Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

[sferrin]

The Zumwalt is the obvious choice. The other decision is if they do a "Flight II" variant of the cruiser that is nuclear powered. There will be a need for a lot of juice with DEWs, large radars, and railguns, and the demand will only increase over time. Also, if you do a cruiser variant that helps out the 3 DDGs in the gun department as there would be more deployed guns making the ammo issue go away. I'd consider taking the rear gun out though and replacing it with Northrop Grummans Modular Launch System VLS.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SurfaceShipEjectLaunch/Documents/modular-launch-system.pdf

 

[Moose]

There's basically two options for the hull. Burke or Zumwalt. Zumwalt seems less likely until one considers it already has the excess power capacity, new gen propulsion already integrated with the hull. IF the cost issues with zumwalt stemmed from the radars, combat systems, stealth and so on - and not from the hull and propulsion itself, then it seems plausible zumwalt could be the best starting point.

Now, if 15 thousand tons is too much for USN future cruiser, then it's got to be Burke's hull. That'd basically mean flight IV, a ship with major changes, and sort-of an all-out burke fleet for the next 50 years for USN.

While researching Burke upgrades over the years the Navy has discovered that the utility and cost benefit of re-using a hull lie in reusing as much of it's existing design as possible. If you start making changes which are too large, the money and time needed to make it work will start to rival a "clean sheet" design. This is part of the reason we've never seen anything like a major hull extension added, and why the Flight III preserves as much Flight IIA as possible in it's design. The DDG-51 hull was not designed with an Integrated Power System in mind, and has just about reached the point where nothing more can be "packed in" without making major and costly changes. There has been talk, off and on since the 80s, of using the basic hullform of a Burke as the starting point for an otherwise new Cruiser, but that had less to do with saving money than from starting with known and desirable characteristics. This is all my long-winded way of saying: the Cruiser Replacement described by Richardson cannot be a "Flight IV" Burke, so either we'll build a Flight IV which won't meet those requirements or we'll meet those requirements with something else.

 

[DrRansom]

Based upon the limitations of the Flight III Burke, a new cruise has to either be a Zumwalt or a LPD-17. Going with a Burke hull would be an expensive side-grade.

Doesn't the Zumwalt have something like 10x the available power of a Burke?

 

[NeilChapman]

The Zumwalt is the obvious choice. The other decision is if they do a "Flight II" variant of the cruiser that is nuclear powered. There will be a need for a lot of juice with DEWs, large radars, and railguns, and the demand will only increase over time. Also, if you do a cruiser variant that helps out the 3 DDGs in the gun department as there would be more deployed guns making the ammo issue go away. I'd consider taking the rear gun out though and replacing it with Northrop Grummans Modular Launch System VLS.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SurfaceShipEjectLaunch/Documents/modular-launch-system.pdf

Would the Columbia-class reactor be feasible for this cruiser? Don't know if it would have the same 40yr life span on a cruiser.

 

[marauder2048]

The Zumwalt is the obvious choice. The other decision is if they do a "Flight II" variant of the cruiser that is nuclear powered. There will be a need for a lot of juice with DEWs, large radars, and railguns, and the demand will only increase over time. Also, if you do a cruiser variant that helps out the 3 DDGs in the gun department as there would be more deployed guns making the ammo issue go away. I'd consider taking the rear gun out though and replacing it with Northrop Grummans Modular Launch System VLS.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SurfaceShipEjectLaunch/Documents/modular-launch-system.pdf

Would the Columbia-class reactor be feasible for this cruiser? Don't know if it would have the same 40yr life span on a cruiser.

The speculation I've seen for S1B is that it has higher MWt than Ohio but that's still probably (given typical conversion) no more than 70 MWe.
A1B is in the 150 MWe range.
HHI's BMD ship with 3x30 foot array has 84 MWe installed.

http://www.huntingtoningalls.com/ballistic-missile-defense-ship/3-fixed-arrays-30/

So the argument goes that the Navy would likely be required to develop an intermediate reactor.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.themaven.net/warriormaven/sea/navy-calls-for-urgently-fast-tracked-new-weapons-counter-russia-china-FJEJQ2LflEi0Y_zrK4ej6g/

Vice Chief of Naval Operations calls for "urgently" fast-tracked weapons to counter Russia & China

The Vice Chief of Naval Operations told the force there needs to be an intense and concentrated effort to speed up weapons and technology acquisition for the specific purpose of countering massive military gains by both Russia and China.

