Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

planeman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

planeman said:

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.

Click to expand...

"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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Clouded Leopard said:

"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.

Click to expand...

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

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

bigstick61 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

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:

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

bigstick61 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.