What-If Do we need to re-start CG(x) ?

[SumGui]

"In January 2009, USD (AT&L) issued a memorandum stating that the Navy�s plan to buy additional DDG 51 Flight IIA ships would be followed
by a procurement of either DDG 1000-or DDG 51-based destroyers that could carry the SPY-6 radar. To fulfill this demand, the Navy conducted a
limited study in 2009, referred to as the Radar/Hull Study, which examined existing DDG 51 and DDG 1000 designs with several different
radar concepts to determine which pairing would best address the integrated air and missile defense needs atlower cost than the planned
CG(X). Following the Radar/Hull Study, the Navy validated the need for a larger, newly designed surface combatant with a very large radar to
counter the most stressing threats. However, based on the analysis of the Radar/Hull Study, the Navy decided to pursue a new DDG 51
configuration instead�now referred to as DDG 51 Flight III�that would include a new advanced, but smaller, radar and an upgraded Aegis
combat system.The Navy also cancelled the CG(X) program.

We found in 2012 that the Navy�s decision to pursue new DDG 51 destroyers equipped with a new air and missile defense radar represented a substantial
commitment that was made without a solid analysis and that the planned oversight and visibility into the program was insufficient given the level of investment and potential risks."

https://news.usni.org/2016/08/08/docume ... more-21047

Let the Whiffery begin anew.....

[Busto963]

"In January 2009, USD (AT&L) issued a memorandum stating that the Navy�s plan to buy additional DDG 51 Flight IIA ships would be followed
by a procurement of either DDG 1000-or DDG 51-based destroyers that could carry the SPY-6 radar. To fulfill this demand, the Navy conducted a
limited study in 2009, referred to as the Radar/Hull Study, which examined existing DDG 51 and DDG 1000 designs with several different
radar concepts to determine which pairing would best address the integrated air and missile defense needs atlower cost than the planned
CG(X). Following the Radar/Hull Study, the Navy validated the need for a larger, newly designed surface combatant with a very large radar to
counter the most stressing threats. However, based on the analysis of the Radar/Hull Study, the Navy decided to pursue a new DDG 51
configuration instead�now referred to as DDG 51 Flight III�that would include a new advanced, but smaller, radar and an upgraded Aegis
combat system.The Navy also cancelled the CG(X) program.

We found in 2012 that the Navy�s decision to pursue new DDG 51 destroyers equipped with a new air and missile defense radar represented a substantial
commitment that was made without a solid analysis and that the planned oversight and visibility into the program was insufficient given the level of investment and potential risks."

https://news.usni.org/2016/08/08/docume ... more-21047

Let the Whiffery begin anew.....

The issues surrounding AMDR are well understood and have been addressed by CRS and GAO for some time.

AMDR technology works, but as a scalable design, it needs to be built into much larger arrays to perform against threats.

Supporting the larger arrays will require more hull volume and power - no surprise, this means a much larger ship.

And I prefer the designation "CLG".

[Busto963]

why "CLG" instead of "CG"?

Light cruiser (CLG) describes exactly what is needed: a large (10-15,000 tons), long-ranged, lightly armored escort, with heavy AAA armament. The "G" appendage signifying guided missile.

[SumGui]

The CLG designation conjures the image of Galveston/Providence Cleveland conversions, and while right on size and durability, the "L" is probably redundant in the designation today.

Even the CG-47 class was originally designated DDG-47, so the political game of designations can really derail common sense when it comes to this.

I understand the motivation to differentiate this from the current CG which is on less of a hull than it should have, but considering we have not designed and built any "CG" since CGN-9.....Leahey and Belknap were DLG, California, Virginia were DLGN - designed not as 'cruisers' (capable of independent operations) but as task force escorts.

Today the role that needs replacing is taken by the Ticos - with the CG designation, even though they are doing the 'DLG' (Task Force Escort Leader) role.

Comparing newer ships with older designations and the legacy roles for those designations might be a distraction.

What is needed is the larger hull to handle updated systems to overmatch threats.

Designation less important than capability.

[Busto963]

CL=>CLG were the ultimate fleet escorts, in spite of certain deficiencies in the classes.

Passive protection and redundancy of systems should be a requirement; the CGs failed utterly in this regard, hence the CLG designation is warranted.

CA=>CAG is an entirely different animal and certainly not an escort to replace a CG+.