Modernize and build about a dozen of these babies.
L
Posted on 06/01/2007 4:02:53 PM PDT by Jeff Head
Also there’s no chance the TASM is coming back. Dead as a doornail. Apparently, didn’t actually work well at all.
I see scattered stuff that the Harpoon Block IIIs will be VLS capable, not sure of that.
But the Harpoon Block III is the only US ASCM for the remotely foreseable future. Got to get them out of those box launchers (which are massive radar reflectors) and into the VLS, though.
Modernize and build about a dozen of these babies.
L
They were out there on vessels from the mid 80s into the 90s, so I have to wonder about them not working too well, yet being relied upon for that length of time. I believe, as with so many other decisions, that one of the real reasons for removing them was political.
Either way, having 16 Harpoon on a vessel would be a good thing as well...right now we have a whole lot of vessels with essentially no long range anti-shipping capability.
But having Haproon IIIs would give them that capability, and a very good one at that.
But do not get me wrong, the BBs as modernized in the 1980s were powerful vessels...but we have already come a long ways since then and I would actually support one of these type vessels with its capability and armament up against a modern Iowa on the high seas.
Now, as for direct fire support for Marines on short...particularly within range of those 16 inch guns...hard to beat.
But the AGS, if it gets produced as advertised, will have 155mm precision guided munitions landing on target out to 100 miles...at a very rapid fire rate. That's why I have one of those systems on this vessel.
I'm talking about brand spanking new ones from the keel up.
Toss a half a dozen 16 inch rifles on your design and I'm right there with you buddy. The Navy could carry hundreds of 16 inch rounds compared to a piddling couple of dozen missiles
But I've always had a soft spot for really big guns.
L
This sounds like a great proposal, as it provides much needed warships at a lower than expected cost. But what are the chances that the Navy will seriously consider this idea?
This design would take off from the new S. Korean vessel which has many of the same capabilities, but this would be more modern and stronger and allow us to retain our edge for decades to come.
I'd love to do it...take away some of the wasted social programs and other do-nothing programs that the government does to study this and study that so congress critters can bring home meaningless pork to their districts would easily fund it...but politically, unless we pull our collective head out of our back side (and I wish we would short of getting it blown out by a truly horrible attack)...it's not going to happen.
I can only hope..........learning and listening.
Hope yer well Jeff !
Stay safe !
Like I said you're already in trouble if you're already squeezing stuff on a new vessel. ALL Navy vessels keep gaining weight over time with modifications - you'd think the constant miniaturization of electronics would stop this, but it turns out it doesn't.
There was a reason the Spru-cans seemed so massively under-armed when they were first built - they were the first ships where we really thought about long-term modifications.
So you really want a LOT of room for expansion/modification - keep in mind these vessels will be in service 35-40 years, and will eventually be getting railguns, a bunch of UAVs/UUVs/USVs, and eventually, directed-energy weapons.
Those same vessels carry two phalanx and the associated ammo for them. The RAM launchers would not only be a good trade off, they would, IMHO, be more effective.
Long term you will likely see the demise of the Phalanx in favor of RAM.
This vessel trades two Mk-45 127mm gun mounts and both of their associated ammo with a single 155mm AGS forward, with its ammo...so the trade off there should be a net positive.
The 127 mm rounds weigh about 68 lbs. each and are 88 cm long; the 155mm AGS projectiles weigh 200-225 lbs. each and are 223cm long.
Found an interesting study online that gives the relative weights of the two guns - a complete AGS system and ammo and ammo handling system weighs over 300 tons. A complete 127mm system weighs 52 tons, confirming my suspicion the AGS was massively heavier than the 127mm.
So replacing two 127 mm guns with one AGS is still adding close to 200 tons, and that's not even getting into space and volume issues - one AGS likely occupies much more space than two 127mm guns. Remember the ammo handling arrangements are bigger because they're bigger rounds.
You flat out cannot replace two 127mm guns with one AGS without increasing the size of the ship.
The SPY/AN-2 will be better than the AN/SPY-1B(v) but it is not likely to weigh too terribly more than the system that is already there...in fact, with the improvements in micronization that could be employed, it is likely that it can not weigh any more at all.
I assure you the CG(X) radar will be enormous and heavy and heavier than current Aegis radars - the whole ship is being designed around the radar. You'd think miniaturization would make it smaller, but it needs a lot more power for the ABM mission. A reason why CG(X) will be electric-drive, and a good reason to look at nuclear power for it.
Anyhow, I believe that weapons and sensor fit can fit in a 10,000 ton hull, and that such a hull that is 80+% compatible with the Arleigh Brrke Flight IIA will provide for cost savings in upfront design and over the service life of the vessels. It will also make the construction go faster, particularly initially.
It's really more of an interim "Flight III" Burke then, really, which is what Robert Work has already proposed we build to keep the production lines going the next few years as we take a deep breath, only build 1-2 DDG-1000s, and rethink CG(X).
One thing is for sure...trading off the existing 22 Ticos 10+ years from now for any number that is considerably less new CGs will not be a good thing for the US Navy...and the current track record is not positive in that regard.
Obviously there's no conceivable way at current ship cost levels and current funding levels that the Navy can remotely come close to the proposed 313 ship fleet.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
What is the difference in crew sizes? Is the new one @ 320 up or down?
In essense...it is that, but more displacement, and more capable. If it were to go 12,000 tons and retain the capabilities and be able to make the appropriate headway, that would be fine. I guess I agree with Work for some of the same reasons. This is probably just a materialization of that thought.
I hope to see the nuclear powered cruisers return and believe that ultimately they must return in order to make use of the rail-gun and directed energy weapons that you spoke of. But those are not as close as some people think IMHO...though with the type of power the CVN-21 should be able to produce, they may be possible on that size platorm sooner, particularly the rail-gun.
As time goes on, that capability will migrate down to this level of vessel...but the power production will have to get optimimized and smaller IMHO before it does so.
I need to look further into the AGS...that much weight is almost restrictive IMHO...but using just one and getting the capability to sea in some numbers would also be critical in the interim.
So, perhaps I will retool and make it 12,000 tons to allow for growth and probably upgrade certain aspects of the design and the power plant to compensate accordingly, perhaps make it COGAG.
I highly recommend reading the Robert Work paper which was the first link I posted - it’s a complete analysis of the entire current and future USN DDG/CG situation, and not so overly technical you’d have to be an engineer to understand it.
Guy is a former USMC officer, really brilliant analyst - works for a private think tank, but briefs Congress often. Really has an influence on the Navy, when he releases a report or proposal, people tend to read it and pass around the link.
It would be 40 or more less crew.
For my money, I would build more than four of the so-called Burke IIIs to the crusier standard...maybe 12 over time (just my opininon and probably not going to happen...but I do think it a good thing even if we go over the 88 number over time), and then go on with the rest to reach the destroyer capability of 62 vessels too. But I would phase in the RAM to either supplement or entirely replace the Phalanx.
That would produce a TFBN battle line over time of 27 (15 Ticos and 12 of these) cruisers and 62 destroyers, all having the same basic AEGIS capability as he indicates, but giving us 12 of the new CG Burkes.
bump
Good luck with your proposal, Jeff. When it gets the go-ahead, we all get to crew on shakedown. Wouldn’t that be a kick?
Anyhow, I am going to contact Work and talk to him. He has the background and experience and the position and title...but I think a lot similar to him in this regard and its good to touch base.
For a later read
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.