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:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33946.pdf
On modernizing what we’ve got Aegis-wise:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22595.pdf
On DD(X), CG(X), and LCS:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf
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.
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.