to be ideal for this concept, especially if 33 or more knots is desired, and in my opinon it is a must for a cruiser. I think a larger hull form would be better suited, one which is also capable of higher speeds at that displacement.

As for guns, I'm going to stick to mine on this issue. I firmly believe that for a cruiser, or any warship, there should be at least a second gun in the main battery. Of course, you are trying to stick with the 10,000 ton displacement, but you can go higher if necessary; the Washington Naval Treaty is over and has been for a long time, thank goodness. I think that if it means an increase in hull length, displacement, and cost (I'm not sure it would increase it too much), then it is worth it for this style of ship. I do agree that the main battery for a cruiser should be larger than a 5" one. Having a 5" gun for the aft mount could be an option as well if it came down to it. This ship is obviously a bit more oriented towards surface warfare, and rightfully so, and I think that weapons and systems redundancy is important here.

In terms of naming the ships, I think it should return to the traditonal nomenclature for cruisers, which is naming them after American cities. That's just me, though. I don't think that would prevent you from calling the lead ship the Shanksville.

[Jeff Head]

I think this is a great concept Jeff. It further develops the ideas we can see in the new South Korean KDX-III, Sejong class AEGIS DDGs and by using a proven hull form it should avoid many of the risks associated with a completely new design. I have always followed the old adage of not fixing something if it is not broken and I think the Burke class is an excellent starting point for further evolution.Thanks. It would keep the US production lines going producing a superior product while we collectively take more time to perfect the really high tech stuff contemplated in the CG-21 proposals. I believe when all is said and done, to produce that design and prepare it for rail-gun and directed energy weapons as is contemplated, they will have to go nuclear power and use more modern, smaller versions of those reactors that will be introduced on the CVN-21. That is going to take time and by that time the Ticos will be being decommissioned.


The new weapons incorporated into the Shanksville class would probably be used regardless of hull form chosen (though I'm not sure about what would be involved to reinstate the anti ship variant of the Tomahawk) so these will not add anything to the costs compared with the costs of just about any other design that will provide the capability required in the future. On the other hand I can see substantial savings in using an 'evolved' approach to the USN's next cruiser.Agreed.

The use of the 155mm Advanced Gun System (AGS), optimized for naval surface warfare and direct fire support seems a common sense choice for a new cruiser. Well, I have been looking and researching the AGS a little more. It comes in at something like just under 300 tons for the turret assembly, the gun, and the ammo. By comparison, eack Mk 45 light weight 127mm comes in at 55-60 tons for the entire thing. So replaceing two of those with one new AGS actually adds over 150 tons to the design. But I think the accuracy and range and fire rate of the AGS is well worth it and they need to be at sea in numbers greater than what the abrievated production run of the DD-21 is going to be.

Likewise the mix of SM-3, SM-6 and ESSM for BMD and air defence is logical.Again, agreed.

I have concerns about the ability of Phalanx to stop a missile before it is close enough for its disintegrating body to cause significant damage even if it is hit (a bit like Kamikazes hit by 20mm and 40mm guns in WW2) and I like the inclusion of RAM to backup the ESSM. The combination of SM-6, ESSM and RAM would provide an excellent layered defense.I believe we will ultimately see the Phalanx phased out in favor of the RAM for the very reasons you have indicated.

The installation of a heavy close range defense (20mm and 50-cal) for port or close-in littoral defense would also provide a last ditch defense against airborne targets.Agreed...the weapons proposed here however are all manually aimed and are really for port and close in littoral threats.

It would be great to see the Tomahawk TASM reintroduced in an advanced capability form. If not I would consider the latest variant of Harpoon. What is the current status of Harpoon so far as clearance to be fired from VLS cells?I would like to see the TASM back to for the reasons I have already given. But talking to a lot of folks now, I do not think it is going to happen. The Harpoon II is pretty much a shoe-in for the future and it will be VLS capable and it will have enhanced range...albeit not what the TASM had.

BTW, I think the choice of name for the first of class is excellent. Now what was the name of that book I read recently that named a new American ship USS Shanksville? :DNothing surprising here...hehehe. I think it a travest to name the new carrier the Ford...but again, politically that is locked in and this vessel class, which historically has been named for battles anyway, is the next one to set sites on.

Given everything I am hearing, it sounds like I may have to revise the displacement upwards. Everything I want will fit in at 10,000 tons...but I also want room for growth while we wait for the next truly "new" vessel. So, I am thinking of changing the dsiplacement and figures accordingly for 12,000 tons, and then modifying things, including the powerplant (perhaps COGAG) to compensate accordingly.

[Jeff Head]

Of course, you are trying to stick with the 10,000 ton displacement, but you can go higher if necessary; the Washington Naval Treaty is over and has been for a long time, thank goodness. I think that if it means an increase in hull length, displacement, and cost (I'm not sure it would increase it too much), then it is worth it for this style of ship. I do agree that the main battery for a cruiser should be larger than a 5" one. Having a 5" gun for the aft mount could be an option as well if it came down to it. This ship is obviously a bit more oriented towards surface warfare, and rightfully so, and I think that weapons and systems redundancy is important here.

In terms of naming the ships, I think it should return to the traditonal nomenclature for cruisers, which is naming them after American cities. That's just me, though. I don't think that would prevent you from calling the lead ship the Shanksville.See my post to TASMAN. I am going to increase it to 12,000 and lengthen the aft deck and modify the powerplant to allow for a second gun and "room for growth".

The AGS is heavy, coming in at 300 tons each for the gun, the turret, the relaoding and the ammo. Each Mk 45 by comparison is 55-60 tons.

--------------------------------------------------

Ok, bigstick, TASMAN, all...it's later and I have added the displacement and other changes...including the vessel now containing two AGS 155mm guns.

http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/Photo-USN-NewCG-2gun.jpg

Whew! Now that is one powerful vessel!

[bigstick61]

Whew! Now that is one powerful vessel!

Hey, it's a cruiser. I would hope a cruiser would pack a punch. What are the new figures for the ship, when incorporating a second AGS?

Also, what type of gun directors does the ship utilize? Are the the type which only use sensors, or which use a combination of sensors and optics? Does the ship carry RPVs, and of so, would they be able to be used for spotting/BDA? I assume it uses a variant of the Mk 160 GFCS. Also, how many directors does it have as part of its GFCS?

[Jeff Head]

Hey, it's a cruiser. I would hope a cruiser would pack a punch. What are the new figures for the ship, when incorporating a second AGS?It's going to 12,000 tons to account for the new AGS, the heavier AN/SPY-2, and to allow for growth.

Also, what type of gun directors does the ship utilize? Are the the type which only use sensors, or which use a combination of sensors and optics? All I know regarding the current fire control for the AGS is what the developer has stated...

"The AGS integrated system control, or ISC, combines both gun control and fire control elements within the AGS architecture for seamless integration to the total ship computing environment"

I am sure that much further development has gone on into the specifics, but I am not aware of or privy to them.

Does the ship carry RPVs, and of so, would they be able to be used for spotting/BDA?This vessel will probably use UAVs to do that type of BDA from projectiles. For the Tactical Tomahawks, the controlling entity can spoecify one or more to loiter and do BDA as the others go in, using its TV signal over a satellite or other data link.

[bigstick61]

I think this ship concept is much better than the CGX and also far more realistic than the CGX. If such a ship were to built, I would be glad to serve on such a vessel. The CGX, on the other hand, like the DDX, I would avoid like the plague. It would be nice to see the Navy upgrade the Tomahawk and possibly redisign it to be more suitable for anti-ship missions. It would be good to have a heavy SSM to complement the Harpoon. What are the dimensions for the ship as revised?

[Jeff Head]

I think this ship concept is much better than the CGX and also far more realistic than the CGX. If such a ship were to built, I would be glad to serve on such a vessel. The CGX, on the other hand, like the DDX, I would avoid like the plague. It would be nice to see the Navy upgrade the Tomahawk and possibly redisign it to be more suitable for anti-ship missions. It would be good to have a heavy SSM to complement the Harpoon. What are the dimensions for the ship as revised?Displacement: 12,000 tons (full load), Length: 575 ft, Beam: 66 ft, Draft: 35 ft. She would be the most heavily armed and capable surface combatant/escort vessel on the earth.

Ultimately a design like the CGX (with a different hull) will be feasable, and when it is, it will have to be nuclear which will also allow it to power the rail-gun and directed energy weapons that will ultimately be available...but they are well off into the future and we have to get from here to there.

[Tasman]

Agreed...the weapons proposed here however are all manually aimed and are really for port and close in littoral threats.



I would like to see at least one RWS port and starboard so that they can be operated from the control centre in an emergency. I would be happy for the balance of these weapons to be manually operated.



Given everything I am hearing, it sounds like I may have to revise the displacement upwards. Everything I want will fit in at 10,000 tons...but I also want room for growth while we wait for the next truly "new" vessel. So, I am thinking of changing the dsiplacement and figures accordingly for 12,000 tons, and then modifying things, including the powerplant (perhaps COGAG) to compensate accordingly.

This should provide a ship that can incorporate the extra AGS and retain stability. I also like the fact that the extra displacement would help 'future proof' the design.

This design looks to me to be an ideal stepping stone to the nuclear powered follow on design you have projected.

