carr wrote:
...does not need to be, a multi-role vessel. If it is in company of a carrier or amphib, it will have the benefit of lots of fixed and rotary wing support for strike, anti-swarm, and ASW (also Burkes). A replacement Tico, in a restricted budget enviroment should be strictly an AAW escort, tethered to the carriers and amphibs. Nothing else.
I agree to a point. The Long Beach suffered the problems caused by the argument you are proposing. Leaving anti-swarm self-defense to other ships or to helicopters leaves the ship vulnerable to a very easily solved problem. We all know that IF the helicopters are going to be effective in an anti-swarm role, they have to be in the air and appropraitaely armed. How often will that happen, and will it be reliable to bet your ship on? No way. One or 2 of the modern SR 76mm SR guns firing DART, AHEAD or other advanced rounds now becoming standard, would do the trick for $1.5 to $2 Million dollars per mount. When talking about a $1.5+ Billion dollar ship, why not go for the little deck guns that can close the vulnerability caused by not having gun mounts to engage small craft at medium ranges?
carr wrote:
Drop the gun support.
For a missile frigate, I can understand. For a cruiser, I do not. If we're going to say that we should replace the Ticonderoga-class missile cruisers which also operate as flagships, NGFS ships, strike ships, ASW ships, etc, etc, etc...with a single mission ship that can ONLY perform AAW/BMD, then we're displacing a HUGE capability that will have to be absorbed in other combatants. Unfortunately the undersized and overly burdened Burkes cannot absorb the missions of inter-group C41 or Flag, nor can they perform reliable NGFS. So, one way or the other, a "cruiser", even if it is not an AAW specialized ship, able to perform those other tasks (except ASW) is still needed.
carr wrote:
Sharply limit the number of VLS to what can reasonably be used in a couple of engagements. No group is going to stay at sea for more than a couple engagements. When you do the math you see that the modern engagement window is very short and very few missiles will be able to be launched; there's no need for hundreds of VLS. My guess is that around 60-80 VLS is sufficient. Someone would have to wargame that to determine the optimum number.
HEre's what I would suggest on this. Imagine in 10 years when the PRC has 36 Tu-22M+ bombers, and hundreds of SS-N-26s and Kh-35s that can be fired from the internal rotary launcher and external hard points. That would give a single aircraft 10 super sonic and hard to defeat ASCMs. When they decide to attack the
Ronald Reagan CSG, they will sortie 20 bombers and launch 200 missiles. One-hundred and ninety successfully fly.
Then, surprisingly nearly 200 missiles appear on the escorts' radars at a range of 20nm flying in at almost 2,000 mph. Closing at more than 2 miles every 3 seconds, the group has approximately 30 seconds (?) to engage 190 missiles. That is a lot of targets to engage if your ships only have 60-80 missiles aboard, especially if your AAW/BMD ship is 1/3 loaded with SM-3s and SM-2 Block IVs for BMD engagements. Shoot-shoot-look-shoot-shoot discipline blows out your magazines super fast...they need more than 60-80 tubes.
carr wrote:
No hangar. The ship will be surrounded by helos. Flight deck is OK.
I would say "flight deck is essential", because no matter what, you have to land helos for personnel or gear transfers.
carr wrote:
Maximum sized AMDR.
That's a big b!tch radar for a DLG-sized ship (DLG description explained below).
carr wrote:
Mk41 VLS unless you anticipate a missile that needs the larger Mk57 cell. Nothing I'm aware that exists or is under development needs the size.
I agree, but I can see how Mk57 can be integrated into the design on the periphery of the helo deck if the widened Spruance-class hull is utilized.
carr wrote:
With these limitiations, the hull wouldn't need to be particularly large...Armor, armor, armor. There's no point having the main AAW defense be susceptible to cheap kills.
If you want a ship that can carry "armor, armor, armor" AND the large, super-heavy AMDR radars
AND stop a cheap kill, you need a bigger ship. I would suggest a Spruance with the 5' blisters designed for the Spruance, Ticonderoga, and Kidd-classes to improve their survivability against ASCMs and mines. Amidships-to-aft to where the hull begins to taper upward (about 70' of length), those blisters would afford the room for Mk57 peripheral launchers. The most appropriate place for them would be on either side, and almost flush with, the helo pad. That may provide the ship with 32 Mk57 VLS.
carr wrote:
LOT's more close in AAW weapons (CIWS, RAM, whatever) than ships currently have. In a real engagement, there will be far more leakers than people think. For a Tico replacement, I'd suggest four weapons, of whatever type, per side (half missile, half gun, maybe?).
I am a fan of a 6 placement system arrangement. The single emplacement would be a joined system of a Millennium Gun tied into and guided by a SeaRAM mount. There would be 2 per side, and center-lined forward and aft would be a 21-cell RAM launcher.
carr wrote:
Stealth shape to the maximum extent reasonably possible. Again, no sense making the main AAW defense an easily locked on target - keep the ship in the fight for as long as possible!
I don't know...Busto's point is a very, very, very good one. It does not matter how stealthy your ship is if you are spewing off tracking and illumination radars. It's only if you're totally out of missiles, and you shut down your CIWS and all defenses (and go totally defenseless) can your stealthy characteristics HOPE to help you. Then, you would need to hope your passive countermeasures work flawlessly.
carr wrote:
Redundancy. Redundancy. [I typed that twice for redundancy!]...Separation.
back to the point for a bigger hull. There is no reason to have separation if your ship is so small that an impact will still take out both radar emplacements. Spruanc-class length.
So, perhaps here, it is appropriate to devise another ship independent of this topic where there would be a compromise between a proper "cruiser" that would fulfill most of the "CURRENT roles" and correct the errors of the CG-47 (as opposed to its "originally designed roles"); those of which would result in a large ship with armor, large anti-ship/NGFS guns, the most modern Aegis Baseline (Baseline 10), to be compromised to a AAW frigate ranging from an FFG to a DLG.
It seems that a widened Spruance-class hull would provide the best compromise for a ship with a minimal effective number of Mk41 and Mk57 VLS, defensive medium caliber guns, decent deck, side, and bottom protection to allow her to survive, fight hurt, and make it home, and we can put the best radar we can on her.
carr wrote:
Flag facilities: give 'em a tent on the foredeck and hope they wash overboard. When I meet a fighting Admiral I'll think about giving him some support.
Since this kind of arrangement is in no way actually replacing a Cruiser but instead produces an AAW frigate or DLG, then there will be no Flag accommodation, but if a "Cruiser" were to be designed and built, it would indeed require flag facilities.
Good discussion, guys!
Rebut if you dare!