What-If USN Strike Cruiser (CSG or CSGN)

[Busto963]

I'm sure you know this but the first photo was a SeaRAM (11 missiles) and the next few were RAM (21 missiles).

Oh, yes. The SeaRAM is so awesome. It makes me tingly thinking about it. A Warrant Officer of mine who just went through an Aegis school at Dahlgren said that the testers there said the SeaRAM was overwhelmingly successful. The CIWS direction part of the SeaRAM tells the RAM missile directly where to go before it is even launched. The normal 21-cell RAM mounts fire in the general direction of the threat and let the IR seeker head go after the hottest thing around, which is usually the target. The SeaRAM, however, locks the missile seeker head onto the target before it's even launched. That has led to a 99% kill rate.

The SeaRAM seems to me to be good for anti-boat missions while the normal 21-cell RAM is good for the leaker ASMs making for 2 SeaRAMs (1 forward and 1 aft) and 4 RAM mounts (2 port and starboard). We are planning for our ship to get into a fight and win. Instead of the Phalanx Block1B for taking out missiles or small craft I would (at this time) consider the Millennium gun more instead. With 2 on each side it seems at this point that system would offer an extremely good anti-boat capability and would be very good for countering shore based fires (like artillery/mortars) like Busto suggested.

Interesting....

One thought I have had was to chain the FC of a Mk15 to a Mk49, but maybe a better strategy would be to chain the FC of SeaRam to a Millennium GDM008 gun: in other words, let the SeaRAM share its targeting data with the gun (or equivalent). If the SeaRAM were in close proximity, perhaps almost super firing the Millennium GDM008 gun, this might work well since the AHEAD ammunition is an "area effect" weapon.

A little wizardry with code and you have an integrated gun-missile weapon system where the gun tracks what the missile is tracking.

You could get more sophisticated and provide and UPS power supply, and a small generator with enough power to feed the gun, missile, and perhaps a fire pump. This would create a isolated bastion to continue fight/save the ship even if power gets temporarily disrupted as a result of battle damage (not that that would ever happen in combat).

You might also be able to chain the FC of a SeaRAM and RAM launcher. You just created 33-rounds of RIM-116 goodness!

[Seasick]

Also running around in the CIWS world is the Evolved Sea Sparrow. The Aegis ships are all getting it with priority, RAM and SeaRAM are fit to combatants without a powerful AAW. RAM is incredibly agile. It has the same (or closely related) IR homing device as the AIM-9X. When the SAM launchers were deactivated on the Oliver Hazard Perry class FFG the USN's contigency for a new AA system for the OHP was to fit the 21 round RAM launcher, because it was more capable than what was being retired. Also the USN was considering fitting it to 12 OHP in 2005 but the budget was too tight. CVN only need the 21 round RAM launcher because the AN/SPS-48G(v) and AN/SPQ-9B integrated into the fire control system provide the necessary search capability. Ships with the Mk23 Target Acquisition system for the NATO Sea Sparrow only need a software upgrade for the SWY-1 radar (the 2D radar for the Mk23 TAS) to do the search for the RAM system in its place.

[navydavesof]

Also running around in the CIWS world is the Evolved Sea Sparrow. The Aegis ships are all getting it with priority,

What else do you know about the ESSM? From what your reference material/contacts say, how reliable is ESSM?

RAM and SeaRAM are fit to combatants without a powerful AAW. RAM is incredibly agile. It has the same (or closely related) IR homing device as the AIM-9X.

...and it's a badass missile. It's perfect for a PC size craft like the Ambassador-III class small missile craft. Maybe even a follow-on to the Cyclone-class PCs. Particularly to me the PC-14+ offered to the Egyptians with 76mm, Phalanx CIWS, and RAM would be great...absolutely great. If situated for the NSW role, elimination of the Phalanx CIWS for a stern RHIB recovery ramp (like on the PC-1s) would be satisfactory.

When the SAM launchers were deactivated on the Oliver Hazard Perry class FFG the USN's contigency for a new AA system for the OHP was to fit the 21 round RAM launcher, because it was more capable than what was being retired. Also the USN was considering fitting it to 12 OHP in 2005 but the budget was too tight.

It was a sad sight to see them not receive RAM. A large compartment (like a short mission module) accommodating power and structural support could be positioned right above the Mk13 magazine to support the RAM mount. Silly Navy.

CVN only need the 21 round RAM launcher because the AN/SPS-48G(v) and AN/SPQ-9B integrated into the fire control system provide the necessary search capability.

eghem...battleship...eghem....

I wonder What you mean by your statement that CVNs don't need Phalanx? If that were true they would only have RAM. Instead Phalanx is still installed on all medium to large combatants in the USN. Do you mean they don't need Phalanx in an anti-missile capacity?