Cheers

[bigstick61]

Well, I think she would be more than just a mere escort. Such a ship could conduct independent offensive operations or at the center of a surface action group. It would be capable of performing traditional cruier functions, which is a good capability to have.


The CGX definitely needs to have its hull design thought out better. I do not like the tumblehome design, particularly for a warship. I also do not like the current emphasis on having electric propulsion, not on a combat vessel. As for railguns, I've never been that fond of the concept, although it is an interesting one. While it would have range and the ability to punch through stuff, it would lack versatility, and capabilities would diminish. It would be incapable of attacking reverse slope targets or firing projectiles which could be used in a variety of ways, such as ICM projectiles, WP projectiles, air burst projectiles, AA projectiles, and such. It would fire bolts instead. It also uses alot of power and would likely be more costly than any gun system available, and would also weigh alot and tax the ship for power. I think it would be good of we ever got out to space though, and there would be limited applications where the technology would be useful.

[Jeff Head]

Well, I think she would be more than just a mere escort. Such a ship could conduct independent offensive operations or at the center of a surface action group. It would be capable of performing traditional cruier functions, which is a good capability to have.Oh...no doubt, like the Ticos, they would have flag capability and would undoubtedly lead many a SAG. Their fiore support role when with Phibrons can not be understated either...or alone or in a SAG just taking on fire missions on targets of opportunity.

But they would also clearly be at the center of large carrier or phibron task forces as the principle escort vessel too. One of these, one Tico, and three Burkes, along with a couple of SSN's would make many a sailor on Amphibs and Carriers rest a lot easier.

[Jeff Head]

Good idea BUT the US Congress is not going spend any money on a new CG when the USN can't even get their s**t together in reguards to the LCS, DDX and CGX program. I think it is precisely because things are so screwed up with those programs that a program like this...as a "bridge" to the future, could be sold and pushed through.

Here's a couple of good links and reads for you.

The first is a Proposal by a former Marine officer who is now in a strategic think tank trying to advise the Navy. I like the way he thinks:

A New transformation for the Navy (PDF) (http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20070419.A_New_Transformati/R.20070419.A_New_Transformati.pdf)

The second is the original study for placing the new AGS on one of the remaining Spruance destroyers as a test bed. All interesting stuff.

Spruance AGS Conversion Study (http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/3531/2/AGS+Conversion+Study.pdf)

Happy reading!

[bigstick61]

I was thinking, the gun doesn't necessarily have to be the AGS. The advantages of using the AGS are that it is currently undergoing R&D, so there would be no additional costs on this matter, and by the time the Ticos are replaced, at least a couple of ships would be in service which utilize the weapon. Although it wouldn't normally do this, it can use military 6.1" ammunition as well as the naval variety intended to be used with it.

However, let's say weight does become an issue, or you wish to reserve more for improvements. There is another option, and I occasionally hear this as a suggestion every now and then. That is to use the Mk 71 8"/55-cal. lightweight automatic gun, modified so that there is enough room for the gun to recoil while using AP ammo. The gun, mount, reloading facilities, and the ammo combined weigh about 173 tons. The improvement I mentioned could increase weight a bit, but not by much. So it weighs a bit more than half the amount of AGS. While some additional R&D would have to be undertaken, most of it has already been done, and a prototype mount already exists. Most of the R&D would be for extended-range projectiles, and research was done on this as well, and it was promising. The gun using conventional ammunition has considerable range, well beyond 32,000 yards, and extended range projectiles would likely perform at least as well as those being designed for the AGS. A newer HC projectile was also designed which would increase the range of the gun using conventional ammo. The 8" projectile is also more powerful and can penetrate more armor or concrete. The gun can fire at a rate of 12 rpm, while the AGS can fire at a rate of 10 rpm.

So for a bit more than the weight of one AGS unit, you get two MCLWG units, which fire 2 rpms faster, have a heavier projectile, have at least as great potential for ER rounds, probably more, and can fire conventional ammunition to a good range. Just a thought, although AGS works as well. I think the MCLWG would require a bit more strengthening around the mount, as it is a larger gun. It would be interesting to have a closer comparison of the two systems, and also how they would each have an impact on your CG design. Also, for ammunition capacity, I don't think that your design would allow for the very large magazines intended for the DDX, and would probably hold less ammunition, probably a bit over 500 rounds, maybe a bit more. It is possible that you could have weight savings here due to that, as the ER or enhanced ballistic projectiles (as opposed to standard ones) are not light. They weigh more than twice as much as conventional 6.1" ammunition.

[Tasman]

The second is the original study for placing the new AGS on one of the remaining Spruance destroyers as a test bed. All interesting stuff.

Spruance AGS Conversion Study (http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/3531/2/AGS+Conversion+Study.pdf)



Interesting link Jeff.

It is good to see a proposal to make use of another Spruance hull with Thorn (ex DD988) joining her sister Paul F. Foster (ex DD 964) which is serving as the navy's Self Defense Test Ship. I note from the comments in the article that even though Thorn will be a test bed for the AGS it will be capable of an operational role in an emergency.

If the AGS proves successful it seems like an ideal cruiser gun and for an old naval history enthusiast like me it is will be a bit nostalgic to see a 6" gun back in the fleet (well, 6.1" anyway). I think that the 8" lightweight gun mentioned by bigstick61 is also worth continued development as a cruiser weapon, especially if the AGS fails to live up to expectations.

Cheers

[Scratch]

A very nice concept Jeff, such a vessel could pretty much deliver a significant blow on any opponent.

Now were to start ...

With 12.000t these CGs will not be any heavier than the DDG-1000s, but still 20% heavier than the Sejongs. Probably bringing the hull to it's limits? I'm not an expert in that. But it will really need a powerfull propulsion to reach the desired speeds with that weight. As a cruiser, I think it should be able to keep up with latest CVNs at flank speed. 33+ kts?

Especially with such "super vessels", wich make prime targets for any enemy, I'm probably obsessed with an (extreme?) overkill in self defence capabilities.
Your mix is pretty impressing and latest RAMs are really capable. However, I too, would like to see two of the guns (the 20mm) remotely controlled capable and at least opticaly (perhaps LADAR) controlled to intercept AShM.
But maybe I'm just too paranoid here.

The SM-6 will further enhance the already impressing multiple engagement capabilities of this future AEGIS vessel.

As for radar. I think the SPY-2 HPDR is an x-band radar adjucant to the ships search radar. So, are you going to use the SPY-1B(V) for tracking and horizon searching, or SPY-3? Could in that contect the SPY-2, as an X-band radar be used for terminal missile guidance and illuination against all kinds of treats? Then the SPG-62 wouldn't be needed any more. Otherwise they'd have to illuminate for the ESSMs.
On DDG-1000 I think the USN has decided for a sole S-, X-band radar mix.
However, on such a cruiser, is there room for an L-band volume search radar.
I think it might offer advantages in long range detection of (V)LO aircraft.
The AN/SPS-49 already is in service. But it's only 2D in contrast to the Selex S-1850M wich is a 3D, if that offers significant advantages in volume search ...

One weak point in these AEGIS radar configurations is said to be the low mounting on the superstructure, wich narrows horizon range, therefore limiting reaction time against sea skimmers.
Maybe the experiance with the Daraings' (and other european ships') high mast-mounted SAMPSON / EMPAR and similar radars in that regard will give an answer.

I'm not sure about the AShM thing.
An enhanced Harpoon III that is VLS capable with a 200nm range and 250kg warhead should do pretty good.
The TASM comes into play in a full scale war scenario were you want to support an ASh airstrike from a CVN against an enemy SAG or CSG, wich you want to engage out of it's on weapons range.
Maybe there is room for some improvements, too. Most probably those that imporve terminal survivability and therefore leathelty. Higher terminal speed and some evasive maneuvers.

The gun ... AGS should also do a pretty good job, I don't think that on a cruiser with that missile armament a heavier gun is really necessary. Though it is an option if the AGS doesn't work properly.
Only one seems a little less, redundancy is also a point.
But with the hight mount of the aft gun (top weight), I'm thinking if you don't want only one AGS on the bow and a 5" gun aft. Or perhaps a two-barraled one ...?

I guess two LAMPS III helos? Perhaps one helo and two UAVs, maybe one of it a tilt-rotor. Wich could perfrom medium-long endurance over-the-horizon ISR if the CG operates in a SAG without carrier support.


Well now, I'm really wondring when the debate over how the success the Ticos will gain momentum. Or if they really will be major upgraded to enhance service life. But as far as I am aware, such upgrades are not really much cheaper than building new vessels. CG(X) pretty sure won't come in larger numbers anyway, and a further reduction in escort ships may become critical to the navy. You also have the risk of loosing engeneering skill with workers lost in times when there are no vessels designed.

Maybe you should try some TV-spots to get some publicy on this issue :)

regards

[bd popeye]

Jeff, I don't think the placement of the 115mm gun over the hanger will work. Because isn't the ammo magazine usally just below the gun? Other wise great design!

[Jeff Head]

Jeff, I don't think the placement of the 115mm gun over the hanger will work. Because isn't the ammo magazine usally just below the gun? Other wise great design!The gun is meant to be moved back far enough so as to allow for its placement there while not being over the hangar spaces. When adding that gun, the hull length was exteneded 25 ft to come up with the 575 ft length and allow sufficient room for the helos to be hangared and not impacted by the gun placemenrt.

