Proposal for a US AEGIS Ticonderoga CG replacement

AEGIS VESSELS OF THE WORLD ^ | June 1, 2007 | Jeff Head

[Jeff Head]

Proposal for an affordable, scalable, and capable replacement of Ticonderoga AEGIS cruisers

PROPOSED AEGIS REPLACEMENT CRUISER, USS SHANKSVILLE

By the late 20-teens, the vaunted Ticonderoga cruisers of the United States Navy will begin to apporach the end of their service life. DDX and CGX programs and their DD21, DD1000, and CG21 alternatives are all languishing on cost basis.

CURRENT AEGIS CRUISERS (Oldest is over 20 years old)

With the successful introduction of the KDX-III, Sejong class AEGIS DDGs for the Republic of Korean Navy (ROKN), which the United States worked closely with, it is clear that a cruiser size variant of the Arliegh Burke class of DDGs can be built, and built affordably.

ROKN Sejong the Great AEGIS vessel

This propsal is for a U.S. Navy cruiser sized AEGIS vessel to replace the Ticonderoga class that incorporates many of the desired future technologies proposed for the CGX and CG21, without the burdensom costs of an entirely new hull for those systems.

The proposed 10,000 ton vessel would incorporate all of the following:

• 70-80+% commonality with Arliegh Burke Flight II Destroyers.
• New AEGIS SPY/AM-2 HPDR electronics and radar.
• The new 155mm Advanced Gun System (AGS), optimized for naval surface warfare and direct fire support.
• Use of the SM-6 missile as the principle long range air defense missile.
• Use of the SM-3 missile for ballistic missile defense.
• Use of Evolved Sea-Sparrow Missiles (EESM) for mid to short range air defense.
• Use of two RAM systems for close-in air defense (CIWS).
• Installation of heavy close range defense (20mm and 50-cal) for port or close-in littoral defense.
• Reintroduction of the Tomahawk Anti-shipping missile (TASM) in an advanced capability form.
• Use of the Tomahawk Tactical Missiles in the Land Attack Role.
• Heavy use of Mk-50 ADCAP (littoral enhanced) via VLA & triple launcher to combat new gen SS and SSNs.
• Use of manpower reduction technologies and policies learned from CVN-77 and CVN-78 programs.

  Such systems and armament as is proposed for this vessel would create the most modern, most heavily armed, and most capable escort vessels on earth, and would allow these vessels to fulfill their own 35-40 year service life capabilities while retaining that world-wide position as technology and weapon system advances are incorporated into the design, which would be built with that in mind.

  The initial vessles in class, the USS Shanksville, is a worthy suggestion for this class name given that locations recognition as the first victory in the global war on terror, and in keeping with naming many of the modern CG class after famous battle names.

  
  
  

[Strategerist]

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.

[Lurker]

Here's my proposal:

Modernize and build about a dozen of these babies.

L

[Jeff Head]

Well, that's too bad. I'd like to see the TASM made to work and believe that we have the technical skills to do so. If it can't be done, that's too bad because we give up a lot of range and throw weight.

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.

[Jeff Head]

Not going to happen. Too labor intensive, and too difficult to build the new tech into those old hulls.

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.

[Lurker]

too difficult to build the new tech into those old hulls.

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

[Stonewall Jackson]

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?

[Jeff Head]

Well, the way the DD-21 and LCS are going...it is clear to me that the iron is hot and ready to strike for new thinking. I personally think they need to get a new perspective.

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.

[Jeff Head]

Whew! I am with you bro...but building a new 45,000-50,000 ton modern vessels with the new tech and new 16 inch guns would make the cost of what I am proposing with this 10,000 ton vessel pale in comparison.

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.

[Squantos]

I can only hope..........learning and listening.

Hope yer well Jeff !

Stay safe !

[Strategerist]

Sorry, I disagree, that load out could fit that on the vessel.

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.

Spruance AGS conversion study

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.

[LonePalm]

These might be both more effective and cost effective.

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)

[B4Ranch]

What is the difference in crew sizes? Is the new one @ 320 up or down?

[Jeff Head]

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).

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.

[Strategerist]

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.

[Jeff Head]

It would be 40 or more less crew.

[Jeff Head]

I have now quickly read through his report. He is very, very good IMHO...and it was refreshing to read his thoughts. I will go into it in much more detail in the days to come. Thanks. The Spruance AGS upgrade study was a good one too.

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.

[Non-Sequitur]

bump

[Eastbound]

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?

[Jeff Head]

Going with 12,000 tons and two AGS, also going to VL Harpoon III. Built on a modified (lengthened) Burke design, similar to the SKOR Sejong the Great (KDX-III) enhanced Burke hull...but this one will be a lot more capable.

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.

[NY Attitude]

For a later read