[Seasick]

The Evolved Sea Sparrow is produced in four versions:
RIM-162A Four pack, Mk41 VLS, Aegis
RIM-162B Four Pack, Mk41 non-Aegis
RIM-162C two pack Mk48 VLS non-Aegis
RIM-162D single round Mk29 launcher retrofit

It looks like a miniture standard MR (RIM-66M) Its very agile like RAM but longer ranged and can be used in the next catagory up from CIWS: Ship Self Defense (SSDD). Aegis controls it via a data link just like the standard and it only needs terminal illumination. Aegis makes it just as effective as the RAM. Its a big step up from the NATO Sea Sparrow. I've read about it over at global security. The USN web site and raytheon both talk about it. USN, Germany and the Dutch have already accepted it into service. Spain, Japan, and South Korea are possibly using it too. As far as I know the plans over the next few years are for the CVN fleet (CVN-77 and earlier) are for two 21 round RAM launchers and two MK29 launchere retrofit with RIM-162D. I believe that after the USS Cole bombing the USN has been developing software so that the RAM missile can be fired against aircraft from the 21 round launcher. The SeaRAM was developed with this capability since it started off with the radars and IR scanner from block 1B phalanx.

The RAM launcher is available for the OHPerry, if needed. Its just never been needed.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-162.html
http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1791
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/essm/

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rt ... allery.swf

[Timmy C]

The Norwegians are also using the ESSM. With a range of 27nm, it's provides way more engagement time than RAM and NSSM.

[navydavesof]

What is known about the Mk41 VLS quad pack missiles' reliability? Are there still any problems with it as far as you know?

[Seasick]

The quad pack for ESSM has completed acceptance trails years ago. The quad pack had trials on a USN Arleigh Burke class DDG. There were a large number of test fires.

Navies that have adopted the ESSM: USN, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, and Norway. Arleigh Burke DDG have already been fit with it, and Ticonderoga class that have gone through the Cruiser modernization refit can to.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/images/vls.jpg

[navydavesof]

The quad pack for ESSM has completed acceptance trails years ago. The quad pack had trials on a USN Arleigh Burke class DDG. There were a large number of test fires.

Navies that have adopted the ESSM: USN, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, and Norway. Arleigh Burke DDG have already been fit with it, and Ticonderoga class that have gone through the Cruiser modernization refit can to.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/images/vls.jpg

Okay. Can you find any reported errors with them or does everything seem great?

I'm just saying that something is not right here. The Navy quit buying Phalanx units, because the ESSM was coming along, and it was going to be great! The Navy even went from commissioning DDGs with 2 Phalanx mounts to none...neither forward nor aft. Sounds like a dumb decision to be, but the Navy knew...they just knew ESSM was going to be a magical fix to the close in threat. Missiles, suicide boats, ESSM was going to be able to address everything Phalanx CIWS used to do. Then the Navy tested the ESSMs quite a bit, and something happened. The Navy quickly ran back to Raytheon and asked to start buying more Phalanx units. Raytheon told the Navy, "sorry guys we're making RAM mounts with that production line now, and we have contracts we have to make good on..."

Then, the Navy tried to draw from the Phalanx Block 0 and 1As they had in storage from the Iowas and Spruances they had decommissioned. Then the Navy remembered it had sold them all to the Army, and the Army was converting them into Block 1Bs for use at FOBs as C-RAM mounts...So then, the Navy went back to Raytheon and paid out the nose to build a new production line to start having Phalanx built again.

Now, today, DDGs are being built with either one or both mounts, and they're being back fitted onto the ships. Example, USS Mustin. Commissioned without either. Now, she has both.

So, there has to be something wrong with ESSM for the Navy to have paid through the nose for Raytheon to build a whole other production line to start building Phalanx again.

[Seasick]

The policy on Phalanx and RAM on the Arleigh Burke class is as follows:
When available a Phalanx block 1B is to be fit forward of the bridge and the 21 round RAM on the stern. Many Phalanx guns were sent to Iraq and Afganistan to protect Marines and Soldiers against mortars. A Phalanx block 0, 1, or 1A can be retrofit to block 1B fairly easily. There is still a bit of a demand for the block 1B phalanx from US allies as well as the USN. The stabilized 25mm gun will probably supplant the Phalanx on Arleigh Burke class and remaining Ticonderoga over time.

[Timmy C]

To the list of ESSM users you can add Turkey, whose Perry frigates are being updated, as with the Australians, with 8-cell Mk 41.

[navydavesof]

The policy on Phalanx and RAM on the Arleigh Burke class is as follows:
When available a Phalanx block 1B is to be fit forward of the bridge and the 21 round RAM on the stern.

