What-If Ticonderoga-class CG-52 Replacement

[navydavesof]

Other than speed of travel, how would a CG or DDG be better than a San Antonio?

I am all in favor of economical weapons systems, but a CG replacement should be a high end warship that is designed for the task, not a warmed over LPD design that was was never particularly good as an LPD.

I understand your point. What I don't understand is why the super heavy AAW/BMD role (largest AMDR arrays) should go on a CG hull.

Playing evil' advocate here:
If you can push the "regional AAW/BMD" role onto a huge and highly survivable platform as an LPD that can be forwardly deployed and does not need the speed to "keep up" with the rest of a CSG, stationed, why not? The LPD would have far more facilities to be regional flag and C4I hub over a CG or DDG.

Concerning weapons, the San Antonio-class platform offers an enormous capacity for Mk41 VLS and Mk57, both loaded in the periphery of the flight deck. Array separation could be easily achieved.

Then, if we have to move to AMDR on other warships, they can be the smaller arrays that can be handled and managed by conventional "warships" such as the "original" 1990s CG(X). The CGBL was originally a Bunker Hill-type CG built to DDG-51 survivability and stealth standards. A vessel of that length, beam, and draft could likely embark a reasonanably large version of the AMDR to fill a "group" AMDR capability. Perhaps even the blistered Spruance-class hull could do that with a more limited and/or mixed number of missiles and both launcher types.

However, it seems that regardless a much larger and much more stable hull would be required to accommodate the larger or largest AMDR arrays.

Why not have a combatant-sized AMDR for larger combatants (everything indicates the standard 505' DDG-51 Flight III hull is unable to support the radar and anything else) and a much larger ship such as a modified San Antonio class to do the heavy AMDR lifting?

[jasonfreeland]

Any info on the blistered Spruance hull? It's probably in that giant Spruance refit thread, but I'm time limited for the near future. Also did anyone take a look at that link that has the Zumwalt hull info I posted? I would love to know what kind of Mk41 cells could go in the space the AGS is taking. I still wonder about panel size available on that deck house, but using a modern hull and propulsion/generator system has its benefits.

Oh and I agree on the San Antonio for the large AMDR panels with plenty of Mk57 cells for a larger SM-3. Take the work done on the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and apply it to the 24" size available. Should improve things considerably. The reactors that will start to be pulled from the Nimitz hulls, I'm assuming they can be refueled? If they can be split up (each is a dual reactor if I remember correctly) could they be used for the LPD hulls? We just don't know enough about the Ford's reactors for me to even consider them.

[Busto963]

Playing evil' advocate here:
If you can push the "regional AAW/BMD" role onto a huge and highly survivable platform as an LPD that can be forwardly deployed and does not need the speed to "keep up" with the rest of a CSG, stationed, why not? The LPD would have far more facilities to be regional flag and C4I hub over a CG or DDG.

Playing counter-devil's advocate [the prosecution?] the issue is that the LPD HME was never particularly stable, in fact the LCS debacle has largely spared the LPD-17 program from the scrutiny it deserves. And the American taxpayer paid a high price for failed diesels, main reduction gears, and crap construction. The LPD hull was never intended to power large radars and will need a near 100% revision of its engineering plant: that alone is justification for new design.

I would go further and state that the whole BMD mission is bs and should be performed by shore installations, or sea based semi-submersible radar platforms like SBX-1.

[navydavesof]

Any info on the blistered Spruance hull?

Yes, the picture is in the Ticonderoga thread. It's pulled from a Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet. It is literally a blister running down the aft 2/3 of the ship and elevates the aft gun deck up by 1 deck.

Also did anyone take a look at that link that has the Zumwalt hull info I posted? I would love to know what kind of Mk41 cells could go in the space the AGS is taking.

The Zumwalt design is very most likely dead. The ONLY reason why the USN has puchased ANY is because it was contractually obligated to purchase 2 units, becauase Lockheed paid for most of the R&D instead of the Navy paying for it. So, Lockheed needs its money back. So, while in 2008 the Navy tried to FULLY CANCEL the project with ZERO ships built, they were reminded that they had to pay for 2 ships if they got them or not. So, the Navy went to Congress for funding for 2 ships, and Congress said, "Navy...you're so silly. If you are going to have any ships, you need 3 so you can have 1 ship at sea at all times. Here is money for 3 ships. Go and make them."

