USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed

[Cordy]

asVAL said:
Back to LSC.
How about building a Flight IIIA that incorporates the CGBL hull mated to a modern propulsion ( IEPS is a must) and the current Flight III combat system? Think: 128 VLS, double RAM and can be upgraded to DEW, AMDR, SLQ-32v7 and a new CIC. How fast could one shipyard switch over to building a larger, albeit only stretched, hull form? It's not an entirely new run, just an upgrade to deal with the obsolecense of the Burke hull design and prepare the USN for DDGX.

Why would IEPS be a must, the build track record of the IEP Zumwalts was a disaster, the third and final ship Lyndon B Johnson construction began May 2012 and only sailed to Ingalls for its combat installation early January 2023, the best part of 11 years, one reason quoted for the long build time was hours required for the IEP.

If you need additional instantaneous electrical power by far the quickest/cheapest and most economical system to operate are diesel generators and UPS with a DC grid which allows instant synchronization when additional DG bought online and also allows the DGs to operate at its optimal variable speeds for the power needed whereas with an AC grid it requires the generators time to synchronize and the reason why with the Burke the Navy requires two of its AG9140 GTGs to be operating with the spare guzzling fuel all the time, even if the power is not required, so if one fails for any reason instant power available to avoid outages. Other pluses with DC grid it also saves weight/cost/space as it eliminates the big and heavy main switchboards and drive transformers.

 

[Firefinder]

Modern Tomahawks aren't capable of being launched from torpedo tube. Their hulls were lightened, and would not be able to survive water hammer impact.

Actually even the old ones was too weak to withstand the water hammer.

But when launch from a torp tube, the Tomahawk sits in its own canister call the Submarine Horizontal Launch TACTOM Capsule (SHLTC) which provides the need protection for such launch. Even for the new ones.

It was the BGM-110 that could fired bare from a torp tube.

And the RN just bout a new load of modern Tomahawks for their Astutes. And still consider a weapon for use by the Seawolf, both which do not have VLS of any type.

Also the sub VLS system uses the same style water hammer to punt the things out of the tubes.

So yes, modern T-hawks can be fire torp tubes just fine.

 

[Dilandu]

But when launch from a torp tube, the Tomahawk sits in its own canister call the Submarine Horizontal Launch TACTOM Capsule (SHLTC) which provides the need protection for such launch. Even for the new ones.

I knew about the canister, but as far as I knew (sorry for tautology), modern Tomahawks - with lightened hulls - still could not survive the launch from torpedo tube.

 

[Firefinder]

I knew about the canister, but as far as I knew (sorry for tautology), modern Tomahawks - with lightened hulls - still could not survive the launch from torpedo tube.

Nope, they still can.

Have to. Since for the sub VLS launch kicks just as hard and it has the added stress of the water... stream... cross current...

Dafug is the proper terminology there?

The sub is still moving forward at like 3 knots and there other water currents to deal with.

So it needs a decent kick to avoid hitting the sub sail, which is bad...

So it needs to be strong enough to keep breaking in half from the currents and strong enough to survive being tossed out at a decent rate.

Which means it be strong enough to survive the less stressful, no cross current, torpedo tube launch.

Plus again

The Royal Navy bought Block IV's for their Submarines back in 2014, and in the middle of last year started upgrading them to Block V standards to be done next year. None of their surface ships can launch them and none of their subs have VLS.

And those are the two newest blocks so...

 

[Dilandu]

And those are the two newest blocks so...

Ok, than I stand corrected.

 

[starviking]

What is going to stop the PLANMC from occupying this island? Or just destroying the SAM battery they intend to place there?

If they occupy the island, they are not only at war with Japan, but because of the Japan-US Security Treaty, the US too.

Destroying the SAM battery also invokes the treaty, and thus China is at war with Japan and the US.

It’s also that defences in that region will have been reinforced, unless Chian manages to pull off a total surprise attack on Taiwan

 

[yeetmahboi]

If they occupy the island, they are not only at war with Japan, but because of the Japan-US Security Treaty, the US too.

I'd figure that stationing or reinforcing ROC forces with allied troops amidst a PLAN blockade, when there's a literal war going on and threatening to down PLA interceptors would provoke a very justified PLARF IRBM spam.