As Scratch stated, at this point it will be about the extents of the Burke hull design.

It's really a concept design and real naval engineers will have to take it to completion, doing all of the indepth stability studies and detailed feasability.

PS: Unless you have done a refresh on the thread you may not see the latest pic for the plan and profile views. The artist conception pic really doesn't show it as well and I need to do some work on that to move the gun further forward in that pic.

...and, OBTW, it's a 155mm gun. I just add that in because it is substantially bigger and heavier...as is the ammo. But, punching that ammo out 100 nm is

[Jeff Head]

Interesting link Jeff.

It is good to see a proposal to make use of another Spruance hull with Thorn (ex DD988) joining her sister Paul F. Foster (ex DD 964) which is serving as the navy's Self Defense Test Ship. I note from the comments in the article that even though Thorn will be a test bed for the AGS it will be capable of an operational role in an emergency.

If the AGS proves successful it seems like an ideal cruiser gun and for an old naval history enthusiast like me it is will be a bit nostalgic to see a 6" gun back in the fleet (well, 6.1" anyway). I think that the 8" lightweight gun mentioned by bigstick61 is also worth continued development as a cruiser weapon, especially if the AGS fails to live up to expectations.

CheersHere's another one you may find of interest.

CGX Nuclear Power Option Study for congress (pdf) (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33946.pdf)

I also hope you had a chance tor ead some or Work's paper on the "Know when to hold 'em and Know when to fold 'em" paper about the Plan for the Navy.

[bd popeye]

and, OBTW, it's a 155mm gun. I just add that in because it is substantially bigger and heavier...as is the ammo. But, punching that ammo out 100 nm is

That was a typo on my part..:o I have now seen the updated picture and better understand what your proposal si....Good job Jeff.

[Jeff Head]

That was a typo on my part..:oI figured it probably was, but just wanted to make sure.

I have now seen the updated picture and better understand what your proposal si....Good job Jeff.
Thanks. I hope the US does something like this to bridge us over to the next generation vessel...but like Mr. Work says in his study...the basic Burke designed, particularly when upgraded like this, has a lof of life...and a lot of fight in it too.

The USN should take advantage of that and thus buy the time to being more deliberate and sure of future aims with programs like the CGX. It is simply too expensive in dollars and time to have to retool and rethink things when something like the DDX or LCS goes down as they appear to be doing.

PS: Did you like the helo I got in their in that main pic? Some serious PS going on.

[bd popeye]

PS: Did you like the helo I got in their in that main pic? Some serious PS going on.

Nice job Jeff...:)

The name of the ship is outstanding..but..as I mentioned before the USN has named the USS Somerset LPD-25 has been named in honor of flight 93.

[Jeff Head]

Nice job Jeff...:)

The name of the ship is outstanding..but..as I mentioned before the USN has named the USS Somerset LPD-25 has been named in honor of flight 93.Yep...I know. It's not likely to happen at all and have two vessels named for the same event.

... and I am glad that vessel has that name. And the San Antonio class are marvelous vessels too. Sommerset names the County where the aircraft came down and give the honor and homage to those who sacrificed their all for the benefit of others.

As the Secretary of the Navy said, " "The courage and heroism of the people aboard the flight will never be forgotten and USS Somerset will leave a legacy that will never be forgotten by those wishing to do harm to this country."

Anyhow...Shanksville would also be a good name and I would not raise a word if another fighting vessel were named that.

[Clouded Leopard]

If I recall right, the US Navy had the 600-mile TASM, but then retired it in favor of the RGM-84L Harpoon. Any particular reason why?

[Tasman]

Here's another one you may find of interest.

CGX Nuclear Power Option Study for congress (pdf) (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33946.pdf)

I also hope you had a chance tor ead some or Work's paper on the "Know when to hold 'em and Know when to fold 'em" paper about the Plan for the Navy.

I've had an initial read of Work's paper and it is very interesting indeed. It certainly asks a lot of pertinent questions about where the navy is heading. It points out huge risks in the present program, particularly the heavy investment and high risk inherent in the DDG-1000/CG(X) program and the need for ongoing support of the legacy AEGIS fleet to ensure that each ship remains capable throughout its planned 35 years service life. The suggestion to cancel the DDG-1000 program after two ships will no doubt be controversial but I think he makes a good case. As an interim measure, alongside major modernisation of the existing AEGIS fleet, he proposes additional Arleigh Burkes and I think this is where your proposed Ticonderoga replacement cruiser could slot in as an alternative.

BTW, the report supports the suggestion from Scratch and I for the inclusion of RWS for at least two of the close in weapons included for dealing with high speed littoral threats proposed for Shanksville. The 25mm Mk38 Mod 2 developed from the Rafael Typhoon is specifically mentioned. It also recommends the inclusion of the latest Phalanx CIWS for both terminal anti missile and anti surface threats (in conjunction with the 25mm Typhoon). So perhaps the inclusion of a CIWS needs to be reconsidered. Apart from Phalanx the lighter (IIRC) 35mm Millennium Gun being developed by Lockheed Martin could be a possibility. It could probably combine the functions of the Phalanx and Mk38 Mod 2.

Cheers

PS I'll read the nuclear power options paper tonight.

[bigstick61]

In all seriousness, Congress has indicated that it may limit the Zumwalt-class to just two ships to be used as "technology demonstrators." I think the CGX will meet a similar or worse fate, although this is not without reason. I think for our next cruiser, something along the lines of the Shanksville would be a better option than CGX, and for a non-AAW DD, I think we need something more along the lines of the Spruance, although obviously updated from where the Spruances left off. LCS is looking like it could face a curtailment of numbers as well. Personally, I think we need to find a frigate to replace the OHPs rather than rely on a corvette to fill that role such as the LCS. LCS will have its uses, but it is no frigate. I also think that until the OHPs are deleted, that they should get their Mk 13s back and maybe even an 8-cell VLS for ESSMs like on the Australian vessels.

[Jeff Head]

I've had an initial read of Work's paper and it is very interesting indeed. It certainly asks a lot of pertinent questions about where the navy is heading. It points out huge risks in the present program, particularly the heavy investment and high risk inherent in the DDG-1000/CG(X) program and the need for ongoing support of the legacy AEGIS fleet to ensure that each ship remains capable throughout its planned 35 years service life. The suggestion to cancel the DDG-1000 program after two ships will no doubt be controversial but I think he makes a good case. As an interim measure, alongside major modernisation of the existing AEGIS fleet, he proposes additional Arleigh Burkes and I think this is where your proposed Ticonderoga replacement cruiser could slot in as an alternative.

BTW, the report supports the suggestion from Scratch and I for the inclusion of RWS for at least two of the close in weapons included for dealing with high speed littoral threats proposed for Shanksville. The 25mm Mk38 Mod 2 developed from the Rafael Typhoon is specifically mentioned. It also recommends the inclusion of the latest Phalanx CIWS for both terminal anti missile and anti surface threats (in conjunction with the 25mm Typhoon). So perhaps the inclusion of a CIWS needs to be reconsidered. Apart from Phalanx the lighter (IIRC) 35mm Millennium Gun being developed by Lockheed Martin could be a possibility. It could probably combine the functions of the Phalanx and Mk38 Mod 2.

Cheers

PS I'll read the nuclear power options paper tonight.I honestly believe that the RAM is a more effective CIWS for terminal missiles. I believe the trend to replace the Phalanx them with RAM will continue.

I will certainly, however look at the weight and advisablity of making my two Mk 38 25mm manual guns into Mk 38 Mod 2 25mm guns along the lines you indicate. I believe that to be a very prudent thing and would not detract in the least from their use for close in surface or terrorist threats.

Great input all around.

[Tasman]

I also think that until the OHPs are deleted, that they should get their Mk 13s back and maybe even an 8-cell VLS for ESSMs like on the Australian vessels.

As well as being fitted to fire the SM-2 from the Mk13 launchers the RAN upgrade includes:

The command and control capability will be upgraded, primarily to enable the effective integration of new and existing sensors and effectors.
The long-range air surveillance, target indication and automatic detect and track functions will be enhanced, allowing low elevation performance and increased detection range.
The upgrade of the Mk 92 Mod 12 fire control system integrated with the VLS-41 evolved sea sparrow missile will improve air warfare performance against very small sea skimming missiles in high clutter conditions as well as reliability and maintainability.
A multi-layered approach to the detection and classification of torpedoes will be provided by new hull mounted sonars and the addition of a passive towed array. Mine detection has been significantly improved by the addition of a dedicated high frequency mine detecting sonar.


http://www.adi-limited.com/site.asp?page=166

With this program the FFGs will continue to provide a significant capability. It has to be remembered that, unlike the USN, the RAN has no other vessels with an area air defence capability so the cost may have been worth it. There is a school of thought that Australia would have been better off to have brought forward the new destroyer program rather than pouring money into these ships.

