WOW. A whole lot of the Navy's dumb decisions in ship acquisition really make sense now. 20/20 hindsight helps a lot. It's like the holes in the Swiss cheeze all of a sudden line up.
The reports on the CGBL state that because the DDG-51 class was being produced in mass the DDG-51 became the focus of alteration and modification. While this should lead right into the CGBL development, the mid to late 1990s through the 2000s was side tracked by a fascination with building a fleet of "future stealth ships", completely revolutionizing the US Navy. This included the CG(X), DD(X) FFG(X) and a "street fighter". There was even the suggestion of a stealth carrier. The concept of a conventional cruiser was discarded for the concept of a cruiser belonging to the Navy after next: the CG(X).
Why has this CGBL not been more hotly pursued? Well, the idea for a conventional cruiser was out of the picture for so long that it was kind of forgotten about.
The reality of that stealth fleet was that it was technologically too far away. The capabilities and requirements of those ships were scaled back and drawn down to the
maximum of what we could actually do. However even though we could physically build the
lowest possible concept they dreamed of in the DD(X), a.k.a. DDG-1000, the ship turned out to be
several times the promised cost. With DDG-1000 being unaffordable it was guaranteed that the CG(X) would, too be unquestionably unaffordable. The CG(X) also had so many unanswered
basic questions and conflicts, such as would it be nuclear powered or conventional, would it be an larger version of the enormous DDG-1000 or have a conventional hull, that it was completely dropped.
Now, instead of the CG(X), the DDG-51 Flight III developed in 1989 is being redesigned in FY2012 to accommodate a larger radar and the associated equipment (such as cooling plumbing and other requirements) to try to approach what CG(X) might have been able to do. However, because these radars weigh so much more than the SPY-1 the hull was designed for, the Flight III is also looking at being delivered at the beginning of a 30 year life with
no possible growth margin.
Because starting off your career with no way to grow your capabilities is a horrible idea it might be prudent to re-examine and develop the CGBL. Missions need to first be developed and then capabilities and weapon systems assembled to accomplish those missions. NAVSEA has put together an excellent list of missions for a future cruiser to accomplish. The Flight III would not be able to accomplish those. A real "cruiser" as opposed to a "big destroyer" needs to be made.
The development in the papers and the numbers supplied look like an
excellent place to start, especially if someone wanted to begin a model of this kind of ship.
Who's going to start?