It’s also that defences in that region will have been reinforced, unless China manages to pull off a total surprise attack on Taiwan

China has been playing a significant amount of saber rattling for the past few years and theres no sign of them backing down. What military can support 24/7 deployment of fighters, AEW and ships on defense covering an area the size of the 1IC?

And the PLARF has already demonstrated the ability to assemble and fire 300mm cross-strait capable MLRS on hour-long drills before so I certainly dont doubt that they could pull off a quick TBM strikes on Taipei covering J-20s and YJ-21 strikes on allied airbases in the West Pacific. The latter is an extremely dangerous op that requires meticulous planning and execution but a total wide scale confusion across INDOPACOM on ROC, RAAF, JSDF and Guam all at once would be damning to say the least.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'd figure that stationing or reinforcing ROC forces with allied troops amidst a PLAN blockade, when there's a literal war going on and threatening to down PLA interceptors would provoke a very justified PLARF IRBM spam.

If the US forces on Guam, Okinawa, or Yonagumi are already fighting China, then that's one thing.

It's a whole 'nother thing to preemptively attack and then draw in the US due to the US-Japan Security Treaty.

China has been playing a significant amount of saber rattling for the past few years and theres no sign of them backing down. What military can support 24/7 deployment of fighters, AEW and ships on defense covering an area the size of the 1IC?

And the PLARF has already demonstrated the ability to assemble and fire 300mm cross-strait capable MLRS on hour-long drills before so I certainly dont doubt that they could pull off a quick TBM strikes on Taipei covering J-20s and YJ-21 strikes on allied airbases in the West Pacific. The latter is an extremely dangerous op that requires meticulous planning and execution but a total wide scale confusion across INDOPACOM on ROC, RAAF, JSDF and Guam all at once would be damning to say the least.

And widens the war.

 

[yeetmahboi]

If the US forces on Guam, Okinawa, or Yonagumi are already fighting China, then that's one thing

Its not dissimilar at all
The discussion revolves around the ability to resupply ROC troops with conventional forces during a blockade, to which starvikings responded that

They’d be under the umbrella of the JSDF missile base on Yonagumi Island, a little over 100 km from Taiwan.

A blockade means a killzone. Going into that means begging to get clapped by HHQ-9s and J-20 patrols. Destroying them to open up a pathway for resupply is by definition destroying PLA assets and automatically calls for a war.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Its not dissimilar at all
The discussion revolves around the ability to resupply ROC troops with conventional forces during a blockade, to which starvikings responded that

A blockade means a killzone. Going into that means begging to get clapped by HHQ-9s and J-20 patrols. Destroying them to open up a pathway for resupply is by definition destroying PLA assets and automatically calls for a war.

Yes, it does. Ordinarily, a blockade is an act of war.

Problem is that both Mainland and Island insist that they are the legal government of China. It's a civil war.

 

[Cordy]

My understanding the DDG Mod to 2 program, the Navy Burke Flight IIA upgrade at an appox. cost of $17 billion and taking 18 months to two years per ship, Navy current plan is to only upgrade 20 the of Flight IIA 47 ships, which could change.

Upgrade to consist of replacing the SPY-1 radar with the SPY-6(V)4 with its 24 block arrays as opposed to the Flight III SPY-6(V)1 with its four 37 block arrays, the new costly ~$80 million AESA SEWIP Block III replacing SEWIP Block II? with its new capability for active jamming plus the updated Baseline Aegis 10 combat system.

The first Burke with the new SEWIP Blk III was USS Pinckney DDG-91 which appeared after a two year refit at the NASSCO shipyard in Sep'23 and in Feb '24 Navy awarded NASSCO additional contract for two more Burkes to be updated with the new SEWIP III, DDG 93 and DDG 95, though not the new radar or CMS?

Reported Congress is skeptical after Navy failure to update the Ticos and the question if the funding can be found and another question could it take priority with need to fund DDG(X) from the current plan build date of 2032, though that could slip even further as the future Large Surface Combatant build was originally planned for 2023, then it slipped to 2025, then slipped again to the late 2020s and now as the DDG(X) slipped to 2032, makes you wonder if the new LSC will ever be built as the Navy soldiers on with upgrading the Burke whose original design dates back to the late 1970s/80s.