“We need to scale up in a wildly unpredictable environment, as we see the reemergence of true existential threats. We face a new era of great power competition,” Vice Adm. Bill Moran, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, told an audience at the annual Navy League Sea Air Space Symposium.

 

[NeilChapman]

https://www.themaven.net/warriormaven/sea/navy-calls-for-urgently-fast-tracked-new-weapons-counter-russia-china-FJEJQ2LflEi0Y_zrK4ej6g/

Vice Chief of Naval Operations calls for "urgently" fast-tracked weapons to counter Russia & China

The Vice Chief of Naval Operations told the force there needs to be an intense and concentrated effort to speed up weapons and technology acquisition for the specific purpose of countering massive military gains by both Russia and China.

“We need to scale up in a wildly unpredictable environment, as we see the reemergence of true existential threats. We face a new era of great power competition,” Vice Adm. Bill Moran, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, told an audience at the annual Navy League Sea Air Space Symposium.

+1

Don't ever want to be in a fair fight.

 

[NeilChapman]

https://www.themaven.net/warriormaven/sea/navy-calls-for-urgently-fast-tracked-new-weapons-counter-russia-china-FJEJQ2LflEi0Y_zrK4ej6g/

Vice Chief of Naval Operations calls for "urgently" fast-tracked weapons to counter Russia & China

The Vice Chief of Naval Operations told the force there needs to be an intense and concentrated effort to speed up weapons and technology acquisition for the specific purpose of countering massive military gains by both Russia and China.

“We need to scale up in a wildly unpredictable environment, as we see the reemergence of true existential threats. We face a new era of great power competition,” Vice Adm. Bill Moran, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, told an audience at the annual Navy League Sea Air Space Symposium.

+1

Don't ever want to be in a fair fight.

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2018/04/17/report-congress-u-s-navy-next-generation-frigate-ffgx-program

The Navy in 2017 initiated a new program, called the FFG(X) program, to build a class of 20
guided-missile frigates (FFGs). The Navy wants to procure the first FFG(X) in FY2020, the
second in FY2021, and the remaining 18 at a rate of two per year in FY2022-FY2030. The
Navy’s proposed FY2019 budget requests $134.8 million in research and development funding
for the program.

Although the Navy has not yet determined the design of the FFG(X), given the capabilities that
the Navy’s wants the FFG(X) to have, the ship will likely be larger in terms of displacement,
more heavily armed, and more expensive to procure than the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships
(LCSs). The Navy envisages developing no new technologies or systems for the FFG(X)—the
ship is to use systems and technologies that already exist or are already being developed for use
in other programs.

The Navy’s desire to procure the first FFG(X) in FY2020 does not allow enough time to develop
a completely new design (i.e., a clean-sheet design) for the FFG(X). Consequently, the Navy

 

[NeilChapman]

https://news.usni.org/2018/04/17/report-congress-u-s-navy-next-generation-frigate-ffgx-program

The Navy in 2017 initiated a new program, called the FFG(X) program, to build a class of 20
guided-missile frigates (FFGs). The Navy wants to procure the first FFG(X) in FY2020, the
second in FY2021, and the remaining 18 at a rate of two per year in FY2022-FY2030. The
Navy’s proposed FY2019 budget requests $134.8 million in research and development funding
for the program.

Although the Navy has not yet determined the design of the FFG(X), given the capabilities that
the Navy’s wants the FFG(X) to have, the ship will likely be larger in terms of displacement,
more heavily armed, and more expensive to procure than the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships
(LCSs). The Navy envisages developing no new technologies or systems for the FFG(X)—the
ship is to use systems and technologies that already exist or are already being developed for use
in other programs.

The Navy’s desire to procure the first FFG(X) in FY2020 does not allow enough time to develop
a completely new design (i.e., a clean-sheet design) for the FFG(X). Consequently, the Navy

Hope there's room for TERN!

 

[Moose]

TERN might get the axe, sadly. Someone was recently talking about combining it with another program to keep it from going away entirely.

 

[NeilChapman]

TERN might get the axe, sadly. Someone was recently talking about combining it with another program to keep it from going away entirely.

Before they do the ground and at-sea fight tests?

 

[Mark S.]

Would there be anything to be gained by using the hull design of the Virginia class CGN's with conventional power? They seem to have a displacement of 1,000 tons more than the current cruisers.