The USN still has a reasonable number of these vessels but I guess the question to be asked is whether the cost of a full upgrade would be justified or whether it would be better to spend the money on new construction. Cost of the upgrade is about $A250m (approx $200m) per ship. Perhaps a cheaper more austere upgrade including the 8 cell Mk41 VLS for 32 ESSMs (or perhaps a 16-32 cell unit with the Mk13 magazine removed) to improve air defence capability would be a worthwhile compromise.

Cheers

[bigstick61]

As it stands now, though, they have had much of their capabilities eliminated by the removal of the Mk 13 launchers. They lost most of their AAW capabilities, and much of their ASuW capabilities, and it really limits utility. A gunboat or corvette could perform many of the same jobs.

[Tasman]

I honestly believe that the RAM is a more effective CIWS for terminal missiles. I believe the trend to replace the Phalanx them with RAM will continue.

I will certainly, however look at the weight and advisablity of making my two Mk 38 25mm manual guns into Mk 38 Mod 2 25mm guns along the lines you indicate. I believe that to be a very prudent thing and would not detract in the least from their use for close in surface or terrorist threats.

Great input all around.

I personally share your belief that RAM is more effective for terminal defence than Phalanx and I believe that the inclusion of the Mk 38 Mod 2 for close in surface threats would lessen the need for Phalanx to assist in this area.

What are your thoughts re the 35mm LM Millennium Gun as a combined CIWS/littoral defence weapon? Rumour (I can find no official statements one way or another) has it that the RAN is very interested in this weapon as its next CIWS, perhaps for the new Hobart class air warfare destroyers.

Cheers

[szbd]

1. The drawing is fantastic, nice job

2. I'm thinking about a more stealthy hull. One hugh pyramid like mast, with the surface searching radar on the top, and navigation radar+communication antena+ECM on the middle, then phase array radar at lower part. Put everything in stealthy covers. The funnel uses the design of LPD17 or simiar.

3. I think this design is significantly longer than Burke IIA? Because the 155mm gun is big and there are two main guns instead of 1. So I suggest put fewer VLS in front and more at behind. Change the main gun at behind to an Otto-melary 76mm. I'm worrying about the disturb the main gun might cause to the chopper hanger.

[Tasman]

As it stands now, though, they have had much of their capabilities eliminated by the removal of the Mk 13 launchers. They lost most of their AAW capabilities, and much of their ASuW capabilities, and it really limits utility. A gunboat or corvette could perform many of the same jobs.

With only a 76mm gun their surface warfare capability is certainly limited. I had forgotten about the ability to fire Harpoon from the Mk13 launcher (IIRC the RAN vessels carry 8 Harpoon and 32 SM-2 in the Mk13 magazine plus 32 ESSMs in the Mk41 VLS).

I just worry at the effect a large expenditure in this area might have on the construction of new AEGIS vessels. What about reinstating the Mk13 just to fire Harpoon (without the SM-2 upgrade) as well as the 8 cell VLS for 32 ESSM as an austere compromise? Alternatively Harpoon could be fired from deck mounted cannisters to provide an anti ship capability.

Cheers

[Scratch]

re CIWS side-guns: I like the idea of two dual-purpose guns. For self-defence against low level assymetric threats, in wich they also can by used manually.
But with the capability to act as a last line against incoming rounds of all kinds.
This also includes small arms fire like RPGs, motars and rockets. The C-RAM concept comes to my mind here. In that regard, I believe the Oerlikon AHEAD ammo to be very well suited for the task. If you could select different ammo types for different situaitons, this 35mm guns may offer some advantages.

The navy seems to be somewhat strained it it's new ships programm. Maybe you can later evolve a new escort FFG from the LM LCS design. Main task would probably be ASW work, with point defence capabilites and perhaps some anti ship.

[bigstick61]

Or perhaps both the 8-cell VLS and Harpoon canisters could be added, and the Mk 13 replaced with a 2nd gun. The Mk 13 also gave them the ability to shoot the Standards at other ships, and the only OHP which sunk a warship and is still in commission used the Standard to heavily damage an Iranian warship before finishing it off with its gun. For an OHP, it was a versatileweapon, and I'm not sure why the Navy decided to delete it. Add that to the list of bad choices the Navy has made over the last few years.

[FuManChu]

Quick question about ESSM. When it's quad-packed, do you have to fire a whole cell (i.e. 4 missiles) if you want to fire at all, or is it possible to fire however many you want (i.e. as little as one)?

[Tasman]

Quick question about ESSM. When it's quad-packed, do you have to fire a whole cell (i.e. 4 missiles) if you want to fire at all, or is it possible to fire however many you want (i.e. as little as one)?

They can be fired one at a time.

The link will take you to a clip of HMAS Parramatta firing a single ESSM during Rimpac '04.

http://www.defence.gov.au/rimpac04/video/RIMPAC_PARRAMATTA.mpg

Cheers

[harryRIEDL]

With only a 76mm gun their surface warfare capability is certainly limited. I had forgotten about the ability to fire Harpoon from the Mk13 launcher (IIRC the RAN vessels carry 8 Harpoon and 32 SM-2 in the Mk13 magazine plus 32 ESSMs in the Mk41 VLS).

I just worry at the effect a large expenditure in this area might have on the construction of new AEGIS vessels. What about reinstating the Mk13just to fire Harpoon (without the SM-2 upgrade) as well as the 8 cell VLS for 32 ESSM as an austere compromise? Alternatively Harpoon could be fired from deck mounted cannisters to provide an anti ship capability.

Cheers

as far as i no the deletion of the MK13 was to preserve stocks of SM-1 missiles for the remaining users of the missile

[Clouded Leopard]

Right now the USN has 58 Arleigh Burkes and 19 Ticonderogas.


Perhaps there is no real need for a cruiser after all, and the USN might just consider manufacturing 20-some more Arleigh Burkes (Flight IIIs) to replace the Ticos? You now have a fleet of Arleigh Burkes that is perhaps 80-strong and shares commonality.

[Tasman]

Right now the USN has 58 Arleigh Burkes and 19 Ticonderogas.


Perhaps there is no real need for a cruiser after all, and the USN might just consider manufacturing 20-some more Arleigh Burkes (Flight IIIs) to replace the Ticos? You now have a fleet of Arleigh Burkes that is perhaps 80-strong and shares commonality.

They are fine ships that are very capable. However whilst the latest Flight IIA units have gained 2 helos they are not fitted with either CIWS or Harpoon and there seems to be some questions re weight issues. An enlarged, evolved design, able to carry a heavier armament whilst retaining stability, seems to me to be a sensible way to go in order to provide units to work with the Burkes in the way that the Ticonderogas do at present. The South Korean variant demonstrates that the baseline Burke can be enhanced and Jeff's proposed cruiser is a further comparatively low risk development (compared with the DDG-1000 or CG(X)), along these lines.

Cheers

[Jeff Head]

Right now the USN has 58 Arleigh Burkes and 19 Ticonderogas.


Perhaps there is no real need for a cruiser after all, and the USN might just consider manufacturing 20-some more Arleigh Burkes (Flight IIIs) to replace the Ticos? You now have a fleet of Arleigh Burkes that is perhaps 80-strong and shares commonality. Actually, right now there are currently 52 AEGIS destroyers, and 22 AEGIS cruisers.

Ten more AEGIS destroyers are either already under construction (2 I think now) or will be built. The DDG class will have a lot of life left in it...those ten vessels coming online in the next five years serving in the fleet until 2045 or so.


Long before then, starting in 2021 however, the AEGIS cruisers will start to be decommissioned.

This proposal is for a bridge between the decommissioning of those cruisers, and the ultimate introduction of a CGX replacement that incorporates all of the new weapons, power, sensors, and hull design contemplated for it.

Right now, the programs aimed at devloping all of that are languishing in cost issues. If we are not careful, under the current plans, and if those programs run the course of the DDX and now the LCS, the US will not have a cruiser follow-on class ready.

This proposal presents a bridge cruiser, starting in 2012-2015 that will exceed the Tico capabilities, and yet realizable now in terms of cost and manufacture, that will give the US time to develop the more capable vessel within cost and within capability.

Then, sometime in the late 2020s, that new design can then pick up in replacing the cruisers being decommissioned at that point and forward.

[planeman]

Interesting proposal and thread.

My main thought is that USN doesn't need to be anything like the size it is anyway so ought to be looking at downsizing fleet rather than frantically trying to make 1:1 replacements.

How many other countries have anything like 52 AEGIS DDGs? Why need more?


Pitty german F125 seems to have hit the rocks with the removal of the MRLS and 155mm main gun from the design, but in general I think that's the sort of ships a modern navy needs - so basically a bigger more capable LCS

[Clouded Leopard]

Interesting proposal and thread.
How many other countries have anything like 52 AEGIS DDGs? Why need more?


The US Navy has 50+ Arleighs.


The US Navy has 12 aircraft carriers. Maybe 8 of them are out on duty at any time, and they'd probably need around 2-3 Aegis escorts apiece. So that would be 16-24 Aegis. And maybe 15 more Aegis ships would also be at home resting and prepping for their next mission?


So that's about 35-40 Aegis there.


Another dozen Aegis ships might be doing patrols or carrying out missions on their own. Bear in mind that the US Navy currently has 15 Aegis ships armed with the SM-3. Aegis now has a secondary task of ballistic missile defense, and these Aegis ships might be parked next to North Korea or something.


So there's a need for at least 50 Aegis.


