What-If Ticonderoga-class CG-52 Replacement

[SumGui]

I will note that my last comment was directed to the Task Force AAW vessel that Seasick had proposed, not the Cruiser Dave really started this thread for...

When you look at the CG-47 class, you have the best AAW system of the time and the best ASW of the time, and everything we had for ASuW at the time, on one platform (albeit an overloaded platform...), yet is consistently employed as Task Force AAW, so stating a CG-47 replacement WIF gets sticky - are you building to the CG-47 role as used, or capabilities of its time?

Group ASW and AAW are both best served by positioning the given asset in the proper place in relation to the HVU of the group. That assumes you are actually in a group and have the support from other platforms.

Everything we have now is built as a Task Force Escort (TFE), not as a complete combatant, which is perfectly logical to support task forces, but then your only option is to deploy task forces or not - there is no middle ground.

In fact, even those Task Force Escorts are built with the wrong combination of capabilities. The Flt I/II Burke now becomes primary ASW TFE due to their towed arrays and ability to at least somewhat engage in ASuW on the perimeter due to Harpoon, yet they have no embarked helicopter/drone capability. The Flt IIA Burke has those helos, but no towed array and are almost devoid ASuW, and cannot sufficiently provide Command and Control of the Task Force - but they are the AAW TFE for the time being. They will not cut it to replace CG-47s as Task Force Command and Control once the Ticos wear out.

The 'improved' gun for NGFS is also on the wrong platform - it should be on the Flt I/II as they are the ones likely to try and get close enough to use it.

So when your only option is a task force, every naval function gets too expensive, or gets abandoned until is gets so bad that it requires the later intervention of the expensive task force in a clean-up capacity.

Thus, the combatant capable of independent operations, in spite of being more costly than your task force ASW and AAW ships on a per-hull level, can be actually less expensive on a strategic delivery of effects basis.

And nothing prevents these 'independent capable' assets from operating with a group when they are needed there.

We lack both Frigates for independent patrol in low-threat areas, escort of shipping, and presence missions - and a 'Cruiser' type for Sea Control where a CVBG is not available, is too expensive, or to solve emerging issues before they require and entire CVBG.

It is that Cruiser I believe Dave is looking for here, and is the same concept I was shooting for for the 'Intrepid' WHIF (CG for the late 90's early 00's)- which was essentially putting the Tico's systems on a properly sized and protected hull while upgrading gunfire capability (adding Mk 71 and 76mm). CSGN-138 also had a damn fine looking CGN version of this concept. Today that would look different than it would have in the late 90's early 00's - it could include Mk57 VLS, SPY-3, MT-30 main drivers, higher electrical generation capability ship-wide, etc.

[Seasick]

[quote="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...

Boston and Canberra were partial conversions. They were not meant to be a cross between CA and CG, they were meant to be affordable. By 1960 their early Terrier systems were obsolete and they were deactivated and the ships reverted to being heavy cruisers.

Heavily armed small ships are a disaster waiting to happen. The HMS Sheffield was lost because a smoldering fire that had been put out re-flashed and started burning again. If Sheffield had been larger there would have been more time to put the fire out. Had a similar situation taken place on a Spruance class DD the ship would have been saved.

[SSNJim]

Heavily armed small ships are a disaster waiting to happen. The HMS Sheffield was lost because a smoldering fire that had been put out re-flashed and started burning again. If Sheffield had been larger there would have been more time to put the fire out. Had a similar situation taken place on a Spruance class DD the ship would have been saved.

How does the size of a ship affect time available to fight a fire? Is it a function of damage control party size available, or is it something else? I'm not that familiar with surface ship casualties.

[Seasick]

In general, the smaller the displacement of the ship the less damage it can absorb in combat. The more armaments on a ship the greater the potential for one cooking off from a fire in another portion of the vessel. So put them together a small displacement ship loaded down with lots of weapons you have higher risk of any damage leading to a catastrophic result.

The batch 3 of the Type 42 class DDG was enlarged over batch 1 and 2 to improve sea keeping qualities. The USN in the late 1960s and early 1970s designed the Spruance class DD to make them highly survivable. They were very large compared to the Type 42 DDG. The Exocet hit that set Sheffield's sinking in to motion would have been better absorbed by Spruance.

[SSNJim]

In general, the smaller the displacement of the ship the less damage it can absorb in combat. The more armaments on a ship the greater the potential for one cooking off from a fire in another portion of the vessel. So put them together a small displacement ship loaded down with lots of weapons you have higher risk of any damage leading to a catastrophic result.

The batch 3 of the Type 42 class DDG was enlarged over batch 1 and 2 to improve sea keeping qualities. The USN in the late 1960s and early 1970s designed the Spruance class DD to make them highly survivable. They were very large compared to the Type 42 DDG. The Exocet hit that set Sheffield's sinking in to motion would have been better absorbed by Spruance.

Thanks for the explanation. It does make sense. As far as I knew, increased size was for increased weapons loads.

[Seasick]

Oy!


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....

I don't agree. The US Army and USMC have already phased out the 203mm gun. 155mm was chosen to simplify logistics. The Mk71 was chosen to be 8" because the 8" gun was being retired by the USN at the time, and it was easier to get funding for an 8" gun rather than a 6" gun when the USN already had 5" guns.

AGS has been one of the most trouble free systems in the DDG-1000 program. The AGS is based on the 203mm/55 Mk71. The Mk71 gun also won Senator William Proxmier's golden fleece award as a waste of money back in 1979.

[navydavesof]

AGS has been one of the most trouble free systems in the DDG-1000 program. The AGS is based on the 203mm/55 Mk71. The Mk71 gun also won Senator William Proxmier's golden fleece award as a waste of money back in 1979.