 

[Josh_TN]

The DDG 2.0 upgrade is pricey but it does effectively produce a near Flt 3 capability for a lot less cost in time and money. Unfortunately the USN just seems incapable of designing and building a ship these days. I wonder if the concept of a large surface combatant is still valid by the time the USN can put a clean slate design in the water.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Reported Congress is skeptical after Navy failure to update the Ticos

Navy response to Congress: There was no margin left in the Ticos to be able to upgrade. No volume, weight margin, extra electrical power, or cooling capacity available.

 

[apparition13]

Japan has built 8 very nice Aegis destroyers since 1990. The United States has built Seventy Two in the same period.

Japan has a shipbuilding schedule of building 1 destroyer (major surface combatant) and 1 submarine per year that it has kept to for the last 70 or so years for destroyers and 60+ years for submarines, a schedule not interrupted by a "peace dividend". Since 1986 they have had 4 DDH groups with 1 DDH, 2 DDG, and 5 DDs, which have a 35 or so year lifespan, and 22 submarines in service, which have 22 year lifespans, plus some additional DDs and DEs. They have upped the subs in service to 24 by increasing retention to 24 years from 22, and are in a bit of a pause with destroyers until the ASEV get built, but are adding 2-3 Mogami per year to replace the pre-vls DDs and DEs on a close to 2 to 1 ratio. Frankly I think their naval procurement is easily the best on the planet. Only the PLAN's one sided arms race compares, and who knows how sustainable that is.

This schedule makes it difficult to surge the number of ships in peacetime, but it also means their yards have consistent work and can maintain skilled workforces.

The US GDP is around triple that of Japan, and military spending is about 3.5% vs. 1%, so if the US was on a similar schedule you would be looking at around 10x what Japan is doing. They don't have CVNs or nuclear subs, so that would reduce the total numbers, but it's an interesting point of comparison. And oh yeah, their equivalent ships cost about half what the USN's ships do, since they actually have a major shipbuilding industry and a consistent and reliable naval shipbuilding schedule.

 

[Josh_TN]

Navy response to Congress: There was no margin left in the Ticos to be able to upgrade. No volume, weight margin, extra electrical power, or cooling capacity available.

The Ticos are a dead end and spending money on them is stupid. It is much like F-22 Blk 20: looking at numbers on paper and having no concept of sustainability. A congressman would rather have more planes on paper then sustain a capable aircraft, either for pork reasons or shear ignorance.

 

[raptor82]

Navy seeks industry help on DDG(X) propulsion system | InsideDefense.com

The Navy is seeking industry support for development of the DDG(X) large surface combatant's power and propulsion system and will provide updates on DDG(X) development plans at a July 15 industry day.

insidedefense.com

"The Navy is seeking industry support for development of the DDG(X) large surface combatant's power and propulsion system and will provide updates on DDG(X) development plans at a July 15 industry day."

 

[sferrin]

Its not dissimilar at all
The discussion revolves around the ability to resupply ROC troops with conventional forces during a blockade, to which starvikings responded that

A blockade means a killzone. Going into that means begging to get clapped by HHQ-9s and J-20 patrols. Destroying them to open up a pathway for resupply is by definition destroying PLA assets and automatically calls for a war.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Yes, it does. Ordinarily, a blockade is an act of war.

Problem is that both Mainland and Island insist that they are the legal government of China. It's a civil war.

The U.S. has sort of implicitly stated that any action against ROC is considered of an act of aggression against itself. Japan is similar. While it would be interesting to test this idea, that would be foolish, because it would only play into the strengths of America. I suspect most PLA war plans would anticipate immediate U.S. and JMSDF action into the SCS, if they felt Taiwan was even close to being threatened (t. Third Taiwan Strait Crisis). The ideal goal of the PLA would be hitting those forces pierside before they mobilize.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The U.S. has sort of implicitly stated that any action against ROC is considered of an act of aggression against itself. Japan is similar. While it would be interesting to test this idea, that would be foolish, because it would only play into the strengths of America. I suspect most PLA war plans would anticipate immediate U.S. and JMSDF action into the SCS, if they felt Taiwan was even close to being threatened (t. Third Taiwan Strait Crisis). The ideal goal of the PLA would be hitting those forces pierside before they mobilize.