During wartime, a carrier might also need more protection that it would need in peacetime. So each carrier, or at least carriers in hot zones, might need 3-4 Aegis escorts rather than just 2. Also take potential combat losses into account.


60 Aegis?

[Jeff Head]

Interesting proposal and thread.

My main thought is that USN doesn't need to be anything like the size it is anyway so ought to be looking at downsizing fleet rather than frantically trying to make 1:1 replacements.

How many other countries have anything like 52 AEGIS DDGs? Why need more?


Pitty german F125 seems to have hit the rocks with the removal of the MRLS and 155mm main gun from the design, but in general I think that's the sort of ships a modern navy needs - so basically a bigger more capable LCSThe projected force structure calls for 62 Burke DDGs. This is to allow for escort of carriers (the US has 11 operational super carriers) , escort of phibrons (the large amphibious assault vessels are really carriers to most of the world and the US operates 11 of these as well), surface action groups (like what just occurred off of Somalia), etc.

When you factor in training, time in the yards for maintenance and repair, etc, you see that only 60-70% of the vessels are available at one time and when you add two to three to each of those escort groups, and factor in their other duties, it is easy to see why so many are needed.

In addition, all DDG classes have been consolidated into one in the US Naval force with the Burkes so there's really not any other good escorts beyond them. The Perry class has basically been gutted except for ASW duties, and the anti-air is critical.

The Ticos are less in number and they are added, one to each of those large groups for additional protection. 22 ships for 22 groups. In today's modern threat world with both missile and sub surface threats escalating, believe me, you want to protect those 3-5 billion dollar vessels and the thousands of very valuable crew members embarked on them.

...that's why.

With the Tico coming up for retirement, the need to replace them exists and this proposal is simple a bridge in that effort...using a proven design that will cost less now so that the more capable design has time to mature and see its cost lowered.

Anyhow, hope that helps in the perspective.

[Tasman]

Interesting proposal and thread.

My main thought is that USN doesn't need to be anything like the size it is anyway so ought to be looking at downsizing fleet rather than frantically trying to make 1:1 replacements.

How many other countries have anything like 52 AEGIS DDGs? Why need more?


Pitty german F125 seems to have hit the rocks with the removal of the MRLS and 155mm main gun from the design, but in general I think that's the sort of ships a modern navy needs - so basically a bigger more capable LCS

Jeff and Clouded Leopard have already commented re some of the things I was going to mention so I'll just add one thing.

If I was a member of the crew of a US warship caught up in a conflict (e.g. between ROCN and PLAN) I would like to think that my government had given me the best possible ship and equipment to survive that conflict. I would far sooner be in a force that included high tech cruisers and destroyers rather than being reliant on a 'bigger and more capable LCS'. I don't question that there may well be a need for such a ship in the USN force structure but I strongly believe that there is a need to ensure that the Ticos are replaced by ships that can do the job they were originally tasked to do, but do it in tomorrow's operational environment.

Cheers

[bigstick61]

We do need more ships, not less, our Navy has declined too far as it is. This CG proposal is a good one in my opinion, and I wouldn't mind seeing it eventually replace the Ticos on a one for one basis, maybe even have a few more. As for destroyers, I think we also need an ASW DD to complement it and increase our escort force further, as well as plans for a new frigate. I remmeber reading about battle groups as they were in the 1980s, and BBBGs were to have 1 AEGIS cruiser and 3 destroyers, with carriers generally having about double that. There would also have to be frigates, cruisers, and destroyers to escort multiple convoys and PHIBRONs, with a few left to spare to serve in SAGs. We couldn't come close with the current or projected force structure, and while that may be okay in peacetime, I doubt it will last, and if we fight major powers with large navies again in a war, potential opponents being the Russian, Indian, Chinese, and other navies alone or, more likely, in combination, along with lesser navies, I think we will find that we are sorely lacking and it will hurt us in combat.

[IDonT]

One should look at the difference in actual capabilities between a Burke and a Tico. What makes one a cruiser and what makes one a destroyer? Once this is done, is when we can start theorizing a cruiser replacement.

So what is the difference between an Aegis cruiser and a destroyer? It is not displacement or actual weapons suite because the margin of difference is very small, especially with the Flight II/A Burkes. The main difference is the Tico's capability for "flag facilities". That is the main reason why a Captain-rank commands a Tico and a Commander-rank commands a Burke.

[Jeff Head]

One should look at the difference in actual capabilities between a Burke and a Tico. What makes one a cruiser and what makes one a destroyer? Once this is done, is when we can start theorizing a cruiser replacement.

So what is the difference between an Aegis cruiser and a destroyer? It is not displacement or actual weapons suite because the margin of difference is very small, especially with the Flight II/A Burkes. The main difference is the Tico's capability for "flag facilities". That is the main reason why a Captain-rank commands a Tico and a Commander-rank commands a Burke.Well, there is a significant armament difference between a Ticonderoga CG and a Burke IIa DDG in almost every category except the number of torpedoes and helos.

128 VLS cells vs. 96
8 Harpoon ASMs vs none
2 CIWS vs none
2 127mm naval guns vs 1 on the Burke.

That is in addition to the flag quarters...or maybe because of it.

The Tico, from an armament standpoint in today's modern war at sea environment is a cruiser compared to the Burke IIA IMHO.

[Tasman]

Well, there is a significant armament difference between a Ticonderoga CG and a Burke IIa DDG in almost every category except the number of torpedoes and helos.

128 VLS cells vs. 96
8 Harpoon ASMs vs none
2 CIWS vs none
2 127mm naval guns vs 1 on the Burke.

That is in addition to the flag quarters...or maybe because of it.

The Tico, from an armament standpoint in today's modern war at sea environment is a cruiser compared to the Burke IIA IMHO.

I agree with this assessment. I would expect a cruiser to carry a more powerful armament than a destroyer.

As one of the larger ships in a task force a cruiser is likely to have extremely capable communications equipment. It is also likely to have more room for a 'command' staff than a destroyer so will therefore be chosen to operate as a flagship.

In a smaller navy a destroyer or even a frigate may act as a flagship but because of lack of space it may well be that a task force headquarters would be based on a support ship. For example, the RAN often uses its Kanimbla class amphibious ships (modified ex USN LSTs) as 'command' ships.

IDonT, however, raises the interesting question of just what it is that distinguishes a cruiser from a destroyer and a destroyer from a frigate.

Cheers

[Clouded Leopard]

Well, there is a significant armament difference between a Ticonderoga CG and a Burke IIa DDG in almost every category except the number of torpedoes and helos.

128 VLS cells vs. 96
8 Harpoon ASMs vs none
2 CIWS vs none
2 127mm naval guns vs 1 on the Burke.




:confused: Wow. That's strange, I was positively sure that the Arleigh Burke carried 8 Harpoons and 2 CIWS. I'll check again.


Nowadays, doesn't almost every single USN ship carry CIWS?

[Jeff Head]

:confused: Wow. That's strange, I was positively sure that the Arleigh Burke carried 8 Harpoons and 2 CIWS. I'll check again.


Nowadays, doesn't almost every single USN ship carry CIWS?The Flight IIA removed the Harpoons (all units) and CIWS (after unit 84 or so) to make room for the helos. They are using four of the VLS cells with ESSM quad packs to give CIWS support.

[bigstick61]

Jeff's proposed CG is more of a true cruiser design. The Ticos are a glorified DDG with command facilities, and were originally designated accordingly. At best they are Destroyer Leaders (DLG). I don't think the armament difference is really enough. The Kidds are similar to the original Ticos. The difference was a lack of flag facilities and no AEGIS system, and nothing else. Yet they were considered DDGs. The USN's Strike Cruiser concept was more along the lines of what a cruiser is and should be.

[planeman]

Jeff et al, I don't despute your maths, just the overall need of the USN to be so damn big in the first place. Half the aircraft carriers, trim the LPDs and so on, and you'd stil have BY FAR the biggest and most capable navy on the planet.

I see the modern USN as the RN of 1910 - out of all proprtion for that countries' future role in the world, slightly complacent and not as flexible as it'll need to be if the poopoo really starts flying. Sorry if that afronts sensibilities.

Another factor surrounding the rise of Modern Russia, China and India, and fingers crossed a united Europe, is that ships like the Al-Bs may become increasingly obsolete in 10 years time anyway - threats evolve quicker than modern military procurement plans.

[Tasman]

The Flight IIA removed the Harpoons (all units) and CIWS (after unit 84 or so) to make room for the helos. They are using four of the VLS cells with ESSM quad packs to give CIWS support.

Using just four cells for the quadpacked ESSMs provides only 16 missiles which seems to me to be somewhat limited. I would like to see at least 6-8 cells loaded with ESSM but the nature of the VLS system is its great flexibility so I guess the navy would adjust the loadout as deemed necessary. I would personally still like to see Phalanx or RAM to supplement ESSM in providing close in defence. However, I guess weight, as well as space, may be an issue in the Flight IIA vessels.

Regarding the Harpoon, I hope that the Block 3, with VLS capability, will be developed by the USN as this would enable Harpoon to be fired from VLS cells of the Flight IIA Burkes (providing, of course, that their fire control systems were also updated) as well as increasing the flexibility of the missile mix in other ships.