So, the Navy did NOT want the DDG-1000s. They are too expensive. The only reason why the are making ANY is because the USN HAS to.

In reality, there is probably no likelihood of putting Mk41 on a DDG-1000 platform. However, you can try with your own WIF

Oh and I agree on the San Antonio for the large AMDR panels with plenty of Mk57 cells for a larger SM-3.

I don't know of any SM-3 that won't fit in a Mk41 canister. Do you have a source?

Take the work done on the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and apply it to the 24" size available. Should improve things considerably. The reactors that will start to be pulled from the Nimitz hulls, I'm assuming they can be refueled? If they can be split up (each is a dual reactor if I remember correctly) could they be used for the LPD hulls?

Unfortunately, we have come to see that nuclear power is vastly more expensive than conventional power. We probably won't ever see anything other than CVNs and SSN/SSBNs again.

[jasonfreeland]

I don't know of any SM-3 that won't fit in a Mk41 canister. Do you have a source?

I was talking about making a larger version that could fill out a Mk57 canister like the flight IIA SM-3 can do with the Mk41. They cancelled the Kinetic Energy Interceptor that was much larger than an SM-3.

[navydavesof]

I don't know of any SM-3 that won't fit in a Mk41 canister. Do you have a source?

I was talking about making a larger version that could fill out a Mk57 canister like the flight IIA SM-3 can do with the Mk41. They cancelled the Kinetic Energy Interceptor that was much larger than an SM-3.

Ah, interesting! The SM-6 will be taking a huge role in BMD now. I am not sure what a larger kill vehicle would get you. The football sized one already more than does the job. However, something you could get is longer range with a bigger missile for sure! It does make you wonder!

With this exercise, it seems like 64-96 Mk41 and 24-32 Mk57 cells sounds like it would fulfill the entire need. I am leaning toward 2 48-cell Mk41 clusters and 24 Mk57 VLS in 2 strips of 12, one on either side of the helo pad.

VLS and superstructure shot of the KDH-IIIs illustrates a 48-cell VLS with 21-cell RAM forward quite well.

Here is the excerpt talking about the blisters:

• "Modernization: A proposed update for this class includes the provision of five-foot (1.5-m) blisters on either side along about three fifths of the ship length; this would provide additional side protection from anti-ship missiles. The sheer line of the weather deck would be raised. The blisters would increase displacement and reduce maximum speed by less than one knot."

[jasonfreeland]

I've thought the KDH-III would make a great Flight III Burke, but the listed crew size seems awfully large. Yes on the increased range with a 24 inch SM-3. The kill vehicle wont change in size until block IIA, the 21 inch diameter block II is still the original size. I've wondered about using the MGM-134 Midgetman as the basis for a large ship born ABM. It would take something like the San Antonio class to carry it, but it sure would have range and velocity to hit ICBMs. Thanks for the blister link, it makes me wonder if you could slap on Mk57s instead. Weight might be an issue though.

[navydavesof]

Thanks for the blister link, it makes me wonder if you could slap on Mk57s instead. Weight might be an issue though.

thats not how the launchers work. The launchers don't have direct contact with the water. Instead, they are inside the hull's main structure along the periphery of the ship. They aren't "bolt on" systems, instead they are reply deeply integrated into the hull.

However, the blister produces voids that immediately made me consider inserting the Mk57 into them. After considering it quite a bit, I came to the conclusion that due to angle of the hull, the only portion of the ship with the available hull depth along the periphery of the ship to accept Mk57 launchers would be on either side of the Sprucan/Tico helo landing pad/flight deck. Even there, only 3-4 modules can be accommodated on either side of the flight deck leading to 12-16 tubes per side. I am pretty confident that's how a model I would produce would represent it.

