The Ship Model Forum

Good afternoon watchers! As a conceptual build, what kind of a design do you think would be a good fit to replace the Ticonderoga-class CGs in an economically restrictive environment?

Its warfare areas would be:
AAW
ASuW/NGFS
C2/C4I
Deep Strike

It's capability sets would be:
- Simultaneous AAW/BMD with deep magazine
- Effective Naval Gun Strike (long range capability)/NGFS
- Anti Small Boat Swarm
- Gun capable of effective ASuW
- Self defense ASW
- Sustained UAV operation
- Embarkation of 2 full sized helicopters
- Task force level C4I
- Flag Facilities
- Passive protection effective against 155mm, medium super sonic missiles, mines, and "drive-home" survivability against torpedoes carrying 800lb HE warheads.
- Offensive and Defensive Electronic Warfare

How would you equip a new build CG to meet these needs, structurally, electronically, it's facilities, and weaponry?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Honestly I would skip the NGFS and most of the other roles than AAW/BMD. Some variant of SSTD would definitely be in order though. I see a Tico replacement as being defended by other ships when it comes to the small boat and ASW, leaving that much more space for its primary role. The one thing I might add is some MK 57 modules since they can handle a 24 inch diameter missile. This would allow future SM-3 variants to be larger and more capable and be in addition to the primary MK 41 modules.

Edit: I wonder how big a missile you could quad pack in a MK 57, or if you could pack more than 4 ESSM in one?

Great topic!

I think that budget concerns take nuclear power and a major gun armament off the table.

The key driver will be the sensor suite (AMDR) scaled up to meet the threat.

Hull
The hull is going to need to be large, perhaps Kirov or Des Moines sized, with a deep draft, and broad beam for sea keeping (no CGN-9 rolls). I would advocate a flush deck, or near flush deck design for maximum beam strength against underwater explosions. And of course a high degree of compartmentalization.

I think the Bridge, CIC, Main Control, Aft steering and all repair lockers need to be heavily armored, and the VLS missile magazines as well. No sailor who works topside should be exposed without armored tubs and gun shields - period. Afterthought micro plates that do not even cover a man’s torso are disgraceful. And whenever possible, weapons should be reloadable from under armor.

Propulsion
CODELAG: 50% of power from diesel generators, 50% from gas turbine generators. This should allow the ship to cruise at or near maximum sonar self-noise speed on GTGs, and above that in wartime with diesels. During peacetime ops, diesels should give very long and economical cruising ranges.

Armament
-IRBMs are the next step in strike warfare evolution. I get that we are politically opposed to ballistic missile proliferation, but we have lost that point and need to get on with reality. A 1,200nm ballistic missile would totally change the DF-21 debate, and really enable naval TACAIR.

- VLS, might as well go with MK57s for extra booster length.

- Guns: I remain unconvinced of the general advantages of either the 57mm or 76mm guns against a range of targets. Both weapons deliver about a 1lb of explosive, which is not much. Ahead and DART rounds are great, but are very expensive. Once you get over $1,200 per round (and those technologies are) a small guided missile becomes far more attractive as it can deliver more explosive at lower cost. Moreover, this technology can be applied to other gun calibers as well with much greater effect per round. If we avoid the fire support mission for this hull (and I think we should), I really think that any RDT&E funds would be better spent on a *well-designed* 4” or 5” turret, possibly a dual or triple for ROF!

- CIWS: 35mm, RAM and iron dome

..

Bob,

Some excellent logic, but I will quibble on four points: size, stealth, sonar, and the Mk57.

- AMDR is scalable, but it seems that even in its minimal form (14-15' arrays) it will require too much from a DDG-51. Heck the SPY-1 radar should be at least another 10-20 feet higher to get optimal radar range. To get a full 20'+ array the ship is going to be need to be much larger just for stability.

- I think stealth is over stated for an AAW ship - I think that the radars will be turned on - at which point stealth is a a non issue.

- Sonar, If you buy off on the large hull, then adding a hull mounted sonar is attractive because the dome is much less likely to suffer from quenching and will be far more effective than shallower draft vessels. This is one reason the JMSDF put sonars on their DDHs. There is also a school of thought that thinks that carriers and even AOEs should have sonar domes for the same reason.

- I think that the Mk41 is great, but we are physically pushing its limits with current generation missiles. Presumably, a longer ABM and larger ASCM are projects of great need now. Why muck about? The 4-cell Mk57 can build up a launcher array just as the 8-cell Mk41.

