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.
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.
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.
Having seen some of the work CEA are doing down here on phased arrays I'm pretty confident that they will be able to get the weight of a SPY/AN-2 type system down below that of SPY-1B.
The RAN are about to install CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT on the ANZAC class frigates although mounting them on a vessel armed with only 32 ESSM seems a bit of a waste to me. I'd suspect that any future USN ship design will be using CEA/Lockheed Martin developed radars.