AEGIS and AEGIS Like escort combatants of the World

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Tasman said:

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

Click to expand...

Actually, after speaking to a number of analysts and engineers, I am now gravitating back to the single AGS gun design. Two guns and the stretched length to accomodate it are going to be de-stabilizing factors on the Arleigh Burke design overall.

With one AGS, you end up with a 48 cell Mk-41 forward and a 80 cell Mk-41 aft. That does a good job of load leveling, keeps it close to 10,000 (probably plus a little) ton displacement, and allows the basic Sejong hull modification to be used with a high commonality with the Burke Flight IIA vessels which allows the shipyards to fairly seemlessly go into this production.

It also allows the new AEGIS, the SM6/SM3 combo, the AGS, the VLS Harpoons, and the RAM system to get full use, sooner in the US Navy in preparation for future platforms.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Seeing that the Burkes were to have no aft gun at all, and the Ticos only having a 5" gun, I think as well that an AGS and a 64 cell VLS at the very aft might eat up a lot of space, require the helo pad to be raised and the superstructure to be raised even more. Wich will have the negative impacts Jeff already stated.
Then again having the AGS atop the hanger still might have some topweight issues.
Maybe it's an option to have the VLS in the same position as the burkes, while a 5" gun is mounted at the very aft ...?
But Jeff already also stated the benefits for helo ops with a free approach to an aft helo pad.
So perhaps one or two 57mm guns that are planned for the LCS? On top of the hanger, or at the stern, or somewhere at the side ... ?

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Scratch said:

Seeing that the Burkes were to have no aft gun at all, and the Ticos only having a 5" gun, I think as well that an AGS and a 64 cell VLS at the very aft might eat up a lot of space, require the helo pad to be raised and the superstructure to be raised even more. Wich will have the negative impacts Jeff already stated.
Then again having the AGS atop the hanger still might have some topweight issues.
Maybe it's an option to have the VLS in the same position as the burkes, while a 5" gun is mounted at the very aft ...?
But Jeff already also stated the benefits for helo ops with a free approach to an aft helo pad.
So perhaps one or two 57mm guns that are planned for the LCS? On top of the hanger, or at the stern, or somewhere at the side ... ?

Click to expand...

Well, going with one AGS and a 48 cell MK-41 forward with a 80 cell Mk-41 VLS aft will adress all of these issues I believe...and still leaves the most modern and powerful surface combatant afloat for years to come.

In addition, with the two 25mm Mk-38 Mod 2 automatic cannons and the four 50-cals, the vessel is very adequately protected close-in.

Essentially, what you then use is the existing ROKN King Sejoing class enhanced Burk hull design and load the vessel with the latest weapons and sensors. That is a hull the US helped design, and one that can very easily be transitioned to by the two US shipbuilders when the Burke Flight IIA production riun ends.

Which then holds those same yards over until whatever the final CGX or its alternative design emerges as and goes into production.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Jeff Head said:

Actually, after speaking to a number of analysts and engineers, I am now gravitating back to the single AGS gun design. Two guns and the stretched length to accomodate it are going to be de-stabilizing factors on the Arleigh Burke design overall.

With one AGS, you end up with a 48 cell Mk-41 forward and a 80 cell Mk-41 aft. That does a good job of load leveling, keeps it close to 10,000 (probably plus a little) ton displacement, and allows the basic Sejong hull modification to be used with a high commonality with the Burke Flight IIA vessels which allows the shipyards to fairly seemlessly go into this production.

It also allows the new AEGIS, the SM6/SM3 combo, the AGS, the VLS Harpoons, and the RAM system to get full use, sooner in the US Navy in preparation for future platforms.

Click to expand...

It does seem that efforts to work a second AGS into the design would be extremely difficult if the basic Burke hull form is to be retained. As that is one of the core requirements for the design I am also coming to the conclusion that only one AGS ought to be mounted. As you rightly say, this would still provide "the most modern and powerful surface combatant afloat for years to come."

Cheers

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Tasman said:

It does seem that efforts to work a second AGS into the design would be extremely difficult if the basic Burke hull form is to be retained. As that is one of the core requirements for the design I am also coming to the conclusion that only one AGS ought to be mounted. As you rightly say, this would still provide "the most modern and powerful surface combatant afloat for years to come."

Cheers

Click to expand...

Thanks. That's the way it is working out. For the proposal, to get the high commonality, the straight forward transition for construction at the shipyards, add as much new tech within those constraints, and still "bridge" between the Tico end of life and the next "brand new" design, this is the way it is working.

BTW, did you see the THELDS system in my post 76 on this thread.

I would love to see a couple of those installed on a vessel of this sort fore and aft. That's the chemical version and is probably not suitable for sea-level, at-sea use...but if they can get the solid state version working...something like that would be pretty amazing.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Jeff Head said:

BTW, did you see the THELDS system in my post 76 on this thread.