That's pretty cool! When is that supposed to happen? The Burkes are already getting their big upgrades. But they are not getting RAM, instead they are finishing up the Block 1B upgrades. If thats the policy, why aren't any Burks getting RAM?

[carr]

..

[Seasick]

Regarding Dave's question about ESSM issues, various DOT&E and DTE reports cite ESSM problems including troublesome fin locking pins (reportedly fixed), excessive electronic signal noise to the point of interfering with guidance control, and problems with reaction time from vertically launched missiles due to tip over time.

In addition, the same reports describe severe problems with the various ship classes that use the Ship Self Defense Systems (SSDS) mainly due to sensor blind spots and poor placement of sensors.

Those are common problems with all of the Navy's missiles. During the first Gulf War the Iraqi attack on the USS Missouri with the anti-ship missiles the Perry class' problem blind spots came to a head when the Perry class FFG couldn't get a lock on either of the Exocets. The Missouri fired chaff, and in an epic fail, the Phalanx gun on the Missouri which had the Exocets in its field of fire shot at the chaff. The Exocets didn't arm until they passed the Missouri. One of the Exocets was blown out of the sky by a Sea Dart from a type 42 DDG that was south of the Missouri.

[navydavesof]

Over the past month I have listened to a number of HASC testimonies on Navy programs, ship procurement, LCS and DDG-1000 justifications, DDG-51 restart, DDG-Flight III purpose, etc., and in conjunction with the CRS and GAO reports on these programs, I have gained far larger pieces and a better understanding of what the Navy is actually trying to do with its ship procurement strategy. I understand why the Navy is not pursuing another FFG, why it wants LCS, and why it is pursuing the DDG-51 Flight III.

The Navy is fighting so hard to make a DDG-51 Flight III by trying to ram and cram the AMDR into the DDG-51 Flight IIA design in order to save the money involved in designing a new class. Instead it is playing accounting and tricks with the process to design a whole new ship with the DDG-51 Flight III that will actually under perform. It is clear that the DDG-51 Flight III is dimentionally a Flight IIA with the enormous and hugely heavy AMDR radar suite on it. Because its physical size is what it is, it is greatly limited, and with the AMDR forced into this design, the new Flight III ships will have zero room for growth. Just like the CG-47s have turned out, the ship's equipment will be a zero-sum game, ie if one year after the Flight IIIs are commissioned, something needs to go on the Flight IIIs, something will have to come off. There will not be any additional equipment added to the ship...

This is no way to build a ship...at all. It's dumb.

It is clear that if equipped with the AMDR, the next AAW ship needs to be a ship significantly larger than the DDG-51. This would likely meet the criteria of a "guided missile cruiser".

While the nuclear powered option is not necessarily being pursued by the Navy (see the CGN-42 thread for a look at a modern nuclear powered cruiser), a conventional version could be employed with the margins for growth needed to meet future needs. If we're using something like a (in descending order of size) Long Beach, CSGN-1, or a CGBL type hull, there is plenty of justification to look into the heavier guns that could successfully be used in the strike and ASuW role. By bumping up to the larger hull and possibly moving into nuclear powered region, the heavier armament may indeed move the ship directly to a "strike cruiser" classification.

[Seasick]

The aeroderivitive gas turbine has done in the nuclear escort.

[navydavesof]

The aeroderivitive gas turbine has done in the nuclear escort.

The fact that the aeroderivitive gas turbine requires that it must be followed around by a resupply ship for constant refueling keeps the utility of the nuclear escort alive. If you said that up-front cost has done in the nuclear escort I would have agreed with you 100%. However, because food stores last over a month, a (or group of) nuclear powered escort(s) can operate independent of any support and far longer than an aeroderivitive gas turbine escort ship. There's no way around it.

[navydavesof]

Agree, A large hull gives a lot of options. I used to be critical of the hull growth of western warships (along with the drop in weapon density)...

This is a very good point. In a lot of modern ships, we see a WHOLE LOT of electronics, but we don't see a lot of weapons. In this instance, the Long Beach hull offers us a lot of internal volume offered by the existing Mk10 and Mk7 magazine voids and anything else we wish to scoop out.

The original CGSN-9 conversion was going to involve 2 Mk71 ModX 8"/60caliber guns, 2x Mk26 Mod2 64-missile SM-2 launchers, and a new super structure mounting the Aegis weapon system and a hanger accommodating 2 SH-60s.
SeaRAM today, however I would suggest the consideration of the Mk71 8"/60 caliber gun, but now the Mk57 and Mk41 VLS missile system. Raytheon claims the Mk57 can accommodate bigger missiles, but while there are no current missiles in production to fill the large margins of the Mk57...there might be some day. With a hull that large, I would also add above deck 76mm super rapid fire guns (in place of the Mk110 57mm guns). I would also have this CGSN mount the AMDR AAW system so it can not just do AAW but also BMD at the same time. Sounds pretty good.

