AEGIS and AEGIS Like escort combatants of the World

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.


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.


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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

bdpopeye said:

...

Click to expand...

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

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

FuManChu said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

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?

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

bigstick61 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

tphuang said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

bigstick61 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.