I would love to see a couple of those installed on a vessel of this sort fore and aft. That's the chemical version and is probably not suitable for sea-level, at-sea use...but if they can get the solid state version working...something like that would be pretty amazing.

Click to expand...

I saw the system and I read the attached article. A solid state version certainly seems to offer the most potential for use at sea but it seems to me to be a long way off at this stage. As the article states, "technology issues still preclude a viable sea-based system." However, the process does seem to be advancing in an evolutionary way. A solid state compact version for shipboard operation does look to be the way to go for future ship defense against cruise missiles.

Cheers

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Tasman said:

I saw the system and I read the attached article. A solid state version certainly seems to offer the most potential for use at sea but it seems to me to be a long way off at this stage. As the article states, "technology issues still preclude a viable sea-based system." However, the process does seem to be advancing in an evolutionary way. A solid state compact version for shipboard operation does look to be the way to go for future ship defense against cruise missiles.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Yea...probably in the mid 2020s time frame. Land based and air based systems will come on line at least five years, maybe longer, before then.

But that's with a laser...there is still some hope held out for charged particles in the same time frame, although these laser tests are actually producing results now. Charged particles would not be as impacted or hindered by atmospheric conditions or cloud cover.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Actually, after speaking to a number of analysts and engineers, I am now gravitating back to the single AGS gun design. Two guns and the stretched length to accomodate it are going to be de-stabilizing factors on the Arleigh Burke design overall.

With one AGS, you end up with a 48 cell Mk-41 forward and a 80 cell Mk-41 aft. That does a good job of load leveling, keeps it close to 10,000 (probably plus a little) ton displacement, and allows the basic Sejong hull modification to be used with a high commonality with the Burke Flight IIA vessels which allows the shipyards to fairly seemlessly go into this production.

It also allows the new AEGIS, the SM6/SM3 combo, the AGS, the VLS Harpoons, and the RAM system to get full use, sooner in the US Navy in preparation for future platforms.

Click to expand...

See, for me, I'm not quite as concerned about sticking as close as possible to the Burke design, seeing as they were designed for what I believe to be a somewhat different role than these ships. These ships would bring back some of the more traditional functions of a cruiser, which are what formerly defined one, and that is an offensive platform capable of independent operations, which happens to be useful as an escort as a consequence of its design.

Of course, I still think having a second gun is best. I think combat experiences demonstrate this. In the drawing you provided, I feel that the hull would probably have to be lengthened a bit. I actually think that 600 feet is more adequate ton this type of vessel. I see alot of resemblance to the Slava-class and they are 611 feet or so long, 68 feet wide, and nearly 12,000 tons. Not on specifics, but in some of the overall elements and in function. I think if you can lengthen the hull further, that a better layout aft can be achieved without sacrifice the second gun or having to redesign the hull to have a below-decks hangar. I think that there should be high commonality for ease of construction, but not too much if it comes at the cost of sacrifices in the design. That is why I personally would be a bit more flexible on this issue, rather than sticking very rigidly to the Burke hull.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Jeff Head said:

BTW, did you see the THELDS system in my post 76 on this thread.

I would love to see a couple of those installed on a vessel of this sort fore and aft. That's the chemical version and is probably not suitable for sea-level, at-sea use...but if they can get the solid state version working...something like that would be pretty amazing.

Click to expand...

Assuming your CGs being built and projecting a service life until 2050 and longer, DEW weapons might well be available until then.
But do you think they could be retrofitted on ships like (evolved) Burkes? I have doubts because of the power requirements. And I also do not believe vessels might be retrofitted with nuclear plants.
Maybe in a further future science is that far that conventional propulsion can propell a ship and power CIWS lasers.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Scratch said:

Assuming your CGs being built and projecting a service life until 2050 and longer, DEW weapons might well be available until then.
But do you think they could be retrofitted on ships like (evolved) Burkes? I have doubts because of the power requirements. And I also do not believe vessels might be retrofitted with nuclear plants.
Maybe in a further future science is that far that conventional propulsion can propell a ship and power CIWS lasers.

Click to expand...

No, I do not think they will be on the Burkes, or any derivitive of them.

The CVNs, with their new reactors, are being designed with this in mind. The new class CGs and DDGs will be designed with that in mind. There are studies suggesting that using one of the same type of reactors powering the new CVNs would make since in a new CG or DDG if they want the more exotic weapons on those vessels.

Either that, or a combination of miniaturization of the weapons system requiring less power, and significant increase in convetnional power plants will ultimately put them on the next class CG and DDG.

But, although we have gotten a bit off topic with THELDS, this proposal in this thread is not about that next class per sey, it is about a bridge design to get the US there.