And admirals in tents? Good heavens man, this is the age of the ISO container! Put them up in a double wide!

I worked through a similar concept, but with a 90's timeframe earlier.

If designed and built today, I think you may see a vessel with much in common with the Zummwalt. I detest the tumblehome hull, and think it sacrifices too much to gain a little more stealth (chasing stealth past the level of the Burke's signature reduction is too expensive). So essentially, a DDG-1000 with a more conventional hull and no AGS should provide a lot of space and power for most of what might be needed. That 'more conventional hull' should be armored, and I'm thinking of protection on a level with the Cleveland class from WWII would be reasonable to ship on that size. Enough armor to mitigate medium damage, and make the lighter weapons of most potential swarm combatants a non-threat.

There are reasonable major items to take over to the new CGX - MT-30 based power plant provides much more electrical generation capacity than before - so your primary mover and electrical backbone design may essentially already be done. Good layout for aviation operations aft (and I DO advocate retention of her own hangar - her being able to operate and support her own aviation helps the BG by taking those rotary wing evolutions off the big deck, be they Helo or UAV), basic superstructure arrangement that supports large aperture radars high in the ship.

AMDR (or whatever that becomes) and VLS (most likely Mk57 for 'future-proofing') I see as the primary systems for this platform, so their mounting, care, and feeding are the primary drivers to this design.

For aviation, I would want a helo hangar for 2x SH-60 sized as a minimum, with an objective of hangar space for 2x V-22 if the dimensions and weights of the hull allow after the primary AAW radars, VLS and support are in place. Why 2x V-22? That is the largest item we could project being operated form the vessel at this time, naturally I do not expect two V-22s to operate from the vessel, but the size capability will allow for a healthy mix of whatever the BG needs to be aboard - be they SH-60R or UAVs we have yet to see. The deck should be able to handle the V-22 in any case, or the same reasons Dr. Leopold selected the H-46 as a size reference for the Spruance class design - you never know what may be needed in the turmoil of conflict. Kidd operated an 'overcapacity' of four helos not originally intended to operate from her, and H-46's did use Spruance decks during Grenada - aviation size is a very usable variable asset to have, and can only really be added at the design stage. H-53 is right out.

I would limit the main guns to what would be effective for ASuW. That might be the Mk45 mod 4, maybe something else (I prefer the Italian 127mm myself...), but I don't see this as the major platform for NGFS. Let something smaller get closer; but that does not mean saying no to a large caliber weapon if: it can be effective in ASuW; is otherwise in the inventory; and does not cost too much to the design, then fine - but it is a 'nice to have' not an essential part in my opinion. In my earlier generation proposal I added Mk71 as I thought the platform size would support it well, it would make the modeling subject more interesting, could be useful in ASuW (203mm Copperhead!), and was probably the only new platform large enough to ship a gun that would meet the political expedient of convincing congress that 'something' was being done about NGFS. Not sure all those apply here.

I would cram as many VLS as would reasonably fit on the vessel. There is no telling how many of what weapon would be needed to keep the BG in area, so she will have to carry various types of the Standard family, ESSM for closer work, VLASROC, and the new Anti-ship missile in her cells just to start. How many of which will she need? We could all debate until we are blue in the face, but she will need enough ammunition to transit to the area, enter the threatened area (perhaps forcefully), maintain dominance over that area for the duration of the CVN's mission tasking at least, all while protecting herself and her charges. That will not be a small number, as you do not know ahead of time how many of which weapons you may need, and we do not replenish VLS cells at sea.

Have we considered how a platform like this might fit with the newly proposed 'Small Surface Combatant' intended to follow the LCS? I could see the SSC (really, an FFG) being a 'low' complement to this vessels 'high' in the force mix, with the DDG-51 representing a 'medium'.

..

..

..

The economic criteria is precisely why I leaned toward DDG-1000, as that design and infrastructure work is done, and should save considerably. A Helo Hangar is not an 'addition' in this case, it would add seriously to cost and schedule to eliminate the helo hangar. Of course, I have proposed correcting the hull and agreed with shipping armor - both of those will generate more cost that subtracting a helo hangar or even adding/constructing it in a new design hull.

Sonar and Helos need to stay aboard, because otherwise this ship is vulnerable herself, incapable of supporting the ASW picture, and the cost for an entire separate platform (and its support) to rectify the loss of inner layer ASW would be far more than leaving the vessel itself capable. Helicopters are ASW in today's close environment. Both are more important that armor, as much as I want armor myself.