Interesting. Well, we must agree to disagree. I specifically asked one of the FMC Mk71 program engineers, and the AGS is a realization and derivative of the 155mm Vertically Loaded Gun, not Mk71.

[Busto963]

I don't agree. The US Army and USMC have already phased out the 203mm gun. 155mm was chosen to simplify logistics.

The AGS 155mm does not fire the same projectile as the NATO 155mm howitzer round.

There is no commonality between the two systems, and no cost savings or even related research.

[jasonfreeland]

Anyone make Mk41 or Mk57 launchers in 1/350? It would be a start on building one of these proposed designs.

[navydavesof]

Anyone make Mk41 or Mk57 launchers in 1/350? It would be a start on building one of these proposed designs.

A good friend of mine casts the Mk41, Mk71 MCLWG, and all of my parts in resin, and I make the Mk57 with plastic.

[navydavesof]

This kind of thing will lead to a 1/350 model BMD version of the LPD-17 with Mk41 and Mk57 launchers being directed by a full scale AMDR. I have to kits I intend to modify at some point; one as the BMD version and the other as the LSD variant in charge of a regional influence force that will consist of the LSD, 1 - 2 LCS-1 Flight II, and 6 PCG-14s. Oh, my!

[SumGui]

This kind of thing will lead to a 1/350 model BMD version of the LPD-17 with Mk41 and Mk57 launchers being directed by a full scale AMDR. I have to kits I intend to modify at some point; one as the BMD version and the other as the LSD variant in charge of a regional influence force that will consist of the LSD, 1 - 2 LCS-1 Flight II, and 6 PCG-14s. Oh, my!

I like it. What are you going to use for the PCGs?

The new USNS Lewis B Puller would make a fine area base for operations as well, but the group you list should be more mobile (I assume the LSD is in a mothership/tender capacity)

I continue to work on the Light Carrier and the 90-00's CG, but other commitments make progress slow (deck for the CG is the hardest part for me right now). The US Takanami based FFG keeps calling my name too - not to mention the AEGIS refit of the Virginia class.... WAY too many things, I'll need to concentrate on one (yeah, right...). Maybe local black Friday sales will help with parts...

[jasonfreeland]

Anyone make Mk41 or Mk57 launchers in 1/350? It would be a start on building one of these proposed designs.

A good friend of mine casts the Mk41, Mk71 MCLWG, and all of my parts in resin, and I make the Mk57 with plastic.

Does he have a store front?

[navydavesof]

Does he have a store front?

No, I paid for these to be custom made.

[jasonfreeland]

I've noticed on the Ford and Zumwalt classes, that they only have three radar panels. Would a new cruiser class need three or four like the Burke's? For that matter, do we even know if the Flight III Burke's have four panels?

[navydavesof]

I've noticed on the Ford and Zumwalt classes, that they only have three radar panels. Would a new cruiser class need three or four like the Burke's? For that matter, do we even know if the Flight III Burke's have four panels?

The Ford and Zumwalts did it...lierally to save money. Neither one is an air defense ship, so they don't need that level of radar coverage.

The Flight III will have 4 panels. I imagine an AAW CG would have 4 panels as well.

[jasonfreeland]

I came across this image showing a four panel AMDR with a three panel X band. It should give an idea of what they are doing.



I'm doing a rough model out of foam to figure out the superstructure and deck placement of mine, looks like I'm going with 18 foot panels.

[jasonfreeland]

I decided to rough out my cruiser design using foam (messier than I was expecting) and here is what I came up with. Length 180m, beam 25m, draft who the hell knows? Starting at the bow, which is not cut out yet, an AGS in the place of the Mk-45 that's there now. Next we have a pair of 64 cell Mk-41 launchers and the superstructure has 18 foot AMDR panels. The X band panels and the enclosed mast are not yet in place. Further aft are the Mk 141 launchers and I'm thinking of either one or two 32 cell Mk 56 launchers in between as I want to keep the strike length cells open for full size missiles. Next the hanger module with three 64 cell Mk-41 modules. I haven't put them on yet, but I'm thinking line the outside of the helo deck with Mk-57 for more cells and future larger missiles. For point defense I'm thinking two RIM-116 launchers, two Phalanx 1Bs and two Strales 76mm. I know the last is a long shot, but it's my design and I want them .






Oh a source of 1/350 VLS and an AGS would be great if anyone knows of any.

[Seasick]

I wouldn't bother with a 76mm or, RAM, or Phalanx for point defense. The USN will be using lasers for point defense fairly soon. A burst of concentrated x-rays from a laser will at less than a few kilometers will fry even the most hardened electronics and cook off the warhead. Plenty of quad pack Evolved Sea Sparrows, four per launher. Two or four 30mm or 35mm bushmasters to turn light aircraft or speed boats in to swiss cheese. (If the laser is avaiable the speed boats will irridated and their crews literally cooked. ).

[jasonfreeland]

I wouldn't bother with a 76mm or, RAM, or Phalanx for point defense. The USN will be using lasers for point defense fairly soon. A burst of concentrated x-rays from a laser will at less than a few kilometers will fry even the most hardened electronics and cook off the warhead. Plenty of quad pack Evolved Sea Sparrows, four per launher. Two or four 30mm or 35mm bushmasters to turn light aircraft or speed boats in to swiss cheese. (If the laser is avaiable the speed boats will irridated and their crews literally cooked. ).

Lasers don't generate X-Rays, only coherent light. They had a program to use nukes to generate directed X-Rays during the SDI days, but it never got past the drawing board. As to the quad packing, I'm aware of it I just want to save the tubes for Tomahawks. I have the room, so why not the Mk-56?