Cheers

[Tasman]

Jeff et al, I don't despute your maths, just the overall need of the USN to be so damn big in the first place. Half the aircraft carriers, trim the LPDs and so on, and you'd stil have BY FAR the biggest and most capable navy on the planet.

I see the modern USN as the RN of 1910 - out of all proprtion for that countries' future role in the world, slightly complacent and not as flexible as it'll need to be if the poopoo really starts flying. Sorry if that afronts sensibilities.

Another factor surrounding the rise of Modern Russia, China and India, and fingers crossed a united Europe, is that ships like the Al-Bs may become increasingly obsolete in 10 years time anyway - threats evolve quicker than modern military procurement plans.

I think you could argue that the USN in 1945 may have been out of proportion to its needs (once the Japanese, German and Italian fleets had been defeated), but the USN today is only a shadow of its former self and it still has huge global commitments. Whilst it is true that you could halve the carrier and amphibious forces and still have "the most capable navy on the planet" it would not be a navy that could simultaneously deploy carrier strike groups to different parts of the world. Reducing the navy as you propose would require the USA to take a significant step towards returning to an isolationist foreign policy.

I do agree with you that it is possible that "threats evolve quicker than modern military procurement plans" and that is exactly why the navy needs to be kept as strong and as up to date as possible. As far as the Arleigh Burkes go many need to be updated. As just one example, all need to be able to fire ESSM which will require modifications to their fire control.

IMO, the USN needs to be maintained at least at its present numerical level (and preferably much stronger) and its ships need to be continually updated to keep ahead of developments in other navies. The navy also needs to be supported by a strong recruiting program along with shipbuilding and weapons manufacturing complexes that are able to expand rapidly in times of crisis.

Cheers

[Clouded Leopard]

Jeff et al, I don't despute your maths, just the overall need of the USN to be so damn big in the first place. Half the aircraft carriers............and you'd stil have BY FAR the biggest and most capable navy on the planet.


"Half the aircraft carriers" would mean 6 aircraft carriers.


I'd be very, very uneasy about having a 6-carrier fleet. A fleet that small would mean that you would be very stretched to cover the hot spots of the globe. 1-2 carriers would have to be in homeport resting and replenishing at any given time, meaning that there'd be only 4 carriers to patrol the high seas.


Bear in mind that some military scenarios say that the USA might need 4-5 aircraft carriers in a China war scenario alone.


Having 6 carriers would put the USN in an extremely uncomfortable pinch if combat losses were to take place. If the enemy sank 2 carriers, then the US Navy would already have lost 33% of its carriers. Three carriers sunk? The USN would have lost 50% of its carrier fleet.

[Tasman]

"Half the aircraft carriers" would mean 6 aircraft carriers.


I'd be very, very uneasy about having a 6-carrier fleet. A fleet that small would mean that you would be very stretched to cover the hot spots of the globe. 1-2 carriers would have to be in homeport resting and replenishing at any given time, meaning that there'd be only 4 carriers to patrol the high seas.


Bear in mind that some military scenarios say that the USA might need 4-5 aircraft carriers in a China war scenario alone.


Having 6 carriers would put the USN in an extremely uncomfortable pinch if combat losses were to take place. If the enemy sank 2 carriers, then the US Navy would already have lost 33% of its carriers. Three carriers sunk? The USN would have lost 50% of its carrier fleet.

Exactly! We also need to remember that the navy probably needs 5 (and preferably 6) carriers in service in order to support 2 on an extended overseas deployment.

A reduction to a six carrier navy would limit the USN to maintaining 2 in an operational area for other than very short deployments.

Cheers

[bigstick61]

If the US were to fight India, China, and Russia simultaneously (not an implausible scenario) along with lesser navies from lesser allies of theirs, our Navy would not be up to the task. Until a few years ago we had a reserve fleet we could reactivate, but that is no more, and it doesn't look like much of one will be maintained as ships decommission. We will find ourselves lacking in carriers, escorts, and heavy surface combatants, as well as submarines. Only in amphibious vessels and auxiliaries would we likely be okay for some time. Our Navy is far too small. Something close to the 600-ship Navy would be best, in my opinion. Heck, our Navy was consistently larger than how ours is now from 1887 until the last year we had mre ships in commission than we do now, I would say 2005 or 2006. It's the smallest the USn has been since 1886. That is just sad, and it is likely to get smaller.

[Tasman]

Our Navy is far too small. Something close to the 600-ship Navy would be best, in my opinion.

President Reagan's 600 ship navy has certainly declined dramatically. In fairness the end of the Cold War has changed some priorities. It has reduced the need for such a large fleet of SSBNs and has probably reduced the size of the ASW force required (though I suspect not to the extent that it has actually been reduced), but in other areas such as tactical air, amphibious operations and littoral warfare it could be argued that needs have actually increased.

Current USN plans are for a 313 ship navy (down from the 375 planned in 2001). Can anyone explain how this figure was calculated? Did it result from a study of what was actually required or was the figure calculated to meet a particular budgetary limit?

Cheers

[Scratch]

Since further technological development will get more and more over time, I exspect budget constraints to increase rather than decrease.
Therefore, at on point, one must ask if you should keep your advantage mostly based on a technological gap wich leads to contentration in lesser numbers, or if you're willing to sacrifice some of the tech to keep sufficiant numbers affordable.

Anyway, after some days work some looks on the "new" GC: :)

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/6044/cgdg8.th.jpg (http://img502.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cgdg8.jpg)http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/9104/cgfrontwl7.th.jpg (http://img515.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cgfrontwl7.jpg)http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/9842/cgaftnh2.th.jpg (http://img515.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cgaftnh2.jpg)

[IDonT]

Jeff's proposed CG is more of a true cruiser design. The Ticos are a glorified DDG with command facilities, and were originally designated accordingly. At best they are Destroyer Leaders (DLG). I don't think the armament difference is really enough. The Kidds are similar to the original Ticos. The difference was a lack of flag facilities and no AEGIS system, and nothing else. Yet they were considered DDGs. The USN's Strike Cruiser concept was more along the lines of what a cruiser is and should be.

The Tico's were originally meant to be the Aegis DDG and serve as escorts to the strike cruiser in the 1970's. I am a big proponent of just doing away with the "traditional" classification of surface warships. I believe that the old classification based on tonnage is obsolete and does not quantify the actual capabilities of the surface ships. A more generic "surface combatant" will do.

As for the next cruiser, an enlarge Burke derivative, something bigger than the Korean KDX III, with flag facilities is a "cheaper" compromise until the CGX/DDX comes online. My guess is that the DDX may be reclassified as CG like the Ticos were back in the 80's.

[Jeff Head]

As for the next cruiser, an enlarge Burke derivative, something bigger than the Korean KDX III, with flag facilities is a "cheaper" compromise until the CGX/DDX comes online.Thanks. In a nutshell, that is the whole rational of this "bridge" proposal. Even with only a partial list of technology envisioned for the CGX, and that list is what is realizable in the near term, and with the weapons fit, these vessels would easily be the most powerful surface combatant and escort warships on earth.

Building twelve or more of them over a eight to ten year period would ensure that they remain that way until the full CGX technology is available and affordable thereafter.

[bigstick61]

I am a big proponent of just doing away with the "traditional" classification of surface warships. I believe that the old classification based on tonnage is obsolete and does not quantify the actual capabilities of the surface ships. A more generic "surface combatant" will do.

The traditional classifications are not just about tonnage. They are also about armament and mission. Traditionally, a cruiser is a large warship that is designed to primarily be used in an anti-shipping role, being able to serve in groups or at the center of SAGs which can operate independently or in concert with other groups, or operate on its own, in the ASuW role, as a commerce raider, as a surface escort for major warships or for convoys or amphibs, and such. With the advent of the aircraft, this necessitates a substantial AAW armament, which in turn also makes it highly suitable as a heavy AAW escort. Armament and tonnage should be heavier than for a contemporary DD or DL, and should have a major ASuW emphasis or capability. There is also a traditional hull design for cruisers. The last US cruiser built by definition is the Long Beach (CGN-9). The Strike Cruiser was to have been a revival of the type. All post-Long Beach "cruisers" were DLGs or DDGs which were reclassified as such.

Since further technological development will get more and more over time, I exspect budget constraints to increase rather than decrease.
Therefore, at on point, one must ask if you should keep your advantage mostly based on a technological gap wich leads to contentration in lesser numbers, or if you're willing to sacrifice some of the tech to keep sufficiant numbers affordable.

The latter is preferable, in my opinion. You cannot control the seas without numbers. Numbers are an essential part of the equation, and if the cost of a ship meant to be built in larger numbers due to its role is too high to allow for that, then the design needs to be looked at. Sometimes, though, an overemphasis on technology, especially in a fighting vessel, can be a bad thing, especially if it turns into an overreliance and/or overconfidence.

[Clouded Leopard]

To take the discussion down another turn, I wonder why no one has suggested warships as a viable platform for some of the experimental laser/directed-energy beam weapons currently under development (i.e., equip an Aegis warship with a powerful laser, and it can shoot down missiles.)



Does it have to do with the conditions of the sea - high humidity, fog, moisture and other things which inhibit a laser from performing well?