Even if China successfully hits the US 7th Fleet based in Japan, anything in Pearl Harbor can be there in a week and anything on the West Coast can be there in 2 weeks or less.

A 25-knot speed of advance chews up distances surprisingly quickly. 600nmi a day. And I'm pretty sure the USN fast oilers can refuel at 25 knots...

 

[Josh_TN]

Even if China successfully hits the US 7th Fleet based in Japan, anything in Pearl Harbor can be there in a week and anything on the West Coast can be there in 2 weeks or less.

A 25-knot speed of advance chews up distances surprisingly quickly. 600nmi a day. And I'm pretty sure the USN fast oilers can refuel at 25 knots...

Supply class is in reserve. Kaiser class is 20 knots tops. Also I would not rule out some kind of attack on Hawaii and San Diego - the PRC does not have conventional assets capable of easily reaching that far but some kind of UAV attack or cruise missile strike might be launched from civilian ships or agents inside the U.S. There are numerous examples of drones swarming around sensitive sites in the U.S.

 

[bobbymike]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1800512274601550099

View: https://x.com/johnkonrad/status/1800512274601550099?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1800512274601550099%7Ctwgr%5E0991c768005de4a75da7106f92dfef2c1f5e8f5c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F652815%2F

 

[yeetmahboi]

I mean it's technically correct anyway. As Scott Kenny said right below.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1800512274601550099

View: https://x.com/johnkonrad/status/1800512274601550099?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1800512274601550099%7Ctwgr%5E0991c768005de4a75da7106f92dfef2c1f5e8f5c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F652815%2F

The important point is crewing ships. That's the thing that need fixing most.

Feeding industry money is good and all. But if that means ripping out the budget you need to treat your sailors, then no.
And that original tweet comment section is just pure brainrot. "Avoid draft" wth. With that altitude in your people's mind how do you plan on defending yourself let alone Taipei lol.

 

[starviking]

The Ticos are a dead end and spending money on them is stupid. It is much like F-22 Blk 20: looking at numbers on paper and having no concept of sustainability. A congressman would rather have more planes on paper then sustain a capable aircraft, either for pork reasons or shear ignorance.

To be honest, some admiral needs to call the US Congress out on this - use the same aggressive and insulting language that seems to be current in politics.

They’d get canned - but the Navy, and the nation would benefit from it.

 

[Cordy]

Navy seeks industry help on DDG(X) propulsion system | InsideDefense.com

The Navy is seeking industry support for development of the DDG(X) large surface combatant's power and propulsion system and will provide updates on DDG(X) development plans at a July 15 industry day.

insidedefense.com

"The Navy is seeking industry support for development of the DDG(X) large surface combatant's power and propulsion system and will provide updates on DDG(X) development plans at a July 15 industry day."

Rear Adm. Fred Pyle Director of Surface Warfare (OPNAV N96) said in January at SNA on the DDG(X) the propulsion system for the new destroyer is not set, whereas the above strongly infers a decision has been made to use some type of Integrated Power System (IPS) as used on Zumwalt, yet to be designed, with an initial R&D funding of $187 million in FY24 & 25. One of the comments the GAO made in their May 2024 report "Navy Frigate [Constellation] Unstable Design Has Stalled Construction and Compromised Delivery Schedules" leading practice is you should off-ramp any capabilities that present a risk to schedule, so the question is will the Navy have a fully tested and proven new prototype IPS system ready before committing to it for the DDG(X) design.

Contrast with the Japanese ASEV which will be approx. a 20% bigger destroyer than the DDG(X) at 16,000+t and has selected a 'standard' hybrid electro-mechanical propulsion arrangement, recently placed contract with RR on May 30 for twin MT30 GTs per ship and as a result both the ASEVs will be commissioned before DDG(X) even starts its current plan to start build in 2032.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Rear Adm. Fred Pyle Director of Surface Warfare (OPNAV N96) said in January at SNA on the DDG(X) the propulsion system for the new destroyer is not set, whereas the above strongly infers a decision has been made to use some type of Integrated Power System (IPS) as used on Zumwalt, yet to be designed, with an initial R&D funding of $187 million in FY24 & 25. One of the comments the GAO made in their May 2024 report "Navy Frigate [Constellation] Unstable Design Has Stalled Construction and Compromised Delivery Schedules" leading practice is you should off-ramp any capabilities that present a risk to schedule, so the question is will the Navy have a fully tested and proven new prototype IPS system ready before committing to it for the DDG(X) design.

