Proposal for a US Navy Ticonderoga AEGIS CG replacement

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.

Click to expand...

Also I would have CWIS fore and aft....

You should run for congress and push thsi program through..yea right!

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Tasman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Tasman said:

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.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Tasman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Tasman said:

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

Click to expand...

Again, agreed.

Tasman said:

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.

Click to expand...

I believe we will ultimately see the Phalanx phased out in favor of the RAM for the very reasons you have indicated.

Tasman said:

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.

Click to expand...

Agreed...the weapons proposed here however are all manually aimed and are really for port and close in littoral threats.

Tasman said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Tasman said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

bigstick61 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Whew! Now that is one powerful vessel!

Click to expand...

Hey, it's a cruiser. I would hope a cruiser would pack a punch. What are the new figures for the ship, when incorporating a second AGS?

Also, what type of gun directors does the ship utilize? Are the the type which only use sensors, or which use a combination of sensors and optics? Does the ship carry RPVs, and of so, would they be able to be used for spotting/BDA? I assume it uses a variant of the Mk 160 GFCS. Also, how many directors does it have as part of its GFCS?

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

bigstick61 said:

Hey, it's a cruiser. I would hope a cruiser would pack a punch. What are the new figures for the ship, when incorporating a second AGS?

Click to expand...

It's going to 12,000 tons to account for the new AGS, the heavier AN/SPY-2, and to allow for growth.

bigstick61 said:

Also, what type of gun directors does the ship utilize? Are the the type which only use sensors, or which use a combination of sensors and optics?

Click to expand...

All I know regarding the current fire control for the AGS is what the developer has stated...

"The AGS integrated system control, or ISC, combines both gun control and fire control elements within the AGS architecture for seamless integration to the total ship computing environment"

I am sure that much further development has gone on into the specifics, but I am not aware of or privy to them.

bigstick61 said:

Does the ship carry RPVs, and of so, would they be able to be used for spotting/BDA?

Click to expand...

This vessel will probably use UAVs to do that type of BDA from projectiles. For the Tactical Tomahawks, the controlling entity can spoecify one or more to loiter and do BDA as the others go in, using its TV signal over a satellite or other data link.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

I think this ship concept is much better than the CGX and also far more realistic than the CGX. If such a ship were to built, I would be glad to serve on such a vessel. The CGX, on the other hand, like the DDX, I would avoid like the plague. It would be nice to see the Navy upgrade the Tomahawk and possibly redisign it to be more suitable for anti-ship missions. It would be good to have a heavy SSM to complement the Harpoon. What are the dimensions for the ship as revised?

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

bigstick61 said:

I think this ship concept is much better than the CGX and also far more realistic than the CGX. If such a ship were to built, I would be glad to serve on such a vessel. The CGX, on the other hand, like the DDX, I would avoid like the plague. It would be nice to see the Navy upgrade the Tomahawk and possibly redisign it to be more suitable for anti-ship missions. It would be good to have a heavy SSM to complement the Harpoon. What are the dimensions for the ship as revised?

Click to expand...

Displacement: 12,000 tons (full load), Length: 575 ft, Beam: 66 ft, Draft: 35 ft. She would be the most heavily armed and capable surface combatant/escort vessel on the earth.

Ultimately a design like the CGX (with a different hull) will be feasable, and when it is, it will have to be nuclear which will also allow it to power the rail-gun and directed energy weapons that will ultimately be available...but they are well off into the future and we have to get from here to there.

Re: Proposal for a US Navy Ticnoderoga AEGIS CG replacement

Jeff Head said:

Agreed...the weapons proposed here however are all manually aimed and are really for port and close in littoral threats.

Click to expand...

I would like to see at least one RWS port and starboard so that they can be operated from the control centre in an emergency. I would be happy for the balance of these weapons to be manually operated.

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

This should provide a ship that can incorporate the extra AGS and retain stability. I also like the fact that the extra displacement would help 'future proof' the design.

This design looks to me to be an ideal stepping stone to the nuclear powered follow on design you have projected.

Cheers