AEGIS and AEGIS Like escort combatants of the World

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

IDonT said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thanks. In a nutshell, that is the whole rational of this "bridge" proposal. Even with only a partial list of technology envisioned for the CGX, and that list is what is realizable in the near term, and with the weapons fit, these vessels would easily be the most powerful surface combatant and escort warships on earth.

Building twelve or more of them over a eight to ten year period would ensure that they remain that way until the full CGX technology is available and affordable thereafter.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

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 I believe that the old classification based on tonnage is obsolete and does not quantify the actual capabilities of the surface ships.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.

Click to expand...

The traditional classifications are not just about tonnage. They are also about armament and mission. Traditionally, a cruiser is a large warship that is designed to primarily be used in an anti-shipping role, being able to serve in groups or at the center of SAGs which can operate independently or in concert with other groups, or operate on its own, in the ASuW role, as a commerce raider, as a surface escort for major warships or for convoys or amphibs, and such. With the advent of the aircraft, this necessitates a substantial AAW armament, which in turn also makes it highly suitable as a heavy AAW escort. Armament and tonnage should be heavier than for a contemporary DD or DL, and should have a major ASuW emphasis or capability. There is also a traditional hull design for cruisers. The last US cruiser built by definition is the Long Beach (CGN-9). The Strike Cruiser was to have been a revival of the type. All post-Long Beach "cruisers" were DLGs or DDGs which were reclassified as such.

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.

Click to expand...

The latter is preferable, in my opinion. You cannot control the seas without numbers. Numbers are an essential part of the equation, and if the cost of a ship meant to be built in larger numbers due to its role is too high to allow for that, then the design needs to be looked at. Sometimes, though, an overemphasis on technology, especially in a fighting vessel, can be a bad thing, especially if it turns into an overreliance and/or overconfidence.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

To take the discussion down another turn, I wonder why no one has suggested warships as a viable platform for some of the experimental laser/directed-energy beam weapons currently under development (i.e., equip an Aegis warship with a powerful laser, and it can shoot down missiles.)



Does it have to do with the conditions of the sea - high humidity, fog, moisture and other things which inhibit a laser from performing well?

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Clouded Leopard said:

To take the discussion down another turn, I wonder why no one has suggested warships as a viable platform for some of the experimental laser/directed-energy beam weapons currently under development (i.e., equip an Aegis warship with a powerful laser, and it can shoot down missiles.)



Does it have to do with the conditions of the sea - high humidity, fog, moisture and other things which inhibit a laser from performing well?

Click to expand...

Power has been the issue to date. But with the advent of the new style reactors the US will produce with the CVN-21 program, and the possibility for such rectors to be used on other vessels, as well as with improvement in gas turbines and what not, power capabilities are increasing on vessels.

The US is already looking at rail-gun and directed energy weapons on its vessels and the CVN-78 class will have provisions for this in self defense, and the CGX is looking at provisions for it on a cruiser platform.

Short answer is that they are being actively considered for naval platforms...and most certainly not just by the US Navy.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

The one showing the most promise, THELDS, has one thing which could be an issue, and that is the gas used to fuel it, which if the container is hit would explode and cause a conflagration, certainly not what is to be desired on a warship. It takes the same amunt of space as a 20mm CIWS gun or RAM launcher.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

bigstick61 said:

The one showing the most promise, THELDS, has one thing which could be an issue, and that is the gas used to fuel it, which if the container is hit would explode and cause a conflagration, certainly not what is to be desired on a warship. It takes the same amunt of space as a 20mm CIWS gun or RAM launcher.

Click to expand...

Well, I know that the Israelis and ourselves are working hard on THELDS in the U.S. southwest, using chemical lasers I believe. I also know that the system has destroyed some ballistic missiles as well as incoming artillery and mortar projectiles.


However, I am not sure that the chemical laser version will work that well, or has been tested successfully at sea level, in an at-sea environement.

My thought was that they were leaning more towards the fre-electron or solid state HEL for ship borne use.

A good article comparing and discussion the three alternatives and their relatives merits in various environements was published in Horizons by the Center for Technology and National Security Policy:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Clouded Leopard said:

To take the discussion down another turn, I wonder why no one has suggested warships as a viable platform for some of the experimental laser/directed-energy beam weapons currently under development (i.e., equip an Aegis warship with a powerful laser, and it can shoot down missiles.)
Does it have to do with the conditions of the sea - high humidity, fog, moisture and other things which inhibit a laser from performing well?

Click to expand...

Direct energy weapons are still very much in the R&D stage. Currently we have systems that could intercept simple short-range targets (i.e. rockets), but the amount of equipment, fuel, energy, space/weight required for such weapons make it difficult to deploy on warships.

IMO it's more realistic for ground-based laser systems to be deployed first, because you have far less weight restriction issues with ground-based units.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Ummm actually, aren't ships more suitable for housing lasers, exactly because you can put objects of large mass and size on them, yet have the whole system (whole ship) mobile? Land based lasers might start off as huge, truck based (multiple trucks, probably) systems that are to be deployed before shooting - for protecting of high value fixed land installations. But mobile land systems are harder to pull off than ship based lasers. Even the airborne laser project seems better off in that regard than a mobile land based laser.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

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.

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, for CIWS particularly, if they can be miniaturized to the point of being economical (both cost wise and weight wise) they are an optimum solution and I am willing to say that within the next 15-20 years we will definietly see directed energy weapons used for that purpose, and perhaps for longer range anti-missile engagements as the technology matures.

In addition, if the power source for it can be developed (and that is happening now), and if the materials to be used in the rail-gun themselves can be developed to the point of weaponizing them for reiliability and maintainabilty (and I believe they ultimately will), and if the projectiles being boosted by rail-gun can be desinged to have the ability to be a precision guided munition like we are doing with the naval gunnery projectiles, then they will also find a great utility in surface to surface engagements because the range will be incredible. GPS, IR, and other means are all very possible for such weapons if they can be desinged to withstand the forces involved...and I believe they ultimately will.

Current targets for rail gun technology call for true weaponized R&D to go forward in 2016 targeting 2024 for the initial working models to be fitted to warships...so, still another 17 years out.