F-15 Eagle
New Member
Now that the CGX has been canceled, what will replace the Ticonderoga's when the time comes?
What will replace the Ticonderoga class cruiser?
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
This is the first I heard of this. Any news links?
I suspect if the CG-21s program is delayed or cancelled, Congress will continue to buy more Arleigh Burke's. I was never convinced the USN required 20 or more new larger cruisers before. I have had thoughts that 10 or so would suffice if more Burke's were built. And I believe the new Democratic Congress is thinking in the same terms.
With the Burke's so well liked by the Congress and the Navy, its going to be difficult to convince Congress to buy something larger, and more expensive. While the Navy may be saifisfied with the tumbledown hull, Congress has yet to be convinced...
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Is still relevant to have a cruisers now this days ?
I mean everything now already scale up. What us to be the size and capabilities of Light Cruisers/Cruiser now this days already filled well by Destroyers, Frigates now filled the destroyers duty, and the corvetes filled in the slot that used to be callled Frigates.
If someone now still wants to have Cruisers then it will fall in the slot of what used to be Battle Cruisers (like The USSR Kirovs). Don't see that can build in large quantity though.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4
I was thinking increase the size of the Arleigh Burke's a little bit to the size of the Tico's and add the capability of 120 vertical launch tomahawks and air/missile-defense radar. A carrier Strike Group has 1-2 cruisers and 2-3 destroyers so I think cruisers are definatly needed.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
That's great in concept..however that kind of vessel will still fall in the area of 15,000 - 20,000 dwt catagory, thus (with incerasing weapons and electronics plus the size) will potentially more than double the costs from lattest batch of Burke. With 10-11 CBG the USN need 20 - 22 cruisers with twice the costs of DDG.
Just wandering in this kind of economics environment if it's still economiccally viable to put 20+ cruisers with at least twice the costs of the lattest DDG.
I mean, the possibility will be quite tempting for congress to get extra 30+ DDG than building 20+ Cruisers.
Last edited:
cruisers'n stuff
Really its all gona depend on what they want em for. If its an antiair/missile defense cruiser it will be different from a all around cruiser like the DDG's are now. I know i heard a few months ago the navy was interested in a BMD cruiser with laser cannon
nfloorl: just sounds weird saying that.
I think as someone mentioned it will have alot of the tech from the DDG1000 of which im not a fan of the concept but i am a fan of alot of the technology.
I think it needs to be either nuclear or thorium powered. They operate with carriers anyways so there isnt really a big deal. Maybe either a trimaran or tumbledown hull design.
But really like i said it all depends on the mission.
Really its all gona depend on what they want em for. If its an antiair/missile defense cruiser it will be different from a all around cruiser like the DDG's are now. I know i heard a few months ago the navy was interested in a BMD cruiser with laser cannon
nfloorl: just sounds weird saying that. I think as someone mentioned it will have alot of the tech from the DDG1000 of which im not a fan of the concept but i am a fan of alot of the technology.
I think it needs to be either nuclear or thorium powered. They operate with carriers anyways so there isnt really a big deal. Maybe either a trimaran or tumbledown hull design.
But really like i said it all depends on the mission.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/03/navy_new_burkes_031410w/
The Navy’s next batch of workhorse destroyers will likely be larger, sport a different-looking superstructure and could carry a new set of weapons, according to a Navy official and congressional reports.
Service officials committed the Navy to a new variety of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in appearances around Washington over February and March, even rolling out the term “Flight III” for a ship that will combine much of what sailors already know in today’s Flight I, II and IIA ships with advanced refinements that designers hope are ready in the next few years.
“We ultimately have to go beyond today’s level of missile defense capability that’s in the [DDG] 51 class, which is why we have continued to move forward development of the air and missile defense radar technology,” the Navy’s top weapons buyer, Sean Stackley, said in a congressional hearing March 3. “So that’s an ongoing development. And those two intercept in about 2016 in terms of maturity of that technology and spiraling of the 51.”
As with any modern warship, the new destroyer’s sensors and weapons will be the two key variables that determine how different it becomes from today’s version. One basic component is its new radar, still in development, which will likely have a bigger array than the SPY-1 radar worn by today’s cruisers and destroyers.
The radar antenna for the Flight III ship could have a diameter of about 14 feet, compared with the roughly 12-foot arrays of today, according to a Feb. 26 report by Congressional Research Service shipbuilding expert Ron O’Rourke.
