25,000-ton cruiser under consideration

[Galrahn]

The Pentagon just says things like its "needed for ballistic missile defense" to justify spending billions of dollars on ONE ship. They do perform other tasks as well. Not just BMD.

That is true, but be careful lumping the US Navy in with the Missile Defense Agency, particularly in regards to funding. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA)has had over 200 billion thrown its way to get where it is (or isn't) today, while the US Navy will have spent less than 13 billion by FY13 to get to a comparatively substantial capability of 18 ships for ballistic missile defense. Ironically, some of that money is Navy money, not the MDA money. The MDA has given barely 4% of its total budget to date to the Navy for AEGIS ABM defense.

Ballistic Missile Defense is an important capability, and the lack of BMD is a strategic weakness of the US. The Navy to date is by far and away the most credible agency in addressing the requirement. Compared what is being thrown into projects like THAAD, X-Radar, and KEI ideas the AEGIS solution is cheap, and would still be cheap if the DoD built all 5 of these ships.

I think you are right on to point to waste, but I think you should point your finger in the right direction. If you are against wasteful spending and for ballistic missile defense, your only logical response is to advocate for the Navy solutions, which ironically, include this CGN(X) monster.

 

[f-22fan12]

That is true, but be careful lumping the US Navy in with the Missile Defense Agency, particularly in regards to funding. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA)has had over 200 billion thrown its way to get where it is (or isn't) today, while the US Navy will have spent less than 13 billion by FY13 to get to a comparatively substantial capability of 18 ships for ballistic missile defense. Ironically, some of that money is Navy money, not the MDA money. The MDA has given barely 4% of its total budget to date to the Navy for AEGIS ABM defense.

Ballistic Missile Defense is an important capability, and the lack of BMD is a strategic weakness of the US. The Navy to date is by far and away the most credible agency in addressing the requirement. Compared what is being thrown into projects like THAAD, X-Radar, and KEI ideas the AEGIS solution is cheap, and would still be cheap if the DoD built all 5 of these ships.

I think you are right on to point to waste, but I think you should point your finger in the right direction. If you are against wasteful spending and for ballistic missile defense, your only logical response is to advocate for the Navy solutions, which ironically, include this CGN(X) monster.

Great perspective. I really think it is horrible that we have taken so much money to build ballistic missile defence that barely works. (I'm talking about the Missile Defence Agency) (not the Navy) The Russians have got it down great. Their new S-400 are set to deploy and are rumored to be VERY capable. I congratulate the navy on the progress they've made. All in all I think the crusiers aren't needed. Just the new destroyers.

 

[Grand Danois]

The USN has a different task ahead of it than the Missile defense Agency. The USN so far only need to focus theatre level TBM defence, which means emphasis is on AEGIS and the interceptors.

What is critical to defence against sophisticated long range BMs is the cueing and target characterisation, i.e. the ISR, comms, BMS, etc.

These greatly enhance the footprint, probability of succesful kill, and competency (can tackle longer ranged BMs) of any interceptor.

MDA has to design and build a robust system that can intercept ICBMs. In that context, AEGIS BMD could be seen in the same light as stand alone systems like THAADS, MEADS or GMD (and S-400).

The battle management backbone greatly enhances and enables these systems to be viable to counter threats above what they can on their own.

SBIRS, SBX, HAVE STARE...

 

[kinggodzilla87]

hold up if they are made for Ballistic Missile Defense wont they be best for
escorting carrier strike groups

 

[Todjaeger]

hold up if they are made for Ballistic Missile Defense wont they be best for
escorting carrier strike groups

A ship with a dedicated BMD role is a completely different animal from an Area Air Defence-roled ship. The two designs are likely to be similar and might have a common history, but a BMD ship is going to be targetting ballistic missiles that have ground-based targets, while an Area Air Defence ship will be targeting incoming aircraft and/or AShM. The two different roled ships might have some armament to engage in the other role, but that isn't the main purpose. For example, if a BMD ship has missiles that can engage incoming IRBM's at very high altitude intecepts, would one use the missiles able to do that, to attempt to intercept a Kh-31, Exocet or Harpoon? That is what a much more general missile like the Standard missile series is for.

-Cheers

 

[Waylander]

I expect some multi-mission capability from a 25.000 ton warship.

I would wonder if those ships are totally focused onto the BMD role.

 

[f-22fan12]

I expect some multi-mission capability from a 25.000 ton warship.

I would wonder if those ships are totally focused onto the BMD role.

I'm SURE they are multimission ships. Just this time BMD is a important need from the start. Not added on later.

That really would be awesome if we built this "25,000 ton" cruiser.

 

[Galrahn]

The ship would have multi-mission capability. I think the difference is it would have more SM-3s than US Navy ships currently carry.

I wonder how many VLS cells it would have. If a 10,000 ton ship has 96-136, one can imagine a 25,000 ton ship having around 300

 

[ELP]

Offtopic- Galrahn, There doesn't seem to be a way to email you or PM you. If possible, could you PM me so that I can send you an article (subscription based) on some USN navy purchase plans? Thanks,

 

[Dr Phobus]

The ship would have multi-mission capability. I think the difference is it would have more SM-3s than US Navy ships currently carry.

I wonder how many VLS cells it would have. If a 10,000 ton ship has 96-136, one can imagine a 25,000 ton ship having around 300

The sheer cost of such a warships, fully armed, could the USN buget , (massive as it is) could it truely deal with such a cost ? Or is this USN pie-in-the-sky ? Like 132 B-2's or fleets of hyersonic, memosheric intercontenal bomber..

 

[Jezza]

Was there talk of a stretched ARLEIGH BURKE CLASS DDG similar to korean warship but stretched to cruiser size.


SOUTH KOREAN SEJONG CLASS DDG
Armament:
- 80 SM-2 Block IIIB LR SAM
- 21 RAM SR SAM
- 32 Hyunmoo IIIC LACM
- 16 K-ASROC VLS
- 16 SSM-700K Hae Sung ASM
- 1 X 30mm Goalkeeper CIWS
- 1 X 127mm MK-45 DP Gun
- 32 K745 LW Torpedoes
Designation: DDG
Length: 544 ft (166m)
Beam: 69 ft (21m)
Draft: 46 ft (14m)
Displace (Full Load): 10,000 tons
Propulsion: 4 GE LM2500, COGAG; two shafts
Speed: 30+ knots
Range: 5,500 nautical miles (20 knots)
Crew: 300-400 (including air group)
Helicopter(s): 2 Super Lynx Mk99
Sensors:
- AN/SPY-1D Radar
- AN/SQQ-89 Sonar Suite

With such a weapons an sensor fit, these vessels represent the most heavily armed and military capable AEGIS vessels afloat, surpassing the Japanese Kongo and Atago class, and even surpassing the vaunted U.S. Navy Ticonderoga class cruisers in terms of shear fire power. In reality, with a full load displacement of 10,000 tons, these vessels themselves could easily be considered AEGIS cruisers themselves.

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

 

[Tasman]

Was there talk of a stretched ARLEIGH BURKE CLASS DDG similar to korean warship but stretched to cruiser size.

Nothing official so far as I know. However, Jeff Head opened a very interesting thread on the SinoDefence Forum discussing a concept for a Ticonderoga replacement based on the Arleigh Burke hull. His proposal is for an affordable and capable cruiser to bridge the gap between retirement of the Ticonderogas and the introduction of a completely new, untried and probably expensive design.

I think the thread is well worth a read.

Cheers

 

[f-22fan12]

The ship would have multi-mission capability. I think the difference is it would have more SM-3s than US Navy ships currently carry.

I wonder how many VLS cells it would have. If a 10,000 ton ship has 96-136, one can imagine a 25,000 ton ship having around 300

That would be really cool. 300 Imagine, wow. They thing I don't really understand is why they want to switch to nuclear power again. Even if the BMD role requires more time on station, you don't need nuclear power. Conventional power will still get a ship that big at least 8,000 miles.

 

[f-22fan12]

The sheer cost of such a warships, fully armed, could the USN buget , (massive as it is) could it truely deal with such a cost ? Or is this USN pie-in-the-sky ? Like 132 B-2's or fleets of hyersonic, memosheric intercontenal bomber..

If you ask me, Yes. Our defense budget grows alot each year. And I think the U.S.N. could support a ship like that. However, at maximum 5 of those superships.

 

[AegisFC]

Was there talk of a stretched ARLEIGH BURKE CLASS DDG similar to korean warship but stretched to cruiser size.

Are you refering to the original plans for a Flight III Burke? If it is that fantasy Burke on that link you listed it is not possible, AGS is too massive (size and weight) to fit on a Burke.

With such a weapons an sensor fit, these vessels represent the most heavily armed and military capable AEGIS vessels afloat, surpassing the Japanese Kongo and Atago class, and even surpassing the vaunted U.S. Navy Ticonderoga class cruisers in terms of shear fire power. In reality, with a full load displacement of 10,000 tons, these vessels themselves could easily be considered AEGIS cruisers themselves.

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

A Tico still has some advantages over the Korean monsters. For one the Tico's have the extra display gear and room for a command staff to efficently work (a Burke is way to close quarters for all these extra people, plus their isn't enough consoles in CIC). Also South Korea and Japan were sold varients of Aegis that is missing some capibilities of US Aegis. The SPY-1 radar is mounted higher in the Tico than in all the Burke variants and has more redundancy by having a foward and aft signal generators for SPY vs the Burkes one. The Tico's also have an extra illuminator over the Burke cousins.

 

[Paveway]

Re: nuke power

I think the biggest interest in nuclear power for the BMD cruiser is transit speeds and station keeping. In any likely emergency these ships could cruise to the crisis area maxed out on speed without the worry of burning up their fuel supply.

Ditto for being able to remain on station forever so long as food stores are replenished.

Think of the concept as something akin to a boomer. Really we had the nuclear triad for weapons delivery (ground, air and submarine) and it would make sense to have a similar BMD triad of ground air and submarine based ABM systems. Air of course being the ABL and possible any ASAT ordinance we re-develop.

What troubles me is 14 CG's isn't a whole lot for the Navy. Would they be going back to 1 CG per strike group? I thought they tried to keep two CG's per carrier and 1 per phib group in the past. 14 certainly doesn't seem like enough.

 

[Galrahn]

Paveway there are currently 22 CGs.

That is, 1 for each carrier strike group (10, the 11th is always in refueling), and 1 for each of the 12 ESGs.

The Navy is reducing the number of ESGs to 9, which means with 11 carriers the Navy only needs 19 CGs (always 1 carrier unavailable). This is why the 313-ship plan only has 19 CG(X) in it.

The magic number is 19 regardless, 14 would be the number if they built 5 of these new CBGNs.

 

[Jezza]

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

 

[Jezza]

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.

 

[kinggodzilla87]

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