...but the reality is that large hulls are better from almost every perspective, except detectability, and both the upfront and lifetime cost difference has become almost insignificant.

I agree, sir. While the equation is that it must take another cruiser missile to take out another 300 feet of a ship, the larger the ship the more survivable it is. However, a ship designed to take hits would be able to sustain far more its than a ship built to modern light damage standards.

So, the modern CSGN should mount 2 Mk71 Mod2 guns, 256 mk41 VLS tubes, 64 Mk57 tubes, and 2 Mk110 57mm guns in addition to the smaller stuff of Mk38 Mod2 close in guns in addition to 2 CRAM and 4 RAM mounts.

[Seasick]

The nuclear escorts had to reprovision as frequently as oil powered ships. A CVN today has to resupply from an T-AOE or T-AKE every few days. The savings from nuclear escorts was never realized. The SSN, SSBN, and CVN have all been sucessful.

[CSGN138]

The nuclear escorts had to reprovision as frequently as oil powered ships. A CVN today has to resupply from an T-AOE or T-AKE every few days. The savings from nuclear escorts was never realized. The SSN, SSBN, and CVN have all been sucessful.

I'm far from an expert, but while I served on board Virgina I had a good friend who had previously served on a Knox class frigrate. We were both line handlers on the un-rep detail. He remarked maby times how he loved being on Virgina because we went along side a LOT less than he had to on the Knox. Now granted the Knox class was a lot smaller so is going to need resupply more, I think that your assertion that nukes need to go along side just as much as the other ships is not entirely correct. Granted if the nuke esscort is working in conjunction with a CBG, yes they are probably going along side just as much as the other escorts simply because everyone else is and military doctrine would dictate that if you can "top off" everything, you probably should. I've read somewhere that the nuke escorts were needed so that in a crisis the carriers could leave the supply chain behind, and make best possible speed to the area of crisis with a minimal amount of AAW and ASW support that the nuke escorts could provide and let the supply chain catch up when they could. Before the nuke cruisers, the Carriers could not do this. I board Virgina I believe we carried enough food for a three month supply. Yes we would run out of fresh stuff way before that and have to eat powdered eggs and drink powered milk. I think your confusing peace time operations with how usefull these ships would be in a wartime setting. Yes durring a real war, the ship is going to need to replenish weapons but nobody has yet designed an unlimited ammo supply weapon. Perhaps when we design some kind of directed high energy weapon it will be possible to have no logistical support, bet even then (especially then) you would probably want nuke power to energize that equipment.

IMO nuke escorts were never really used in the way they should have been, and thats why we never really seen a return on their costs. I can tell you that the three years i served on Virgina, all we did was CONOPS (counter narcotics opreations) in the Gulf of Mexico and the Carribean. Altho a good mission ( i HATE drugs and what they do to scociety) was it really cost effective to be using a 600 foot long nuclear powered guided missle cruiser to preform that mission? Hell no

That is my opinion, and as far as i know there are no studies to back up my assertations.

Joe

[navydavesof]

From inside the military, I will tell you that food stores last a LONG time on board ship. For every 3 to 5 times we have to meet up with a resupply ship to top fuel, we take on food once.

That means that a CGN, or in this case a CSGN, the ship would only need to meet up with a resupply ship once for every 5 times as an aeroderivative ship sucking gas down.

In a long, big hull like a modern CSGN would have, she could break away from the main-line force and perform independent operations in a hostile environment very well. In such a capacity, UAVs, long range cruise missiles, and long range gunnery would greatly expand such a ship's capability to deliver ordnance from a long distance. Its large vertical launch capability would enable it to employ all kinds of missile ordnance from point defense and area air defense to ballistic missile defense very well.

While gunnery has been a back-burner priority for the last 50 years, a heavy gunnery capability is remarkably useful and has a great utility in the present and for the future. Employing modern technology (and without relying on WWII tech), production of a gun system with a caliber up to 12" is quickly feasible with current technology. If pushing it, a CSGN might consider a 12" gun mount, but 8" could be immediately feasible. We also know that 8" is the smallest caliber necessary to accomplish the ASuW and NSFS needs stated by the USN.

A CSG/CSGN would need to be able to deliver a heavy missile strike and defense capability, and it would need to be able to engage sea and land targets with destructive gunnery.

The nuclear capability enables the ship to detach from the main conventional force for months at a time and perform independent operations against enemy forces. In conjunction with an SSN, it would be able to invade and assault nearly environment with great effect.

Next to a battleship it sounds like the most attractive option possible.