Page 1 of 9 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 122

Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement

This is a discussion on Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement within the World Armed Forces forums, part of the World Strategic Defence Area category; Proposal for an affordable, scalable, and capable "bridge" for Ticonderoga AEGIS cruisers PROPOSED AEGIS "BRIDGE" CRUISER, USS SHANKSVILLE By the ...

  1. #1
    Jeff Head's Avatar
    Jeff Head is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Idaho - Beautiful Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    11,634

    Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement


    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.


    CURRENT AEGIS CRUISERS (Oldest is over 20 years old)

    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.


    ROKN Sejong the Great AEGIS vessel

    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.


    Profile and top view of proposed CG

    Last edited by Jeff Head; 06-23-2007 at 11:46 AM. Reason: Updated per input on thread

  2. #2
    Jeff Head's Avatar
    Jeff Head is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Idaho - Beautiful Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    11,634

    Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by bdpopeye, tasman, bigstick61, Obi Wan Russel, Sea Dog, Scratch, tphuang, IDONT, Planeman, szbd, Gollevainen
    ...
    This is for all of you and your thoughts and comments.

  3. #3
    FuManChu's Avatar
    FuManChu is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,403

    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.
    "Japan is as much of a threat to China, as China is to Japan."

    --FuManChu

  4. #4
    Jeff Head's Avatar
    Jeff Head is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Idaho - Beautiful Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    11,634

    Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by FuManChu View Post
    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.
    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.

  5. #5
    bigstick61's Avatar
    bigstick61 is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186

    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.

  6. #6
    tphuang's Avatar
    tphuang is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,796

    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?

  7. #7
    Jeff Head's Avatar
    Jeff Head is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Idaho - Beautiful Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    11,634

    Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
    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.
    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.

  8. #8
    Jeff Head's Avatar
    Jeff Head is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Idaho - Beautiful Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    11,634

    Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by tphuang View Post
    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?
    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.

  9. #9
    bigstick61's Avatar
    bigstick61 is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186

    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.

  10. #10
    Jeff Head's Avatar
    Jeff Head is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Idaho - Beautiful Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    11,634

    Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
    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.
    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.

  11. #11
    bd popeye's Avatar
    bd popeye is offline The Last Jedi
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cedar Rapids Iowa
    Posts
    18,597

    Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

    Good idea BUT the US Congress is not going spend any money on a new CG when the USN can't even get their s**t together in reguards to the LCS, DDX and CGX program. Dang shame too. The present day ships the USN has are top notch. Probaly the best in the world..BUT they won't last forever. They will eventually need to be replaced. By what who knows????

    The biggest plus I do see is that the hull design is already in existance. The weapons systems are "off the shelf"..Looks good on paper...However I agree with what my man tphaung posted;

    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 I would have CWIS fore and aft....

    You should run for congress and push thsi program through..yea right!
    Last edited by bd popeye; 06-01-2007 at 10:07 PM.
    Be sure to check out...

    Chinese Daily Photos 2014!

    "I am what I am.... Dat's all what I am"

  12. #12
    Tasman's Avatar
    Tasman is offline Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    214

    Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

    I think this is a great concept Jeff. It further develops the ideas we can see in the new South Korean KDX-III, Sejong class AEGIS DDGs and by using a proven hull form it should avoid many of the risks associated with a completely new design. I have always followed the old adage of not fixing something if it is not broken and I think the Burke class is an excellent starting point for further evolution.

    The new weapons incorporated into the Shanksville class would probably be used regardless of hull form chosen (though I'm not sure about what would be involved to reinstate the anti ship variant of the Tomahawk) so these will not add anything to the costs compared with the costs of just about any other design that will provide the capability required in the future. On the other hand I can see substantial savings in using an 'evolved' approach to the USN's next cruiser.

    The use of the 155mm Advanced Gun System (AGS), optimized for naval surface warfare and direct fire support seems a common sense choice for a new cruiser.

    Likewise the mix of SM-3, SM-6 and ESSM for BMD and air defence is logical.