 

[TomS]

Would there be anything to be gained by using the hull design of the Virginia class CGN's with conventional power? They seem to have a displacement of 1,000 tons more than the current cruisers.

A 1,000-ton gain on the current cruisers is nowhere close to meeting the power generation and habitability needs of a future-proofed next-generation cruiser. Think more like 16,000 tons displacement, at a rough estimate. This is why DDG-1000 and LPD-17 are the only realistic extant hullforms for the job.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Personally I think we'd do better with a new hull design versus one "off the shelf". Starting with the CGN-38 hull design as a basis and expanding upon it doesn't seem like the worst choice in the world.

 

[sferrin]

Personally I think we'd do better with a new hull design versus one "off the shelf". Starting with the CGN-38 hull design as a basis and expanding upon it doesn't seem like the worst choice in the world.

You say new is better than "off the shelf" and then reach back 40 years for you design? Really?

 

[Colonial-Marine]

To reiterate I don't mean anything more than the starting with that hull shape and dimensions as a basis. I suppose it shouldn't really be necessary but it's an idea of what to aim for.

 

[Moose]

TERN might get the axe, sadly. Someone was recently talking about combining it with another program to keep it from going away entirely.

Before they do the ground and at-sea fight tests?

No, I think the big Omnibus boost probably gets it through to test flights. Whether it lives to be purchased in quantity seems to be less certain.

 

[Moose]

To reiterate I don't mean anything more than the starting with that hull shape and dimensions as a basis. I suppose it shouldn't really be necessary but it's an idea of what to aim for.

I appreciate what you're saying. However I don't believe that's the sort of baseline the Navy has in mind. Aside from the recent LPD-based concepts, all Navy cruiser designs built and unbuilt for the last few decades are stretched or scaled-up Destroyers. Getting the Navy back into a CGN/strike cruiser head space where they're pursuing a Cruiser that is dramatically distinct from the DDGs is not in the cards, it would seem.

 

[marauder2048]

80+ MWe seems to be the recurring theme in the Navy's latest presentations as well.
With assumptions about combat system requirements (> 30 MWe), the top speed
requirements and motive power available would, I suppose, drive a lot of the hull form considerations.

(from Markle's "IPES - Harnessing Total Ship Energy & Power" from SNA 2018)

 

[sferrin]

all Navy cruiser designs built and unbuilt for the last few decades are stretched or scaled-up Destroyers.

It's not that black and white. With the CG-47 class they originally looked at using the cruiser hull of the Virginias. When that was too expensive they thought, "hey, we have this Spruance hull that might work" and that was that even though it was not ideal. With the Zumwalt hull it was planned in from the beginning to use it as the CG-47 replacement so it's not a matter of trying to "make do" but was taken into account from the start. Big difference. This is also why the Zumwalt hull is the obvious choice to replace the CG-47. It's got the space, the power, etc.

 

[TomS]

To reiterate I don't mean anything more than the starting with that hull shape and dimensions as a basis. I suppose it shouldn't really be necessary but it's an idea of what to aim for.

I appreciate what you're saying. However I don't believe that's the sort of baseline the Navy has in mind. Aside from the recent LPD-based concepts, all Navy cruiser designs built and unbuilt for the last few decades are stretched or scaled-up Destroyers. Getting the Navy back into a CGN/strike cruiser head space where they're pursuing a Cruiser that is dramatically distinct from the DDGs is not in the cards, it would seem.

It would be interesting to see them look into some of the large combatant concepts that were studied under the SC21 COEA. But those never got past concept studies and basic arrangements, so they wouldn't fit the desire to use an actual tested and validated hullform.

 

[NeilChapman]

To reiterate I don't mean anything more than the starting with that hull shape and dimensions as a basis. I suppose it shouldn't really be necessary but it's an idea of what to aim for.

I appreciate what you're saying. However I don't believe that's the sort of baseline the Navy has in mind. Aside from the recent LPD-based concepts, all Navy cruiser designs built and unbuilt for the last few decades are stretched or scaled-up Destroyers. Getting the Navy back into a CGN/strike cruiser head space where they're pursuing a Cruiser that is dramatically distinct from the DDGs is not in the cards, it would seem.

It would be interesting to see them look into some of the large combatant concepts that were studied under the SC21 COEA. But those never got past concept studies and basic arrangements, so they wouldn't fit the desire to use an actual tested and validated hullform.

It would be interesting, perhaps, but expensive.

The Navy seems to be stuck. DDG-1000 hull is too small, and the San-Antonio seems seems too slow.

Sounds like cruiser will be primarily BMD and air defense. Burke is a GMC Terrain when you really need a F550. It will never be big enough. Flight III will not be big enough. DDG-1000 will not be big enough.

The cruiser will need to be really big.

1. Everything on this cruiser will use LOTS of power. Propulsion will probably be electric. Radar will be enormous. They'll want it to last 40-50 years so the growth margin will need to be adequate. They'll also want plenty of juice for big lasers. It just makes sense that they'll look to one of the Ford-class reactors as a power plant, especially since there is an active production line. You know the government line, "another one will make all of them cheaper." So how about another 20.

2. They'll want lots of weapons on the beast and room for helicopters They'll also want room to add new systems as they become available. The result will be a need for enough deck space and magazines to handle all the initial systems and room for whatever comes next.

3. Having a separate magazine ship won't be necessary and will be expensive. It won't have the weapons systems required to adequately protect itself, and, if not nuclear powered it will be a logistics nightmare to drag it around. If the cruiser is big enough the magazine will be deep. It will get deeper as lasers and rail guns become more effective. The need for a magazine ship will diminish over the life of the ship. And it's likely that these cruisers will be forward deployed and moving between task forces so you don't want two ships when one will do the job. Besides, why build one cruiser when you can build two for twice the price?

Lastly, I'm not sure that these cruisers need to "keep up" with the Carrier Task Force. It's more likely that the Carrier Task Force will be going to where the cruiser is located. They can be forward deployed in relevant locations such as Guam, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Australia, Diego Garcia, Crete or where ever is appropriate. I don't know if 25 knots isn't fast enough. It passes the 80% rule. It's fast enough for ARG's and any major event will likely incorporate carriers and LHA's.

Build the ship with existing tech. Integration as the only risk. A wish list...

San-Antonio hull
Single A1B and as many systems as possible from Ford
Survivability Level III instead of Level II of San-Antonio class
Lose all the amphib equipment and spaces
Cobra King radar system
VLS with a boatload of cells
Acoustic equipment
Aviation component
Appropriate AA systems & CIWS
Room for rail gun and lasers

If Ticonderoga-class were a billion a boat in the 90's then this rig, 30 years later with over twice the capacity, would be a bargain at $4-5B.

 

[sferrin]

To reiterate I don't mean anything more than the starting with that hull shape and dimensions as a basis. I suppose it shouldn't really be necessary but it's an idea of what to aim for.

I appreciate what you're saying. However I don't believe that's the sort of baseline the Navy has in mind. Aside from the recent LPD-based concepts, all Navy cruiser designs built and unbuilt for the last few decades are stretched or scaled-up Destroyers. Getting the Navy back into a CGN/strike cruiser head space where they're pursuing a Cruiser that is dramatically distinct from the DDGs is not in the cards, it would seem.

It would be interesting to see them look into some of the large combatant concepts that were studied under the SC21 COEA. But those never got past concept studies and basic arrangements, so they wouldn't fit the desire to use an actual tested and validated hullform.

It would be interesting, perhaps, but expensive.

The Navy seems to be stuck. DDG-1000 hull is too small, and the San-Antonio seems seems too slow.

Sounds like cruiser will be primarily BMD and air defense. Burke is a GMC Terrain when you really need a F550. It will never be big enough. Flight III will not be big enough. DDG-1000 will not be big enough.

The cruiser will need to be really big.

1. Everything on this cruiser will use LOTS of power. Propulsion will probably be electric. Radar will be enormous. They'll want it to last 40-50 years so the growth margin will need to be adequate. They'll also want plenty of juice for big lasers. It just makes sense that they'll look to one of the Ford-class reactors as a power plant, especially since there is an active production line. You know the government line, "another one will make all of them cheaper." So how about another 20.

2. They'll want lots of weapons on the beast and room for helicopters They'll also want room to add new systems as they become available. The result will be a need for enough deck space and magazines to handle all the initial systems and room for whatever comes next.

3. Having a separate magazine ship won't be necessary and will be expensive. It won't have the weapons systems required to adequately protect itself, and, if not nuclear powered it will be a logistics nightmare to drag it around. If the cruiser is big enough the magazine will be deep. It will get deeper as lasers and rail guns become more effective. The need for a magazine ship will diminish over the life of the ship. And it's likely that these cruisers will be forward deployed and moving between task forces so you don't want two ships when one will do the job. Besides, why build one cruiser when you can build two for twice the price?

Lastly, I'm not sure that these cruisers need to "keep up" with the Carrier Task Force. It's more likely that the Carrier Task Force will be going to where the cruiser is located. They can be forward deployed in relevant locations such as Guam, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Australia, Diego Garcia, Crete or where ever is appropriate. I don't know if 25 knots isn't fast enough. It passes the 80% rule. It's fast enough for ARG's and any major event will likely incorporate carriers and LHA's.

Build the ship with existing tech. Integration as the only risk. A wish list...

San-Antonio hull
Single A1B and as many systems as possible from Ford
Survivability Level III instead of Level II of San-Antonio class
Lose all the amphib equipment and spaces
Cobra King radar system
VLS with a boatload of cells
Acoustic equipment
Aviation component
Appropriate AA systems & CIWS
Room for rail gun and lasers

If Ticonderoga-class were a billion a boat in the 90's then this rig, 30 years later with over twice the capacity, would be a bargain at $4-5B.

You're talking Kirov-class sized or bigger which will be too expensive. You need to be able to buy 20-30 not 4 or 5. I'd go with a "Flight I" CG-X based on the Zumwalt, using conventional propulsion and then look at nuclear power for the "Flight II".

 

[NeilChapman]

You're talking Kirov-class sized or bigger which will be too expensive. You need to be able to buy 20-30 not 4 or 5. I'd go with a "Flight I" CG-X based on the Zumwalt, using conventional propulsion and then look at nuclear power for the "Flight II".

Size and power or speed. I just don't think that speed needs to get weighted that heavily in the decision making process. Size and power are available today. The program can start today. It's much easier and quicker to make everything fit when your space constraints are removed.

You agree that Zumwalt is not big enough. Why bother? It seems a waste of time, effort and training. The lost opportunity cost seems very high as well. If the US didn't know how to integrate another nuclear powered vessel and the ramp up time was necessary I might agree with you but that's not the case.

Certainly modifying the San-Antonio as Surv. Level III wouldn't be cheap. It's a big boat. But that's the price of admission for any cruiser and if there was a more favorable atmosphere for making a case for a proper BMD ship, now's the time. There is an understanding in Congress for ballistic missile defense. Defending the US is all well and good but the US, allied fleets and territories need defending as well. And what's better for that than a great, mobile battery. It's as important to the fleet as B-21 is to air supremacy. Forward deployed BMD ships with the radar and magazine depth are needed now.

The only piece that's not in active production would be the radar. Spinning up that line shouldn't be too difficult as it's quite new. MYP of 5 ships would likely save a bit as well. The only difficulty could be the Navy itself. They have been selling Burke as good enough for years. Now they have to explain the modification of the threat and why Burke needs augmentation. They radar probably isn't designed for integration into theater defense either. That would probably be a flight II program.

Your analysis seems to be based on cost estimates alone. I'd ask the Navy and HII to tell me how they could get the number to $3-4B since HII is the only game in town for this ship. Once the line is spun up and the workforce get's trained they will find other saving's as well.

Expensive is relative when the value can be shown.

 

[TomS]

I'm not convinced the Zumwalt isn't big enough. Or more specifically, a restored original-sized Zumwalt. That was ~16,000 tons, significantly longer than the current design, and had 128 oversized Mk 57 VLS just in the peripheral launchers. Removing the AGS would give you room for one gun (initially a 5-inch powder gun, later possibly a railgun if the technology matures sufficiently) and still give you room for another large block of VLS -- at least 64 Mk41-size cells, or possibly a smaller number of much larger cells for future BMD solutions. With strike weapons offlaoded to the destroyers, that's more than enough magazine depth.

Power isn't a problem -- DDG-1000 already has nearly 80 MW available, and the MT30 turbines could grow significantly if needed. Rolls Royce says there is a growth path from MT30 to a 50-MW MT50, if you really need >100MW.

The design has volume enough for future BMD radar (especially if they extend the superstructure when they restretch the hull). Unless you insist on Sea-based X-Band or equivalent on a combatant hull, which feels like overkill in a networked warfighting environment.

 

[sferrin]

I'm not convinced the Zumwalt isn't big enough. Or more specifically, a restored original-sized Zumwalt. That was ~16,000 tons, significantly longer than the current design, and had 128 oversized Mk 57 VLS just in the peripheral launchers.

Any idea how much longer the cruiser was supposed to be? I'm of the opinion the Zumwalt is the obvious route for a CG-47 replacement.

 

[TomS]

I'm not convinced the Zumwalt isn't big enough. Or more specifically, a restored original-sized Zumwalt. That was ~16,000 tons, significantly longer than the current design, and had 128 oversized Mk 57 VLS just in the peripheral launchers.

Any idea how much longer the cruiser was supposed to be? I'm of the opinion the Zumwalt is the obvious route for a CG-47 replacement.

I can't remember how much longer the original DD-21 was -- maybe 80 feet more?

I don't think anyone had actually worked out how much bigger the cruiser might be. I suspect the initial thinking was about the same as the full-size DD. Same basic relationship as the Tico and Spruance -- the hulls are the same length but the Tico rides lower and so has higher displacement. But remember that a chunk of the DD-21's displacement is ballast to maintain waterline for RCS. Until you run out of ballast weight, adding equipment doesn't necessarily change the overall displacement.

Now, the one thing that really has changed since the old CG-21/G(X) is radar size. Back then, no one really imagined the monster BMD radars that are being discussed these days.

 

[marauder2048]

I think the largest radar that BIW looked at mounting on DDG-1000 was 21 feet which
probably falls slightly short of SPY+30dB which was previously the objective requirement
for the high-end threat environment.

 

[Moose]

I think the largest radar that BIW looked at mounting on DDG-1000 was 21 feet which
probably falls slightly short of SPY+30dB which was previously the objective requirement
for the high-end threat environment.

The objective CG(X) AMDR array size was 22ft and objective sensitivity was 30 decibels better than SPY-1 (usually shorthanded as SPY+30). The Hull/Radar study, however, only considered a maximum of 14-foot SPY+15 AMDR arrays on a largely unchanged DDG-1000 or somewhat modified DDG-51. Bath Iron Works has a design for a deckhouse which can accommodate up to 21ft arrays, but the Navy says they haven't considered it. On the other hand, the 2007 CG(X) AoA studied options and apparently credited some version of DDG-1000 being able to accommodate a radar with a sensitivity SPY+25. Raytheon gives their scaling information based on the number of RMA blocks the radar will use. 9 RMAs (the EASR size) is SPY+0 in about a 6'x6' square, 37 RMAs (SPY-6A) is SPY+15 in a 14-foot array, and 69 RMAs would by SPY+25 in an about 18-foot array.

I'm not convinced the Zumwalt isn't big enough. Or more specifically, a restored original-sized Zumwalt. That was ~16,000 tons, significantly longer than the current design, and had 128 oversized Mk 57 VLS just in the peripheral launchers.

Any idea how much longer the cruiser was supposed to be? I'm of the opinion the Zumwalt is the obvious route for a CG-47 replacement.

I can't remember how much longer the original DD-21 was -- maybe 80 feet more?

I don't think anyone had actually worked out how much bigger the cruiser might be. I suspect the initial thinking was about the same as the full-size DD. Same basic relationship as the Tico and Spruance -- the hulls are the same length but the Tico rides lower and so has higher displacement. But remember that a chunk of the DD-21's displacement is ballast to maintain waterline for RCS. Until you run out of ballast weight, adding equipment doesn't necessarily change the overall displacement.

Now, the one thing that really has changed since the old CG-21/G(X) is radar size. Back then, no one really imagined the monster BMD radars that are being discussed these days.

I don't believe there were firm numbers for how long/wide DD-21 would be, only that it has a higher target displacement than the one DD(X) aimed for. I believe the objective for the CG-21 was to use the same hull with same dimensions, but that was pretty notional and consideration was still being given to a non-tumblehome hull for the Cruiser.

 

[jsport]

Cruisers would seem to be the only sensible ship to focus on at this time. As the future is now. The energy requirements demand a ship large enough for a reactor to support:
-4x large BMD AESAs
-LF DEW
-RF DEW
-eventually hopefully large bore guns (of some type possibly needing electric power)
-even PBWs (necessary for next gen BMD)
-some type surface and subsurface Ship EM armor
-large number of VLS (don't need electric power but do need a large ship)
Once a CG-21/G(X) like boat is perfected then small ships may or may not find a role as energy based systems are miniaturized. Distributed Lethality has blinded folks to what Seapower needs to even survive let alone be strategically useful. Some day when these systems can be miniaturized enough and still have strategic capability, Distributed Lethality can return to the discussion.

 

[sferrin]

You're talking Kirov-class sized or bigger which will be too expensive. You need to be able to buy 20-30 not 4 or 5. I'd go with a "Flight I" CG-X based on the Zumwalt, using conventional propulsion and then look at nuclear power for the "Flight II".

Size and power or speed. I just don't think that speed needs to get weighted that heavily in the decision making process. Size and power are available today. The program can start today. It's much easier and quicker to make everything fit when your space constraints are removed.

Exactly. That's why I think the Zumwalt is the obvious choice. It's got the power, the speed, and is available today.

You agree that Zumwalt is not big enough.

I did not say that. Why would I say the Zumwalt isn't big enough only to say "the obvious choice is the Zumwalt"?

Why bother? It seems a waste of time, effort and training. The lost opportunity cost seems very high as well. If the US didn't know how to integrate another nuclear powered vessel and the ramp up time was necessary I might agree with you but that's not the case.

Not sure I follow what you're saying.

Your analysis seems to be based on cost estimates alone.

No. I said something like what was described would be as large or larger than the Kirov class and that would be extremely expensive, nothing more.

 

[NeilChapman]

You're talking Kirov-class sized or bigger which will be too expensive. You need to be able to buy 20-30 not 4 or 5. I'd go with a "Flight I" CG-X based on the Zumwalt, using conventional propulsion and then look at nuclear power for the "Flight II".

Size and power or speed. I just don't think that speed needs to get weighted that heavily in the decision making process. Size and power are available today. The program can start today. It's much easier and quicker to make everything fit when your space constraints are removed.

Exactly. That's why I think the Zumwalt is the obvious choice. It's got the power, the speed, and is available today.

It may or may not have the power for today. It certainly doesn't have the power for a 35-50 yr ship. The US is building Ford class with a 100% margin for power. I don't see 100% margin for power with 'today's Zumwalt.

You agree that Zumwalt is not big enough.

I did not say that. Why would I say the Zumwalt isn't big enough only to say "the obvious choice is the Zumwalt"?

You're right, you didn't. You said 'I'd go with a "Flight I" CG-X based on the Zumwalt, using conventional propulsion and then look at nuclear power for the "Flight II"' and I equated it with 'not big enough'. My mistake.

I'm not convinced Zumwalt can carry a Ford class reactor. So now one has to look at either another existing reactor that has enough power. Is there one? If not, then you have to develop a new reactor or make a bigger Zumwalt.

Or - you can use an existing hull with an existing reactor.

Think of it as building a bridge over a freeway. You may build the freeway with two lanes in each direction but are you going to build the bridge spans to only support two lanes in each direction? No. You're going to build the bridge spans to support four lanes in each direction.

Why bother? It seems a waste of time, effort and training. The lost opportunity cost seems very high as well. If the US didn't know how to integrate another nuclear powered vessel and the ramp up time was necessary I might agree with you but that's not the case.

Not sure I follow what you're saying.

The lost opportunity cost is dealing with two solutions, a conventionally powered Zumwalt and a nuclear powered Zumwalt. It's a waste of time, effort and training.

Ship design - X2
Ship production systems - X2
Ship building - X2
Training of the ship builders - X2

Efficiencies are driven by repetition. Look at the price management and schedule reduction with Virginia class. Want to drive the cost down on a cruiser? Build the same one over and over for 10 years. Then build it over and over for another 10 years. The extra production may assist in Ford cost management as well.

Your analysis seems to be based on cost estimates alone.

No. I said something like what was described would be as large or larger than the Kirov class and that would be extremely expensive, nothing more.

Ok. I guess I got that idea since price was the only negative you proposed.

I've got nothing against Zumwalt. I'm just not convinced it has the power or size to be a 40-50 year solution as a BMD ship. You don't either since you propose a nuclear powered "flight ii". You can't retrofit nuclear propulsion into hulls. You can retrofit just about anything else in a hull.

Perhaps I'm missing the obvious but I don't see the requirement for 30+ knots. It would be nice but it's not necessary. And speed is the only advantage I see with the Zumwalt hull. All the other advantages I see with a Level 3 San Antonio.

 

[NeilChapman]

...

The design has volume enough for future BMD radar (especially if they extend the superstructure when they restretch the hull). Unless you insist on Sea-based X-Band or equivalent on a combatant hull, which feels like overkill in a networked warfighting environment.

I like overkill. Nothing like fighting an unfair fight.

Is the Navy still expecting to be fighting in a 100% networked environment? I don't know if I'd want to count on it. Also, a big radar capability may provide a competitive advantage in a networked environment. Still a pretty good view of what's in the air a good ways out.

 

[TomS]

I went back and looked. Combat Fleets 15th Edition (2007) mentions the original DD 21 design as being 15,400 tons and 216 meters long. The same numbers are in Friedman's revised US Destroyers, which means it was from somewhere fairly official -- probably from the program office.

That's about 1,000 tons heavier and 30 meters longer than the Zumwalt as built.

 

[Moose]

I went back and looked. Combat Fleets 15th Edition (2007) mentions the original DD 21 design as being 15,400 tons and 216 meters long. The same numbers are in Friedman's revised US Destroyers, which means it was from somewhere fairly official -- probably from the program office.

That's about 1,000 tons heavier and 30 meters longer than the Zumwalt as built.

Good to know, shows me for not being current with my Friedman

 

[marauder2048]

The objective CG(X) AMDR array size was 22ft and objective sensitivity was 30 decibels better than SPY-1 (usually shorthanded as SPY+30). The Hull/Radar study, however, only considered a maximum of 14-foot SPY+15 AMDR arrays on a largely unchanged DDG-1000 or somewhat modified DDG-51. Bath Iron Works has a design for a deckhouse which can accommodate up to 21ft arrays, but the Navy says they haven't considered it. On the other hand, the 2007 CG(X) AoA studied options and apparently credited some version of DDG-1000 being able to accommodate a radar with a sensitivity SPY+25. Raytheon gives their scaling information based on the number of RMA blocks the radar will use. 9 RMAs (the EASR size) is SPY+0 in about a 6'x6' square, 37 RMAs (SPY-6A) is SPY+15 in a 14-foot array, and 69 RMAs would by SPY+25 in an about 18-foot array.

As you point out, it's area which matters. Which is why I find the long dimension less satisfying/confusing
given the different geometries that are attainable.

 

[starviking]

Cruisers would seem to be the only sensible ship to focus on at this time. As the future is now. The energy requirements demand a ship large enough for a reactor to support:

-even PBWs (necessary for next gen BMD)

Particle Based Weapons don’t work well in atmosphere, and lasers trying to reach high enough to hit an ascending missile or descending warhead are going to be subject to beam-wander because of air density variactions.

The assessment may be different if the lasers are defending the ship and its charges.

 

[sferrin]

Cruisers would seem to be the only sensible ship to focus on at this time. As the future is now. The energy requirements demand a ship large enough for a reactor to support:

-even PBWs (necessary for next gen BMD)

Particle Based Weapons don’t work well in atmosphere, and lasers trying to reach high enough to hit an ascending missile or descending warhead are going to be subject to beam-wander because of air density variactions.

The assessment may be different if the lasers are defending the ship and it’s charges.

Rail guns at long range and lasers the last 5 to 10 miles. Given the speed of modern non-US antiship missiles you don't have a lot of time for dwell so you'll still need a lot of power even for the closer range. Here's a megawatt class laser shooting down a Bramos equivalent (Vandal/Talos):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdRWhs-lakY

 

[NeilChapman]

Cruisers would seem to be the only sensible ship to focus on at this time. As the future is now. The energy requirements demand a ship large enough for a reactor to support:

-even PBWs (necessary for next gen BMD)

Particle Based Weapons don’t work well in atmosphere, and lasers trying to reach high enough to hit an ascending missile or descending warhead are going to be subject to beam-wander because of air density variactions.

The assessment may be different if the lasers are defending the ship and it’s charges.

Rail guns at long range and lasers the last 5 to 10 miles. Given the speed of modern non-US antiship missiles you don't have a lot of time for dwell so you'll still need a lot of power even for the closer range. Here's a megawatt class laser shooting down a Bramos equivalent (Vandal/Talos):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdRWhs-lakY

That's a great point. The first iterations of lasers deployable afloat are seemingly most beneficial in situations where the ship is threatened by swarms of small boats, drones or other close quarter threats. You would want multiple firing locations for the lasers. Perhaps not unlike AA positions on WWII battleships. As the tech matures, becomes more efficient and lethal, then larger systems would make sense. In the mean time, it seems, lasers will be an augmentation to primary close quarters defensive systems.