Contrast with the Japanese ASEV which will be approx. a 20% bigger destroyer than the DDG(X) at 16,000+t and has selected a 'standard' hybrid electro-mechanical propulsion arrangement, recently placed contract with RR on May 30 for twin MT30 GTs per ship and as a result both the ASEVs will be commissioned before DDG(X) even starts its current plan to start build in 2032.

What's wrong with using the Zumwalt IPS? It's designed and we haven't heard anything about the Zumwalts having propulsion issues.

Expensive, yes. IIRC the motors on the shafts are more expensive than the Navy would like and I do understand that point. The motors would probably be cheaper if the USN had bought the full ~100 of them as planned (2 shafts per Z times 32 Zs for 64 motors in service, plus spares) instead of buying maybe 10 of them.

 

[Cordy]

What's wrong with using the Zumwalt IPS? It's designed and we haven't heard anything about the Zumwalts having propulsion issues.

Expensive, yes. IIRC the motors on the shafts are more expensive than the Navy would like and I do understand that point. The motors would probably be cheaper if the USN had bought the full ~100 of them as planned (2 shafts per Z times 32 Zs for 64 motors in service, plus spares) instead of buying maybe 10 of them.

It appears the Navy was not satisfied with Zumwalt IPS for use in the LCS and at the SAS Exposition April 2018 Electric Ships Office PMS 320 proposed a leap forward to the new IPES, Integrated Power and Energy System.

Though it now appears Navy not totally convinced with IPES and why calling on industry for help July 15 for the DDG(X) electric propulsion system.


Markle-SurfaceNavyElectricalLeapForward.pdf

 

[Firefinder]

It appears the Navy was not satisfied with Zumwalt IPS for use in the LCS and at the SAS Exposition April 2018 Electric Ships Office PMS 320 proposed a leap forward to the new IPES, Integrated Power and Energy System

It needs to be pointed out that the Zumwalt IPS is a 20 year old system that was cut down from what was wanted to save on costs.

Like Remember reading of then changing the motors from one type of another in 2008. And I do believe it uses rare earth magnets primary source from Mainland China.

which is a no.

What we can do today be so much better after the kinks are work out is not funny. Like replacing both the generator and motor Neodymium magnets with Iron Nitrate ones mine and made in Minnesota will increase the power and efficiency a good amount.

To say nothing of anything new that comes out.

 

[Cordy]

It needs to be pointed out that the Zumwalt IPS is a 20 year old system that was cut down from what was wanted to save on costs.

Like Remember reading of then changing the motors from one type of another in 2008. And I do believe it uses rare earth magnets primary source from Mainland China.

which is a no.

What we can do today be so much better after the kinks are work out is not funny. Like replacing both the generator and motor Neodymium magnets with Iron Nitrate ones mine and made in Minnesota will increase the power and efficiency a good amount.

To say nothing of anything new that comes out.

With the Zumwalt Navy originally planned to use the DRS 36.5 MW Permanent Magnet Motor but understand problems under testing caused them to revert to the tried and tested Converteam 36 MW Advanced Induction Motor. The attraction of the PMM is its much smaller and a half to a third in weight of an AIM. The DRS PMM was again chosen for the all-electric Columbia SSBN, again heating problems under testing, but sorted though at expense of using up all the slack built into the Columbia program timeline, other problems and Columbia delivery will be late which think likely.

The PMS-320 2018 presentation mention of simpler, more affordable IPES power system for the LSC follow-on to the DDG-51 in their Naval Power and Energy Systems Technology Development Roadmap with a significantly smaller footprint, reduced weight, and lower operating costs vs the Zumwalt IPS.

With the DDG(X) Navy graphic claims are 50% greater range, 120% time on station and 25% reduction in fuel usage no doubt baseline was the short range Burkes reflecting their all GT gas guzzler power/propulsion system.