    I have concerns about the ability of Phalanx to stop a missile before it is close enough for its disintegrating body to cause significant damage even if it is hit (a bit like Kamikazes hit by 20mm and 40mm guns in WW2) and I like the inclusion of RAM to backup the ESSM. The combination of SM-6, ESSM and RAM would provide an excellent layered defense. The installation of a heavy close range defense (20mm and 50-cal) for port or close-in littoral defense would also provide a last ditch defense against airborne targets. I would like to see the close range guns mated to RWS like the Typhoon or Mini Typhoon systems being introduced into the RAN.

    It would be great to see the Tomahawk TASM reintroduced in an advanced capability form. If not I would consider the latest variant of Harpoon. What is the current status of Harpoon so far as clearance to be fired from VLS cells?

    Selection of the Tomahawk Tactical Missiles in the Land Attack Role seems straight forward as is the use of the Mk-50 ADCAP to combat SSKs and SSNs.

    Cheers


    BTW, I think the choice of name for the first of class is excellent. Now what was the name of that book I read recently that named a new American ship USS Shanksville?


    Edited additional comment:

    I do agree with what bigstick61 says about the benefits of a second gun. However, the aft VLS would probably have to have the number of cells substantially reduced to fit it in and the above deck weight of the gun might cause stability problems.
    Last edited by Tasman; 06-01-2007 at 10:21 PM. Reason: response to comments made whilst I was preparing original post.

  13. #13
    bigstick61's Avatar
    bigstick61 is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186

    Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

    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.
    I think that instead of incorporating them into VLS, to just stick with canisters. As for the Tomahawks, a development which could change my opinion, at least for cruisers, is the Fasthawk concept. One of the criticisms of TASM was its slow speed. A faster TASM with more capabilities, such as the ability to do various manoeuvers to avoid being hit by anti-missile systems would be good. I do personally prefer that cruisers have a heavier anti-ship outfit than smaller vessels.

    As for hull form, it was just an idea. My point was that I do not believe the Burke hull form to be ideal for this concept, especially if 33 or more knots is desired, and in my opinon it is a must for a cruiser. I think a larger hull form would be better suited, one which is also capable of higher speeds at that displacement.

    As for guns, I'm going to stick to mine on this issue. I firmly believe that for a cruiser, or any warship, there should be at least a second gun in the main battery. Of course, you are trying to stick with the 10,000 ton displacement, but you can go higher if necessary; the Washington Naval Treaty is over and has been for a long time, thank goodness. I think that if it means an increase in hull length, displacement, and cost (I'm not sure it would increase it too much), then it is worth it for this style of ship. I do agree that the main battery for a cruiser should be larger than a 5" one. Having a 5" gun for the aft mount could be an option as well if it came down to it. This ship is obviously a bit more oriented towards surface warfare, and rightfully so, and I think that weapons and systems redundancy is important here.

    In terms of naming the ships, I think it should return to the traditonal nomenclature for cruisers, which is naming them after American cities. That's just me, though. I don't think that would prevent you from calling the lead ship the Shanksville.

  14. #14
    Jeff Head's Avatar
    Jeff Head is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Idaho - Beautiful Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    11,634

    Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by Tasman View Post
    I think this is a great concept Jeff. It further develops the ideas we can see in the new South Korean KDX-III, Sejong class AEGIS DDGs and by using a proven hull form it should avoid many of the risks associated with a completely new design. I have always followed the old adage of not fixing something if it is not broken and I think the Burke class is an excellent starting point for further evolution.
    Thanks. It would keep the US production lines going producing a superior product while we collectively take more time to perfect the really high tech stuff contemplated in the CG-21 proposals. I believe when all is said and done, to produce that design and prepare it for rail-gun and directed energy weapons as is contemplated, they will have to go nuclear power and use more modern, smaller versions of those reactors that will be introduced on the CVN-21. That is going to take time and by that time the Ticos will be being decommissioned.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tasman View Post
    The new weapons incorporated into the Shanksville class would probably be used regardless of hull form chosen (though I'm not sure about what would be involved to reinstate the anti ship variant of the Tomahawk) so these will not add anything to the costs compared with the costs of just about any other design that will provide the capability required in the future. On the other hand I can see substantial savings in using an 'evolved' approach to the USN's next cruiser.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tasman View Post
    The use of the 155mm Advanced Gun System (AGS), optimized for naval surface warfare and direct fire support seems a common sense choice for a new cruiser.
    Well, I have been looking and researching the AGS a little more. It comes in at something like just under 300 tons for the turret assembly, the gun, and the ammo. By comparison, eack Mk 45 light weight 127mm comes in at 55-60 tons for the entire thing. So replaceing two of those with one new AGS actually adds over 150 tons to the design. But I think the accuracy and range and fire rate of the AGS is well worth it and they need to be at sea in numbers greater than what the abrievated production run of the DD-21 is going to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tasman View Post
    Likewise the mix of SM-3, SM-6 and ESSM for BMD and air defence is logical.
    Again, agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tasman View Post
    I have concerns about the ability of Phalanx to stop a missile before it is close enough for its disintegrating body to cause significant damage even if it is hit (a bit like Kamikazes hit by 20mm and 40mm guns in WW2) and I like the inclusion of RAM to backup the ESSM. The combination of SM-6, ESSM and RAM would provide an excellent layered defense.
    I believe we will ultimately see the Phalanx phased out in favor of the RAM for the very reasons you have indicated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tasman View Post
    The installation of a heavy close range defense (20mm and 50-cal) for port or close-in littoral defense would also provide a last ditch defense against airborne targets.
    Agreed...the weapons proposed here however are all manually aimed and are really for port and close in littoral threats.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tasman View Post
    It would be great to see the Tomahawk TASM reintroduced in an advanced capability form. If not I would consider the latest variant of Harpoon. What is the current status of Harpoon so far as clearance to be fired from VLS cells?
    I would like to see the TASM back to for the reasons I have already given. But talking to a lot of folks now, I do not think it is going to happen. The Harpoon II is pretty much a shoe-in for the future and it will be VLS capable and it will have enhanced range...albeit not what the TASM had.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tasman View Post
    BTW, I think the choice of name for the first of class is excellent. Now what was the name of that book I read recently that named a new American ship USS Shanksville?
    Nothing surprising here...hehehe. I think it a travest to name the new carrier the Ford...but again, politically that is locked in and this vessel class, which historically has been named for battles anyway, is the next one to set sites on.

    Given everything I am hearing, it sounds like I may have to revise the displacement upwards. Everything I want will fit in at 10,000 tons...but I also want room for growth while we wait for the next truly "new" vessel. So, I am thinking of changing the dsiplacement and figures accordingly for 12,000 tons, and then modifying things, including the powerplant (perhaps COGAG) to compensate accordingly.

  15. #15
    Jeff Head's Avatar
    Jeff Head is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Idaho - Beautiful Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    11,634

    Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
    Of course, you are trying to stick with the 10,000 ton displacement, but you can go higher if necessary; the Washington Naval Treaty is over and has been for a long time, thank goodness. I think that if it means an increase in hull length, displacement, and cost (I'm not sure it would increase it too much), then it is worth it for this style of ship. I do agree that the main battery for a cruiser should be larger than a 5" one. Having a 5" gun for the aft mount could be an option as well if it came down to it. This ship is obviously a bit more oriented towards surface warfare, and rightfully so, and I think that weapons and systems redundancy is important here.

    In terms of naming the ships, I think it should return to the traditonal nomenclature for cruisers, which is naming them after American cities. That's just me, though. I don't think that would prevent you from calling the lead ship the Shanksville.
    See my post to TASMAN. I am going to increase it to 12,000 and lengthen the aft deck and modify the powerplant to allow for a second gun and "room for growth".

    The AGS is heavy, coming in at 300 tons each for the gun, the turret, the relaoding and the ammo. Each Mk 45 by comparison is 55-60 tons.

    --------------------------------------------------

    Ok, bigstick, TASMAN, all...it's later and I have added the displacement and other changes...including the vessel now containing two AGS 155mm guns.



    Whew! Now that is one powerful vessel!
    Last edited by Jeff Head; 06-09-2007 at 03:11 PM. Reason: Changes made - two AGS 155mm guns

Page 1 of 9 123456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •