Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

bd popeye said:

That was a typo on my part..

Click to expand...

I figured it probably was, but just wanted to make sure.

bd popeye said:

I have now seen the updated picture and better understand what your proposal si....Good job Jeff.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

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

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

bd popeye said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

TASM was retired long ago wasn't it?

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?

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Jeff Head said:

Here's another one you may find of interest.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Tasman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

bigstick61 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

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