Japanese with ASEV hybrid electro-mechanical propulsion, maybe CODEOG, the twin MT30 GTs running the gears and the gears runs the shafts, in electric drive the gears will be de-clutched and the silenced diesel generators will power the electric motors wrapped around the shafts for propulsion and would not be surprised if half cost if not less than an all-electric propulsion system proposed for the DDG(X), an all-electric system more than justified in submarine but as a matter of opinion consider it gold plating for a destroyer.

 

[bobbymike]

Will the U.S. Navy Build New Cruisers? - Naval News

Naval News asked the U.S. Navy if it would design and build new cruisers once the aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers are retired. Naval News also sought analysis from two military analysts on the Navy’s decision.

www.navalnews.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

would not be surprised if half cost if not less than an all-electric propulsion system proposed for the DDG(X), an all-electric system more than justified in submarine but as a matter of opinion consider it gold plating for a destroyer.

Modern systems, like lasers and HPMs, need a lot more electrical generation capability than most ships have available. or that SEWIP jammer system they're adding to the Burkes.

Running IEP means that you can add the defensive systems and only lose some top end speed. Running CODEG means that you need to install new ship-service generators.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Will the U.S. Navy Build New Cruisers? - Naval News

Naval News asked the U.S. Navy if it would design and build new cruisers once the aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers are retired. Naval News also sought analysis from two military analysts on the Navy’s decision.

www.navalnews.com

The USN hasn't seen a difference between a "destroyer" and a "cruiser" since the 1970s. The functional difference between a Tico and a Burke is the Tico has AAW Flag space. And the Burke-based DDGs in Japan and Korea all have Flag space added to the Burke style deckhouse (the hulls of those ships are all very different from a burke, being longer wider and shallower)

 

[BlackBat242]

The USN hasn't seen a difference between a "destroyer" and a "cruiser" since the 1970s. The functional difference between a Tico and a Burke is the Tico has AAW Flag space.

And that is EXACTLY the difference between the two types in the USN.

We are losing all of those flag-equipped cruisers and getting non-flag-equipped destroyers to replace them, which means there is a scramble to provide flag-equipped ships.

And its not just about staterooms for the Admiral and his staff... he needs a command and communications facility separate from the Captain's that will provide the Admiral & his staff with a complete view of what information each ship's combat center has, and communications to command and co-ordinate the ships of the task group to work together effectively.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And that is EXACTLY the difference between the two types in the USN.

We are losing all of those flag-equipped cruisers and getting non-flag-equipped destroyers to replace them, which means there is a scramble to provide flag-equipped ships.

And its not just about staterooms for the Admiral and his staff... he needs a command and communications facility separate from the Captain's that will provide the Admiral & his staff with a complete view of what information each ship's combat center has, and communications to command and co-ordinate the ships of the task group to work together effectively.

There's nothing stopping the USN from building a Burke with flag space. Well, except for the total lack of SWAP-C left in the Burke IIIs these days. But the Flight 2s could have added flag space, or there could have been both a Flight 2a without flag space and a Flight 2b with flag space.

But the USN used to build classes of ships where some (or one, in a small class) would have flag space built in and others would not have it. And that was NORMAL.

Or, you know, the USN could buy a handful of Kongo-Atago-Maya or Sejeong the Great built in Japan or Korea, since those have the Burke combat systems but also have a flag space. I'm sure the Japanese or Koreans would love an extra order or 10.

 

[apparition13]

There's nothing stopping the USN from building a Burke with flag space. Well, except for the total lack of SWAP-C left in the Burke IIIs these days. But the Flight 2s could have added flag space, or there could have been both a Flight 2a without flag space and a Flight 2b with flag space.

But the USN used to build classes of ships where some (or one, in a small class) would have flag space built in and others would not have it. And that was NORMAL.

Or, you know, the USN could buy a handful of Kongo-Atago-Maya or Sejeong the Great built in Japan or Korea, since those have the Burke combat systems but also have a flag space. I'm sure the Japanese or Koreans would love an extra order or 10.

You'd have to build them here*, but I wouldn't mind a couple dozen ASEVs. Or several dozen Mogamis. I'm less sure about the South Koreans since they don't have separated engineering spaces, but I don't know how their latest are laid out.

