Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement

bigstick61

bigstick61

Junior Member
Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

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

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

bigstick61 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
C

Clouded Leopard

Junior Member
Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

bigstick61 said:
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.
Click to expand...




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

bigstick61

Junior Member
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

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
bigstick61 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

Tasman

Junior Member
bigstick61 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

bigstick61

Junior Member
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

Tasman

Junior Member
bigstick61 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Cheers
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
bigstick61 said:
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.
Click to expand...

tasman said:
Good points. I agree that it would be worth looking at the layout you suggest.
Click to expand...
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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


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.

bigstick61 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

Tasman

Junior Member
Jeff Head said:
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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


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.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top