[Jeff Head]

To take the discussion down another turn, I wonder why no one has suggested warships as a viable platform for some of the experimental laser/directed-energy beam weapons currently under development (i.e., equip an Aegis warship with a powerful laser, and it can shoot down missiles.)



Does it have to do with the conditions of the sea - high humidity, fog, moisture and other things which inhibit a laser from performing well?Power has been the issue to date. But with the advent of the new style reactors the US will produce with the CVN-21 program, and the possibility for such rectors to be used on other vessels, as well as with improvement in gas turbines and what not, power capabilities are increasing on vessels.

The US is already looking at rail-gun and directed energy weapons on its vessels and the CVN-78 class will have provisions for this in self defense, and the CGX is looking at provisions for it on a cruiser platform.

Short answer is that they are being actively considered for naval platforms...and most certainly not just by the US Navy.

[bigstick61]

The one showing the most promise, THELDS, has one thing which could be an issue, and that is the gas used to fuel it, which if the container is hit would explode and cause a conflagration, certainly not what is to be desired on a warship. It takes the same amunt of space as a 20mm CIWS gun or RAM launcher.

[Jeff Head]

The one showing the most promise, THELDS, has one thing which could be an issue, and that is the gas used to fuel it, which if the container is hit would explode and cause a conflagration, certainly not what is to be desired on a warship. It takes the same amunt of space as a 20mm CIWS gun or RAM launcher.Well, I know that the Israelis and ourselves are working hard on THELDS in the U.S. southwest, using chemical lasers I believe. I also know that the system has destroyed some ballistic missiles as well as incoming artillery and mortar projectiles.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/systems/thel5.jpg

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/systems/thel_rb.jpg

However, I am not sure that the chemical laser version will work that well, or has been tested successfully at sea level, in an at-sea environement.

My thought was that they were leaning more towards the fre-electron or solid state HEL for ship borne use.

A good article comparing and discussion the three alternatives and their relatives merits in various environements was published in Horizons by the Center for Technology and National Security Policy:

HERE (http://www.ndu.edu/inss/DefHor/DH18/DH_18.htm)

[adeptitus]

To take the discussion down another turn, I wonder why no one has suggested warships as a viable platform for some of the experimental laser/directed-energy beam weapons currently under development (i.e., equip an Aegis warship with a powerful laser, and it can shoot down missiles.)
Does it have to do with the conditions of the sea - high humidity, fog, moisture and other things which inhibit a laser from performing well?

Direct energy weapons are still very much in the R&D stage. Currently we have systems that could intercept simple short-range targets (i.e. rockets), but the amount of equipment, fuel, energy, space/weight required for such weapons make it difficult to deploy on warships.

IMO it's more realistic for ground-based laser systems to be deployed first, because you have far less weight restriction issues with ground-based units.

[Totoro]

Ummm actually, aren't ships more suitable for housing lasers, exactly because you can put objects of large mass and size on them, yet have the whole system (whole ship) mobile? Land based lasers might start off as huge, truck based (multiple trucks, probably) systems that are to be deployed before shooting - for protecting of high value fixed land installations. But mobile land systems are harder to pull off than ship based lasers. Even the airborne laser project seems better off in that regard than a mobile land based laser.

[bigstick61]

I think at sea, utility of such weapons would be limited. In land attack or ship-to-ship actions, such weapons would lack versatility and flexibility compared to guns; the same is true of railguns. They also have large energy requirements and the latter also has considerable weight. For AAW, except as a CIWS or short-range air defense, and to an extent ABM duties, such weapons have very little utility. They have no real utility in ASW. Such systems would also be very expensive. It stands to reason, then, that making extensive or regular use of such systems, especially as main systems, would probably be unwise and should be limited.

[Jeff Head]

I think at sea, utility of such weapons would be limited. In land attack or ship-to-ship actions, such weapons would lack versatility and flexibility compared to guns; the same is true of railguns. They also have large energy requirements and the latter also has considerable weight. For AAW, except as a CIWS or short-range air defense, and to an extent ABM duties, such weapons have very little utility. They have no real utility in ASW. Such systems would also be very expensive. It stands to reason, then, that making extensive or regular use of such systems, especially as main systems, would probably be unwise and should be limited.
Well, for CIWS particularly, if they can be miniaturized to the point of being economical (both cost wise and weight wise) they are an optimum solution and I am willing to say that within the next 15-20 years we will definietly see directed energy weapons used for that purpose, and perhaps for longer range anti-missile engagements as the technology matures.

In addition, if the power source for it can be developed (and that is happening now), and if the materials to be used in the rail-gun themselves can be developed to the point of weaponizing them for reiliability and maintainabilty (and I believe they ultimately will), and if the projectiles being boosted by rail-gun can be desinged to have the ability to be a precision guided munition like we are doing with the naval gunnery projectiles, then they will also find a great utility in surface to surface engagements because the range will be incredible. GPS, IR, and other means are all very possible for such weapons if they can be desinged to withstand the forces involved...and I believe they ultimately will.

Current targets for rail gun technology call for true weaponized R&D to go forward in 2016 targeting 2024 for the initial working models to be fitted to warships...so, still another 17 years out.

[bigstick61]

With railguns, though, they still use alot of power and their munitions are not as versatile, and they are not capable of steep-angle fires, whcih can be important in naval warfare. Their AA capability is also fairly limited. There is also the issue of the barrels wearing out very quickly. I just think that conventional guns are better for most purposes, and that use of rail guns should be fairly limited in the future. I think a place where they could have great potential is in space, where conventional guns can't be used much, especially as we make more advancements in that arena.

[Jeff Head]

With railguns, though, they still use alot of power and their munitions are not as versatile, and they are not capable of steep-angle fires, whcih can be important in naval warfare. Their AA capability is also fairly limited. There is also the issue of the barrels wearing out very quickly. I just think that conventional guns are better for most purposes, and that use of rail guns should be fairly limited in the future. I think a place where they could have great potential is in space, where conventional guns can't be used much, especially as we make more advancements in that arena.It is true that until material science reaches a point that they can have material that will not wear out so fast, that their utilitiy is very limited. But I believe they will solve this issue. They know what the problem is and why they wear out...it's a matter now of coming up with the right alloy, or other material.

As to not being capable of steep attacks, I do not believe that will neccessarily be the case. The projectile, over the course of its flight can reach significant altitude. Once that occurs, with precision guided munitions where either retractable fins are employed or the use of gases, the munition can orient itself for a surpisingly good range of attack profiles, including steep ones.

Anyhow, it is going to take several years...probably over 15 to get where it needs to be. So, in any case, it is not an option for that time period and we will know better whether it is an option for the 2020s, meaning that they have overcome and addressed the issues which you raise, several years from now.

For the purposes of this thread and the "bridge" cruiser...the two guns proposed, the VLS systems, the RAM missiles and other systems proposed are all very doable and, I might add IMHO, needed/ So I hope something like this is considered and implemented.

[Clouded Leopard]

I think at sea, utility of such weapons would be limited. In land attack or ship-to-ship actions, such weapons would lack versatility and flexibility compared to guns; the same is true of railguns. They also have large energy requirements and the latter also has considerable weight. For AAW, except as a CIWS or short-range air defense, and to an extent ABM duties, such weapons have very little utility. They have no real utility in ASW. Such systems would also be very expensive. It stands to reason, then, that making extensive or regular use of such systems, especially as main systems, would probably be unwise and should be limited.




Well, I was thinking about Aegis ships that have lasers instead of Standard missiles. Think of it, a laser gives you almost unlimited shots.


A laser can also function as a defense in that it can "blind" things - blind satellites, blind enemy sensors, and interfere with a lot of the enemies' things with hot light energy.....

[bigstick61]

I was just thinking that you could configure this better. I know you're trying to make it as close to the Burkes as possible, but I think there's a better way without losing too many elements of that design. I was thinking the hangar and aft weapons configuration should change. The hangar as it is now should be deleted. The superstructure should go right to the main deck. Just aft of it would be the second 64-cell VLS. Then, on the lower level going towards the quarterdeck, the gun should be there. Aft of that should be the landing pad. Instead of having a conventional above-deck hangar, you could have a two-helo hangar below decks, which is traditional for cruisers, and which the Virginia-class CGNs had. It could possibly also save weight in terms of the superstructure. I think for the way the gun is mounted, it is superior by far as well, as I don't think having it above the hangar like that is a good idea, but if you use the Burke design, you have no choice. I'm not even sure of it is architecturally feasible for that.

[Jeff Head]

I was just thinking that you could configure this better. I know you're trying to make it as close to the Burkes as possible, but I think there's a better way without losing too many elements of that design. I was thinking the hangar and aft weapons configuration should change. The hangar as it is now should be deleted. The superstructure should go right to the main deck. Just aft of it would be the second 64-cell VLS. Then, on the lower level going towards the quarterdeck, the gun should be there. Aft of that should be the landing pad. Instead of having a conventional above-deck hangar, you could have a two-helo hangar below decks, which is traditional for cruisers, and which the Virginia-class CGNs had. It could possibly also save weight in terms of the superstructure. I think for the way the gun is mounted, it is superior by far as well, as I don't think having it above the hangar like that is a good idea, but if you use the Burke design, you have no choice. I'm not even sure of it is architecturally feasible for that.All good thoughts. But one of the main pushes for this vessel is to maintain as much commonality as possible with the large Burke fleet.