*Just gift the Japanese companies involved a shipyard or three, assuming there are some left around, and let them run it. They know a lot more about modern shipbuilding right now.

 

[DrRansom]

The US Navy desperately needs its own Admiral Fisher - it has become completely moribund.

We see the exact same quibbling about words and meaning "we don't need cruisers any more" that crippled the USAF NGAD "we don't know what 6th Generation Means." Far easier to talk about words and their definitions than to Just Build Something.

I suspect the DDG-51 sits in a bad place. Too capable for its size, so hard to easily replace like-to-like.

The ultimate argument for a cruiser is that you have a highly capable cruiser in return for a less capable destroyer, a Naval Version of the high-low blend. And, just like the USAF, the USN cannot afford to buy the best of everything these days.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The US Navy desperately needs its own Admiral Fisher - it has become completely moribund.

We see the exact same quibbling about words and meaning "we don't need cruisers any more" that crippled the USAF NGAD "we don't know what 6th Generation Means." Far easier to talk about words and their definitions than to Just Build Something.

I suspect the DDG-51 sits in a bad place. Too capable for its size, so hard to easily replace like-to-like.

The ultimate argument for a cruiser is that you have a highly capable cruiser in return for a less capable destroyer, a Naval Version of the high-low blend. And, just like the USAF, the USN cannot afford to buy the best of everything these days.

The US Navy doesn't need cruisers, hence the reason why they haven't ordered any since 1958.

They are already doing high-low, hence the Constellations, the Burkes and the Ticos were very similar in capability and basically had an identical combat system, which is the main driver of warship cost.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The US needs big general-purpose Fast-Task Force Escorts, with plenty of SWAP-C margins and some flag facilities. That is very like what DDG(X) will be, and it's broadly irrelevant if they're called Cruisers, Frigates, Destroyers, Large Surface Combatants or Fast Task Force Escorts. The name is irrelevant, and capability of the hull is.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The US Navy doesn't need cruisers, hence the reason why they haven't ordered any since 1958.

They are already doing high-low, hence the Constellations, the Burkes and the Ticos were very similar in capability and basically had an identical combat system, which is the main driver of warship cost.

The navy does need "ships with AAW Flag Space", which is the current definitional difference between a "cruiser" and a "destroyer", and the USN hasn't ordered any of those since 1991. The USN isn't ordering any now, when the last 12 Ticos are on their way out between 2024 and 2027. 4 of them are yet to decomission in 2024 (and one more already has), 3 in 2025, 3 in 2026, and the last 2 in 2027.

Every carrier group needs one ship with AAW Flag Space, so there's a need for 12 (and if you get sneaky you can get away with having 4 if they're all at sea right NOW while you build the other 8). Every Amphib Group needs a ship with AAW Flag Space, if the 'Phib Group isn't integrated into a carrier group, so there's another dozen needed. Every convoy needs a ship with AAW Flag Space, so there's a need for even more. But a total of at least 30 is likely.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The navy does need "ships with AAW Flag Space", which is the current definitional difference between a "cruiser" and a "destroyer", and the USN hasn't ordered any of those since 1991. The USN isn't ordering any now, when the last 12 Ticos are on their way out between 2024 and 2027. 4 of them are yet to decomission in 2024 (and one more already has), 3 in 2025, 3 in 2026, and the last 2 in 2027.

It is likely DDG(X) will have those flag spaces, so it's apparent that ship with such flag spaces is not necessarily classed as a cruiser.

The "a cruiser needs AAW flag spaces" seems to a be a post-hoc rationalisation to explain why the Ticonderoga-class (which were originally designed, laid down and classified as destroyers) are classed as cruisers and not destroyers. Certainly compared to the planned Strike Cruisers they fall short on passive protection and flag facilities (the CSGN being described as having "Group Commander Facilities").

The CSGN is far closer to the tradio idea of a cruiser, and deserves that classification far more (even if it is an overgrown Frigate) than the Ticonderoga-class.

 

[Cordy]

Wonder if the USN graphic showing the possibility of inserting a hull plug in the DDG(X) (if DDG(X) ever goes into build) were the Navy thinking of space required for 'AAW Flag Space'.