Skip to comments.Proposal for a US AEGIS Ticonderoga CG replacement
Posted on 06/01/2007 4:02:53 PM PDT by Jeff Head
click here to read article
FYI...a proposal I am making.
I like the name. A fitting tribute to the first American air defenders of the 21st Century.
If you say we need these, I say let’s get at least fifty of them.
Is there some type of support for this proposal that members could provide?
The name should be applied to some major combatant...I would go for the new carrier having the class name being Shanklsville instead of Ford, but in today’s political environment, sadly, that is not going to happen. So, I am trying to get out in front of it on this one.
Talk i tup with your congressmen and senators.
The fear is, that the current CG-21 proposal will be so expensive, that ouyr congress critters will do to it what they are doing to the DD-21 program...limiting it to eight or so vessels. We cannot afford that at all.
A fitting name, and their motto?
20 million hispanic amnestied democrat votes will ensure republicans being yes men to present and future democrat Coup E'tat in 2008..
i can only write to my congress critter though since schumer and the Beast aren't worth the effort.
You’re not going to fit all that stuff in a hull that size.
The radars for the CG(X) are going to be pretty enormous, especially, and the AGS (and ammo, which it burns through VERY rapidly) is pretty big.
And it’s also current practice to build new ships with a lot of empty space and available weight addition for future modification.
That size, size really has nothing to do with cost of modern ships - the cost isn’t the steel, it’s the electronics and ship systems.
For people that are interested there’s extensive discussion of the options for future shipbuilding here:
Naval analyst Robert Work of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis takes a detailed look at the future of the “battleline” (CGs, DDGs, DDG-1000, CG(X), etc.)
And some Congressional Research Service publications:
On a return to nuclear cruisers/destroyers:
On modernizing what we’ve got Aegis-wise:
On DD(X), CG(X), and LCS:
I know people working furiously on the CG(X) and there’s been a realignment in how the whole design process will go forward so the problems of the DDG-1000 and the LCS are avoided. Hopefully in a few months I will be working on it as well, but unfortunately I’m not going to be posting on it here.
I’d bet money that no more than two DDG-1000s are built.
They’re simply too expensive and too gold-plated - stuff just kept getting added (and the Stealth characteristics are ENORMOUSLY expensive) to the design without any control.
I see DDG-1000 as the second coming of the CG Long Beach - which ended up a one-off design that had an initial cost of 80 million (this is in 1960 dollars) and ended up coming in at 320 million, I think.
We’ll learn a lot of the design and it will be a useful test-bed. Cannot be built in any quantity without completely destroying the shipbuilding budget (And of course it now looks that a complete redesign of LCS will be necessary.)
Eh, if it's built in their district Democrats will happily vote for it.
Democrats are trying to force the Navy to move to building two Virginia SSNs a year, before they want to, for example.
Very very cool Jeff !
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 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.
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.
But that is all my own opinion...and that is all this is, a proposal based on those opinions.
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.
Thanks my friend. The thread may generate some interesting and good discussion...it already is. That’s the whole point too...hehehe.
Yes, I really like the name.
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.