25,000-ton cruiser under consideration

[kinggodzilla87]

I think that using 1 hull for various ship types is a great cost cutting
move that should be adopted.

Similar to the FREMMs for example Italy and France.
Land attack and ASW for French and multi mission for Italian ships.

That mostly because they wanted the same Ship
But wanted it to diff things

 

[contedicavour]

Since most of the recent USN programmes have gone off budget and are late, nowadays the bulk of the fleet is the Burke DDG.
I would rather focus on a Flight III of the Burke (larger than the current ones, though not 25,000 tonne monsters) capable of incorporating BMD. This would save money and time...

Separately, instead of building 5 cruisers (ehm battleships...) capable of launching 300 VLS each, I'd rather build for the same expenditure 20 DDGs with 96 VLS each. You get more firepower and much more flexibility in terms of deployment (imagine a simultaneous need for CG/DDG in Korea, Persian Gulf, Venezuela and facing Russia's Northern Fleet...)

cheers

 

[AegisFC]

1 hull for various ship
Not all that GooD
Look at it this way you and have a 2 F-16s one Air to Air one doing everthing or
you can have a F-15 air to air and one F-16 doing everthing

the point is that same hull the ships are not all that Diff
and at some point you need more or less than what you have

Why not, the Spruances, Tico's and Kidd class all shared the same hull engineering layout, saved quite a bit of money and all were effective at their jobs.

 

[KiwiRob]

So what the USN wants to build is an American version of the Kirov Class battlecruiser, would that be a fair assumption?

 

[Grand Danois]

So what the USN wants to build is an American version of the Kirov Class battlecruiser, would that be a fair assumption?

No. The USN wants to build a BMD cruiser with a secondary allotment of ordinary cells, now that the ship is built anyway.

 

[contedicavour]

So what the USN wants to build is an American version of the Kirov Class battlecruiser, would that be a fair assumption?

Kirov focused on anti-shipping operations with SS-N-19 Shipwreck long range SSMs. They had massive AAW as well with SA-N-6 and SA-N-9 VLS but this was mostly intended to protect the cruiser from USN carriers' fighterbombers.

That's quite far from a AAW/BMD focused cruiser.

cheers

 

[kinggodzilla87]

Why not, the Spruances, Tico's and Kidd class all shared the same hull engineering layout, saved quite a bit of money and all were effective at their jobs.

yes but we aslo got the Arleigh Burke class destroyer didint we

and the you cant count the Kidds they were not made for the USN
we just ended up with them
the kidds were just Modified Spruances

 

[kato]

Identical hulls with different electronics/weapons fit and purpose worked quite well for France with the postwar T-47/T-47-ASW/T-47-AAW/T-53/T-56 line of destroyers.

 

[AegisFC]

yes but we aslo got the Arleigh Burke class destroyer didint we

and the you cant count the Kidds they were not made for the USN
we just ended up with them
the kidds were just Modified Spruances

So are the Tico's when you get down to it.
I'm counting the Kidds because they are a Spruance hull, engineering plant and super structure with a different weapons fit.

 

[Systems Adict]

...Pish-Posh....

This is all a lot of hoo-ey !

There's been a fair amount of interest in the Type-45 destroyer by the UK's Allies, with it being one of the more recent designs to make the transition from drawing board into production. :nutkick

A 6-10,000 tonne hull form, capable of over 28 Kts, conventionally (Diesel/Electric) powered. Is that not more in line with what DD(X) was intended to be ??

Using this design form as a baseline, it's possible to re-engineer the layout to just about anything you want, dependant on the power requirements of the weapons & the ability to switch "drive power" from the weapons to the hull, & vice versa.

This would allow adequate power projection (more bang for your buck) in a hull which would be able to sail into an expected 75% of the waters across the globe (due to hull/water depth).

Your Thoughts ???

Systems Adict

 

[tphuang]

Found Jeff Heads proposal..

http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/newcg.htm

UNITED STATES INTERIM CG CLASS CG (Proposed)


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:

• 80+% commonality with Arliegh Burke Flight II Destroyers.
• New AEGIS SPY/AM-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 (25mm Mk-38 mod 2 and 50-cal) for port or close-in littoral defense.
• Use of the VL Harpoon III Anti-shipping missile.
• Use of the Tomahawk Tactical Missiles in the Land Attack Role.
• Heavy use of Mk-50 ADCAP (enhanced for littoral warfare & to combat new AID SS & new SSns) via VLA & triple launchers.
• Use of manpower reduction technologies and policies learned from CVN-77 and CVN-78 programs.

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=3223

I just have a question regarding AGS, if you guys don't mind answering. There are some rumours coming out of Chinese bbs that China is developing this 155 mm naval gun that will have a range of 300 km with certain projectile using certain ballistic path. I guess the one that it is similar to will be the AGS. Just wondering, is this actually achievable? What kind of accuracy can you result with it?