The SSC(FFG) could be a simple effective platform such as an Americanized Takanami (OTO 127mm, ESSM, Harpoon, CIWS, 1 x SH-60, crew <200) to take the lower end for ASW and escort in numbers, allowing the fewer numbers of the above platform to concentrate on Battle Group protection.

I don't think there is any such thing as an effective surface platform of significant size today without the hangar to support embarked organic air. Aviation and self-deployability drove the LCS to be too large and added costs, but for the fleet/escort units, helos are essential.

Hangars also provide a potential for adding missions not previously considered, for instance we put special equipment into one of the helo hangars of the Perry Class frigate to give it capability it otherwise would not have had.

I am not aware of a larger missile either, this is moving the bar in the inevitable direction of missile development with a paid for development program that will increase the total cost of ownership by negligible amount.

..

..

I've been digging over the various information available on SPY-3/4 and AMDR over the last few days and it looks like AMDR is what the navy is going with. I've seen references to possible retrofits of the Zumwalts and Ford class to AMDR from SPY in the future (article). As the technology can scale to different sizes by the number of modules installed, it can be used on many different sizes of ships. That beings said, what hull? The powerplant of the DDG-1000 seems to be the ideal non nuclear choice, but I question the deck space available and the deck house specifically as suitable for 360 coverage from the necessary 4 arrays on the Zumwalt hull. Anyone know any better?

Sorry about the lack of involvement on the entire model front, but I am at school at a Navy school that requires a lot of work in and out of the class room. The legs are constantly on fire, I have a huge bruise on my shoulder, and my trigger finger is raw.

A few comments, it sounds like carr's idea isn't a Tico CG replacement, it's a missile frigate. Embarking the armor and light load of weapons, a Spruance-sized hull with 5' blisters on her sides would probably provide the hull foot print needed to load on, perhaps as much as 1500 tons of armor while embarking only 60-80 cells and super structure to support the radar he described. Sounds doable, but it will be a big ship to carry that much armor for that little armament. I would still suggest the ship be fitted with 76mm SR guns so it can use the radar and laser guided 76mm rounds against small craft that might be making a run on her in particular.

I am still not seeing the huge deal with AMDR. Faster scan time? Better resolution? Aegis can already perform AAW and BMD at the same time by simply adding the SPQ-9B radar to the main mast. It's already been stated that the AMDR radar will NOT be being driven by its own fire control system, but it will instead be using Aegis. So, why go with the vastly more heavy, power hungry, and more expensive AMDR? Afterall, it is seeming like AMDR needs to be on a San Antonio-class ship so we can have 12 or 15 of them, and that's all they do. They can be AAW/BMD arsenal ships for strike groups, independent steaming performing regional defense, etc.

I don't see why AMDR is a good system to put on a CG or DDG. Any information why it should be on a CG/DDG instead of a large, survivable platform that can act as an arsenal ship like a San Antonio-class?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

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?

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.

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.

I would say "flight deck is essential", because no matter what, you have to land helos for personnel or gear transfers.

That's a big b!tch radar for a DLG-sized ship (DLG description explained below).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

AMDR is an AESA system vs the PESA of SPY-1 and has far more ability to combat low level moisture/clutter issues than a passive system. Also if I'm not mistaken, it's designed for much higher power output than the current Aegis systems. Then there is the resistance to jamming, the ability of the radar itself to act as a jammer and the high bandwidth communications capability of AESA systems. The last benefit is the ability to produce multiple beams on multiple frequencies, SPY-1 uses a single pencil beam if I am remembering correctly.

Edit: an interesting link I found on SPY-3 and DDG-1000 (need to translate to read). It has far more hull information than anything else I have seen.

AMDR is all about sensitivity, bandwidth, and power. It is needed to meet advanced threats that that the SPY-1 cannot deal with.

The SPQ-9B is a stopgap - it still has some life in it, but it needs to go too.

The San Antonio is a stopgap at best (and a bad one too).

its the 21st century lads, merchant ships have gone from 2,000 tonnes to upwards of 200,000 tons for the largest container ships. Time to get over the size issue!

Other than speed of travel, how would a CG or DDG be better than a San Antonio?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I am all in favor of economical weapons systems, but a CG replacement should be a high end warship that is designed for the task, not a warmed over LPD design that was was never particularly good as an LPD.