That would give the ship:
Weapons:

2x 76mmSR positioned fwd/aft center-lined
96x Mk41 Mod7 VLS split 48-cells fwd/48-cells aft
24x Mk57 VLS split 12-cells port/stbd
4x SeaRAM/Millennium Gun positions 2 port/2 stbd
2x 21-cell RAM launchers center lined fwd/aft against the superstructure

Sensors:
Medium AMDR radar split between forward and aft superstructures being controlled by Aegis Baseline 11
SPQ-9B
TRS-3D
SLQ-32/NULKA/Chaff
Passive SIGINT collection
Self-defense sonar

Hangar 1 HH-60/3 Fire Scout and/or 12 Shadow UAV

2x 11 meter and 1x 7 meter RHIBs

Stern miniature LCS-1 style well deck for 11 meter RHIBs

NIXIE/Mk32 SVTT for Anti-torpedo/Mk46/54 torpedoes (internal)

Roughly this is what I would do for an "AAW CG Replacement" as opposed to a mUlti-rolled "CG-47 Replacement".

[jasonfreeland]

Damn, can it carry all that or do we need to re-class it as an SSG?

[navydavesof]

Damn, can it carry all that or do we need to re-class it as an SSG?

You would be surprise that this is a moderate load as to what a Tico carries lol. Based on a fattened Spruance/Tico hull, this is a light albeit unconventional weapons load-out.

[Busto963]

Thanks for the blister link, it makes me wonder if you could slap on Mk57s instead. Weight might be an issue though.

thats not how the launchers work. The launchers don't have direct contact with the water. Instead, they are inside the hull's main structure along the periphery of the ship. They aren't "bolt on" systems, instead they are reply deeply integrated into the hull.

I was under the impression that the Mk57 modules did not have to be mounted on the periphery of the ship - am I wrong?

I think that the whole peripheral launch idea is a bad Idea, any hit on DDG1000 is all but guaranteed to hit at least one module and start a really nasty fire (possibly ship destroying). While grouping the VLS modules makes hits more "all or nothing" affair.

No ship has ever been expected to survive an explosion in a major caliber magazine.

The only way I see a peripheral launch system not being a threat is if the ship has an internal armor belt in between the VLS and the interior of the hull.

I freely admit to the possibility of being wrong on this.

[Timmy C]

It was stated in a recent article that the Mk 57s consist of armoured cells, providing the ship with a modicum of armour even if the munition was hit - presumably the explosion would be forced outwards through the breach rather than into the hull.

[navydavesof]

I was under the impression that the Mk57 modules did not have to be mounted on the periphery of the ship - am I wrong?

You're right! They can be put anywhere.

I have a future design I am looking forward to making where the Mk57 is centerlined in a group of 32-cells (the same foot print as a 64-cell Mk41 VLS). I just have them split down the middle so there can be a broadway down the middle so 8" rounds can be sent back and forth between the forward and aft gun magazines.

[jasonfreeland]

If I'm not mistaken, PVLS was done to make room for the AGS magazines.

[navydavesof]

If I'm not mistaken, PVLS was done to make room for the AGS magazines.

After a pretty extensive conversation with a project engineer involved with the Land Attack portion of the DDG-1000 (both AGS and PVLS) everything about DDG-1000 was treated as a free-be to simply make and demonstrate new technology with the promise that the Navy would inevitably pay them back with purchases of ships. There were so few requirements set forth by the Navy that the companies had to fill in all the holes.

Originally the companies wanted to use Mk41 VLS, but the Navy wanted something "new" to "push the technology envelope", stretching out the project instead of doing what they were supposed to do: create a replacement for the Spruance-class DDs and a gun system that when added together could provide a gunnery capability superior to the Spruance's 5" battery but less than that of a battleship. I apologize for the super run-on-sentence!

[navydavesof]

As I have said before in this thread, my view on what this type of ship would be is: a cruiser replacement. This really stretches back to the earlier views melded with the modern views of what a "cruiser" should do push together. Perhaps this actually means, what should a "heavy cruiser" do? For instance the heavy cruisers Boston and Canberra, because they were the strike between land attack cruisers and AAW cruisers; aka the strike between CAs and CGs.
A strictly AAW cruiser, as carr has pointed out, could be literally a Perry-class FFG hull loaded with missiles and very capable radar to a Spruance-class hull with radar and a TON of missiles (160 Mk41 tubes). That, of course is a very interesting and enticing model to build...

...just imagine, a Tico-length ship with a Burke beam with (from front to back) a 32-cell VLS, a 64-cell VLS, the super structure with radar, comms, radar, and 2-4 sets of CIWS, then at the aft end of the ship, a 64-cell VLS, and a 32-cell VLS. For close-in defense (anti-boat) there would be 4 76mm SR guns (shoulder and hip mounts) or 4 Millennium Guns in shoulder and hip mounts to engage small craft. That would be a large AAW specific ship with reliable ASuW capabilities (Mk-71 gun).

The other would be the 600' ship with the above plus a helo hangar housing 2-4 helos of various kinds.

Once done with the LCS-1 Flight II, I will dig into this.

[Seasick]

Misc notes:

Primary Missions:
Carrier Group Flagship
Ballistic Missile Defense
Area Air Defense
Secondary:
Task Force ASuW
Task Force ASW

AN/SPY-3 and AN/SPY-4
AN/SPQ-9B would be nice.
Mk57 VLS

Flight deck 2 MH-60R/S.

Land attack and fire support missions need to be left to other ships.
One 127mm/62 Mk45 mod 4 gun for anti surface ship defense.
4 0.50" M2 gun positions
2 Mk 46 Mod 2 Gun Weapon System (GWS) (30mm Bushmaster II)

This ship is tasked with the defense of the CVN or LHA/LHD from any form of attack.
Missile Loadout
RIM-66M Standard missile 2 MR Block IIIA/IIIB
RIM-161A Standard missile 3
RIM-162A Evolved Sea Sparrow
RIM-174A Standard Extended Range Active Missile.
RUM-139B VL-ASROC
Laser
One High power air defense laser
One Low power "missile blinder laser"

[carr]

..

[SumGui]

Just curious, why would you want to risk a multi-billion dollar ship on ASW? Playing tag with a submarine seems a highly risky use of a very expensive vessel. We have, or should have, destroyers and frigates/corvettes for ASW. Adding ASW capabilities is just going to drive up the cost of an already expensive ship.

Conceptually, you recognize the need to limit missions by, quite rightly, ruling out land attack and fire support. Why not extend that limitation to ASW?

Genuinely curious about your rationale?

I didn't read it that way.

Seasick said "Task Force ASW" - to me that means contribute to the task force overall ASW fight - does not indicate to me this will be the primary ASW picket vessel for the force.

The other extreme, a combat vessel with no ASW capability, is an gross liability and cannot be acceptable either for independent or group operations.

The vessel will at least need to be able to assist in the prosecution of inner layer targets and defend itself from close attack - a hull mounted sonar for active search and torpedo warning, in addition to SVTT for the shoot and scoot at minimum.

Also, I would consider removing BMD as a 'Primary' mission, or perhaps altering the mission to 'Task Force BMD' for some of the same reasons. A BMD ship might need to be tasked to a position which is not optimal for group AAW, just as ASW tasking might move the vessel away from that primary AAW position.

[navydavesof]

Oy!

It's clear to me that if we make a pure AAW platform, we need to have a Perry-class ship that has a reduced SPY/Aegis system on board. Rocking 96 Mk41 VLS tubes on such a small platform seems like it would be good to go.

With a CG Replacement being a "Cruiser" there would be a lot of capabilities that it should embark. It would be an AAW, Naval Gunfire (ASuW/NSFS/NGFS), and Command Platform. I also see the value in a self defense ASW platform.

So, perhaps, to think about even a smaller AAW platform, what do you think about taking a Gearing-class ship and loading 48-64 Mk41 VLS and 2x 5"/62caliber or 2x 155mm guns onboard with a helo hangar to accommodate 1 SH-60? The radar would be the most current AEGIS put into a single platform, and the external radar would be a SPQ-9B.

By the way, even though the Navy has been funding a ground-up development of a 155mm gun system (AGS), the Mk45 could have been easily "plused up" to a 155mm, and the Mk71 was ALREADY scaled down to a 155mm in 1992.

AGS is a PERFECT example of Waste, Fraud, and Abuse....