Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

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

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

planeman said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

planeman said:

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

Click to expand...

The 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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

planeman said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

IDonT said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Clouded Leopard said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.