This also makes the building and production a very clean step from Burke to these after the Burkes complete their production run in another ten vessels...about five years.

Otherwise, you are, in essence, building an entirely new ship and thus tabling those benefits.

As it stands now, the CGX is a completely new design and is so burdened by difficulties, both cost wise and technology wise, that adding some good new technology that is available in the time frame and mating them with what has been a very successful program to date (for the most part), has a lot of synergy.

Anyhow...its just one of many proposals they have to consider I am sure. I do know it has gotten some visibility though.

[Tasman]

I was just thinking that you could configure this better. I know you're trying to make it as close to the Burkes as possible, but I think there's a better way without losing too many elements of that design. I was thinking the hangar and aft weapons configuration should change. The hangar as it is now should be deleted. The superstructure should go right to the main deck. Just aft of it would be the second 64-cell VLS. Then, on the lower level going towards the quarterdeck, the gun should be there. Aft of that should be the landing pad. Instead of having a conventional above-deck hangar, you could have a two-helo hangar below decks, which is traditional for cruisers, and which the Virginia-class CGNs had. It could possibly also save weight in terms of the superstructure. I think for the way the gun is mounted, it is superior by far as well, as I don't think having it above the hangar like that is a good idea, but if you use the Burke design, you have no choice. I'm not even sure of it is architecturally feasible for that.

As Jeff said in his response one of the main purposes of his proposal is to utilise the basic AB hull configuration rather than develop an expensive all new design at this stage. Repositioning the hangar as you propose would, IMO, require a total redesign of the hull. I also wonder whether there would be enough height for modern helos if the hangar was situated in the 'traditional' USN cruiser position below the aft deck.

Cheers

[bigstick61]

Perhaps a better option would be to configure the at portion similarly to that of the Spruances and Ticonderogas, with the hangar, landing pad, VLS, and gun mount in that order as you go aft, while maintaining the rest of the superstructure as it is in the Burkes, for the most part (although I'm sure there would be some minor changes). I think that is a better way. The current Burke configuration was not made with mounting a gun aft in mind, and I think that part of the design (aft of the aft part of the superstructure) needs to be reconsidered. Commanality is good, but since the design is new, too much cannot be expected, especially since some design features will necessitate change. I think this can be done while still maintaining a high degree of commonality.

[Tasman]

Perhaps a better option would be to configure the at portion similarly to that of the Spruances and Ticonderogas, with the hangar, landing pad, VLS, and gun mount in that order as you go aft, while maintaining the rest of the superstructure as it is in the Burkes, for the most part (although I'm sure there would be some minor changes). I think that is a better way. The current Burke configuration was not made with mounting a gun aft in mind, and I think that part of the design (aft of the aft part of the superstructure) needs to be reconsidered. Commanality is good, but since the design is new, too much cannot be expected, especially since some design features will necessitate change. I think this can be done while still maintaining a high degree of commonality.

Good points. I agree that it would be worth looking at the layout you suggest.

Cheers

[Jeff Head]

Perhaps a better option would be to configure the at portion similarly to that of the Spruances and Ticonderogas, with the hangar, landing pad, VLS, and gun mount in that order as you go aft, while maintaining the rest of the superstructure as it is in the Burkes.

Good points. I agree that it would be worth looking at the layout you suggest.Here is the profile of the vessel with the changes proposed...ie. a hangar similar to the Tico and Spruance. Click on the pick and it will take you to a full sized image.

http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/profile-US-nextgencg-alt.gif (http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/2view-US-nextgencg-alt.gif)

Now, let me share a few additioanl thoughts on such a change.

1) If you examine the differences, you find that a lot of structure is added to accomodate the hangar topside, over the less modified design proposed earlier. That much structure will add quite a bit more displacement.

The current Burke configuration was not made with mounting a gun aft in mind, and I think that part of the design (aft of the aft part of the superstructure) needs to be reconsidered. The initial design accomodated the gun aft, and the larger VLS aft by stretching the vessel 25 or so meters. Other than that, the Burke design is fairly well maintained. This new design strill requires the stretch, but adds even more structure.

2) I believe the RCS will be increased by adding that structure topside.

3) Landing on the helo deck requires the Seahawk to come in over some very heavy armaments...the gun and then the VLS cells. If the pilot undercompensates and crashes, he will be crashing into very dangerous areas. The initial design, like the Burke, has the helo coming in over the water and landing. A failure results in the helo falling into the sea as the vessel moves on forward, resulting in little or no damage to the vessel.

For these reasons, and those already discussed (ie. even more commonality) I still prefer the lines and the concept of the intial design best if it can be accomplished. Ultimately, to determine that, structural, stability, and systems engineers would have to evaluate the ultimate merits of each design in detail.

Anhyhow, that's just a couple of thoughts.

[Tasman]

Here is the profile of the vessel with the changes proposed...ie. a hangar similar to the Tico and Spruance. Click on the pick and it will take you to a full sized image.

http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/profile-US-nextgencg-alt.gif (http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/2view-US-nextgencg-alt.gif)

Now, let me share a few additioanl thoughts on such a change.

1) If you examine the differences, you find that a lot of structure is added to accomodate the hangar topside, over the less modified design proposed earlier. That much structure will add quite a bit more displacement.

The initial design accomodated the gun aft, and the larger VLS aft by stretching the vessel 25 or so meters. Other than that, the Burke design is fairly well maintained. This new design strill requires the stretch, but adds even more structure.

2) I believe the RCS will be increased by adding that structure topside.

3) Landing on the helo deck requires the Seahawk to come in over some very heavy armaments...the gun and then the VLS cells. If the pilot undercompensates and crashes, he will be crashing into very dangerous areas. The initial design, like the Burke, has the helo coming in over the water and landing. A failure results in the helo falling into the sea as the vessel moves on forward, resulting in little or no damage to the vessel.

For these reasons, and those already discussed (ie. even more commonality) I still prefer the lines and the concept of the intial design best if it can be accomplished. Ultimately, to determine that, structural, stability, and systems engineers would have to evaluate the ultimate merits of each design in detail.

Anhyhow, that's just a couple of thoughts.

I found it extremely interesting to see the relocation of armament along the lines that were suggested. Having looked at the new layout I now believe that the original design is better. I am not an engineer but it does appear to me that the redesigned vessel may have stability issues. I also agree with your comments regarding the potential danger of helicopters having to make their landing approach over the AGS and VLS cells.

Cheers

[Jeff Head]

I found it extremely interesting to see the relocation of armament along the lines that were suggested. Having looked at the new layout I now believe that the original design is better. I am not an engineer but it does appear to me that the redesigned vessel may have stability issues. I also agree with your comments regarding the potential danger of helicopters having to make their landing approach over the AGS and VLS cells.

CheersActually, after speaking to a number of analysts and engineers, I am now gravitating back to the single AGS gun design. Two guns and the stretched length to accomodate it are going to be de-stabilizing factors on the Arleigh Burke design overall.

With one AGS, you end up with a 48 cell Mk-41 forward and a 80 cell Mk-41 aft. That does a good job of load leveling, keeps it close to 10,000 (probably plus a little) ton displacement, and allows the basic Sejong hull modification to be used with a high commonality with the Burke Flight IIA vessels which allows the shipyards to fairly seemlessly go into this production.

It also allows the new AEGIS, the SM6/SM3 combo, the AGS, the VLS Harpoons, and the RAM system to get full use, sooner in the US Navy in preparation for future platforms.

[Scratch]

Seeing that the Burkes were to have no aft gun at all, and the Ticos only having a 5" gun, I think as well that an AGS and a 64 cell VLS at the very aft might eat up a lot of space, require the helo pad to be raised and the superstructure to be raised even more. Wich will have the negative impacts Jeff already stated.
Then again having the AGS atop the hanger still might have some topweight issues.
Maybe it's an option to have the VLS in the same position as the burkes, while a 5" gun is mounted at the very aft ...?
But Jeff already also stated the benefits for helo ops with a free approach to an aft helo pad.
So perhaps one or two 57mm guns that are planned for the LCS? On top of the hanger, or at the stern, or somewhere at the side ... ?

[Jeff Head]

Seeing that the Burkes were to have no aft gun at all, and the Ticos only having a 5" gun, I think as well that an AGS and a 64 cell VLS at the very aft might eat up a lot of space, require the helo pad to be raised and the superstructure to be raised even more. Wich will have the negative impacts Jeff already stated.
Then again having the AGS atop the hanger still might have some topweight issues.
Maybe it's an option to have the VLS in the same position as the burkes, while a 5" gun is mounted at the very aft ...?
But Jeff already also stated the benefits for helo ops with a free approach to an aft helo pad.
So perhaps one or two 57mm guns that are planned for the LCS? On top of the hanger, or at the stern, or somewhere at the side ... ?Well, going with one AGS and a 48 cell MK-41 forward with a 80 cell Mk-41 VLS aft will adress all of these issues I believe...and still leaves the most modern and powerful surface combatant afloat for years to come.

In addition, with the two 25mm Mk-38 Mod 2 automatic cannons and the four 50-cals, the vessel is very adequately