Wider, Longer Missiles
Another major change could come from the missiles the ship is built to
carry, so long as weapons now in the works make it to the fleet on
schedule. The Navy and the Missile Defense Agency have considered
developing wider, longer missiles than the weapons carried in to*day’s
Mk 41 Vertical Launch System tubes. The planned SM-3 Block IIA
missile, for example, would max out today’s VLS cells at 21 inches in
diameter, and engineers have considered even larger weapons.
With that in mind, the Navy might design a Flight III destroyer with
much larger missile tubes to accommodate larger weapons for use in
bal listic-missile defense. That might reduce the total number of
missiles even a larger ship could wield. Another problem for the
Flight III ship might be the limits of its basic design, O’Rourke
wrote. It can only grow so much bigger without major changes, and
there’s a possibility that a DDG in 2016 might become obsolete much
quicker than its forebears. The ship might not be able to accept
futuristic weapons like lasers, which planners say might be
indispensable in defending against a new generation of deadly anti-
ship missiles.
Cost might be another problem, O’Rourke wrote: “Skeptics could argue
that the crew size and other elements of the Flight III DDG 51’s life
cycle ownership cost could be reduced only so much, given certain
unchangeable features of the basic DDG 51 design, and that building
significant numbers of Flight III DDG 51s — rather than ships
designed from scratch to achieve significant reductions in crew size
and other life*cycle ownership costs — would produce a surface
combatant fleet with relatively high life-cycle ownership costs.”
Engineers could begin designing Flight III as soon as fiscal 2012,
The Navy’s next batch of workhorse destroyers will likely be larger, sport a different-looking superstructure and could carry a new set of weapons, according to a Navy official and congressional reports.
Service officials committed the Navy to a new variety of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in appearances around Washington over February and March, even rolling out the term “Flight III” for a ship that will combine much of what sailors already know in today’s Flight I, II and IIA ships with advanced refinements that designers hope are ready in the next few years.
“We ultimately have to go beyond today’s level of missile defense capability that’s in the [DDG] 51 class, which is why we have continued to move forward development of the air and missile defense radar technology,” the Navy’s top weapons buyer, Sean Stackley, said in a congressional hearing March 3. “So that’s an ongoing development. And those two intercept in about 2016 in terms of maturity of that technology and spiraling of the 51.”
As with any modern warship, the new destroyer’s sensors and weapons will be the two key variables that determine how different it becomes from today’s version. One basic component is its new radar, still in development, which will likely have a bigger array than the SPY-1 radar worn by today’s cruisers and destroyers.
The radar antenna for the Flight III ship could have a diameter of about 14 feet, compared with the roughly 12-foot arrays of today, according to a Feb. 26 report by Congressional Research Service shipbuilding expert Ron O’Rourke.
Wider, Longer Missiles
Another major change could come from the missiles the ship is built to
carry, so long as weapons now in the works make it to the fleet on
schedule. The Navy and the Missile Defense Agency have considered
developing wider, longer missiles than the weapons carried in to*day’s
Mk 41 Vertical Launch System tubes. The planned SM-3 Block IIA
missile, for example, would max out today’s VLS cells at 21 inches in
diameter, and engineers have considered even larger weapons.
With that in mind, the Navy might design a Flight III destroyer with
much larger missile tubes to accommodate larger weapons for use in
bal listic-missile defense. That might reduce the total number of
missiles even a larger ship could wield. Another problem for the
Flight III ship might be the limits of its basic design, O’Rourke
wrote. It can only grow so much bigger without major changes, and
there’s a possibility that a DDG in 2016 might become obsolete much
quicker than its forebears. The ship might not be able to accept
futuristic weapons like lasers, which planners say might be
indispensable in defending against a new generation of deadly anti-
ship missiles.
Cost might be another problem, O’Rourke wrote: “Skeptics could argue
that the crew size and other elements of the Flight III DDG 51’s life
cycle ownership cost could be reduced only so much, given certain
unchangeable features of the basic DDG 51 design, and that building
significant numbers of Flight III DDG 51s — rather than ships
designed from scratch to achieve significant reductions in crew size
and other life*cycle ownership costs — would produce a surface
combatant fleet with relatively high life-cycle ownership costs.”
Engineers could begin designing Flight III as soon as fiscal 2012,
Last edited: