JA Boomer

In addition to / instead of DD(X)/CG(X) programs in the works???

gunnut

DDX and CGX should be used as demonstrators for future technologies. Evolved Burkes for series production and workhorse for the fleet. There can't possibly be enough DDX and CGX to replace 84 Aegis ships.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

jimmo

Yep. I hope someone, somewhere is quitely working on a Flight III design. The way things are going with the Navy's surface warship building plans, the only thing they will be in a position to build with be a Burke variant.

JA Boomer

Argreed. Although I'm not entirely sure that a Burke variant could provide a Ticonderoga replacement. Could you fit 128+ cells on it, probably. Also, I recall that the Burke was to provide 75% of the Tico's capability for 66% of the price. I'm sure this doesn't hold true anymore...but I would not be at all surprised if the Tico was still the superior platform.

I believe the Tico's still have 20 years left in them...perhaps a more conventional replacement can be designed and fielded after the Navy comes to the realization that the DDX and CGX are not practical.

I think the biggest priority for the US Navy should be finding a proper replacement for the LCS program which should be axed. A proper Frigate design and a littoral combat ship in the form of a modified LSD would be my first choice.

gunnut

Didn't the Ticos come from modified Sprucan hull? That was a 7000t ship loaded up to 10000t. Can we stretch or enlarge somehow the Burke hull to do the same?

jimmo

You are right about the Ticos. I think the Burkes were already stretched though for the Flight IIs. There is a proposal floating around to use the LPD-17 class hull as a basis for a next gen CG. I can only guess the Ballistic Missile Defense requirements are pushing the size of the next gen CG.

I too think we need some sort of lower-end ship to both keep numbers up and to take on tasks that do not make sense to use ships like Burkes and Ticos for. Somebody mentioned "proper frigate". I agree with the caveat that I do not know what is meant by "proper". Maybe someone can explain that to me.

JA Boomer

That's true. One area I think you may run into problems is the 3D radar arrays. I you look at the Tico and the Burke...you can see that the arrays on the Tico are higher than the Burke (this is probably one of the big reasons the Tico's are the superior platform). If you really wanted to make a Burke variant to replace the Cruisers...you would probably have to redesign the superstructure which would not be cheap. It may turn out to be more cost effective to start a whole new design...conventional design, to get a more effective Tico replacement.

JA Boomer

Wow, that's kinda rediculous. Serious overkill IMO, and how many units can you seriously expect to procure with the price tag that those babies would have. The size of such a size would neccessitate a massive crew. Just a terrible idea.

Whoa, put on the spot.

I used the term in the post above, but I really didn't think too much about it. What I meant was a Frigate design which was multi-role capable but focuses on the anti-submarine role. One that doesn't have a 45 knot max speed and shallow draft but was more conventional...ie. a Perry replacement.

In my perfect would...and it's not even MINE because I don't live in the US...I would have 4 surface ship classes:

Corevtte - 90 m long, 16 VLS tubes, 1 helo, 2 SOF boats for use with side and sterm doors, designed to operate alone or together and not in battle groups. Missions: ship inspections, drug interdiction, port security, anti-submarine warfare, small boat warfare, recon, SOF insertion/extraction. (Like Milgem-class)

Frigate - 120 m long, 48 VLS tubes, 2 helos, designed to operate in battle groups...multi-role capable with a focus on anti-submarine warfare. (Like Formidable-class design)

Destroyer - 150 m long, 112 VLS tubes, 2 helos, designed to operate in battle groups...multi-role capability with focus on anti-surface and strike warfare. (Like Burke Flight II design)

Cruiser - 180 m long, 160 VLS tubes, 2 helos, designed to operate in battle groups...multi-role capability with focus on anti-air warfare. (Like new Ticonderoga design)

As the US Navy can not reasonably afford this...I would suggest that they stop building the Burke class destroyers (when current procurement is complete) and begin building a frigate design which could perform the anti-submarine warfare role in battle groups and the ship inspection / drug interdiction roles by itself. Design a new conventional Cruiser replacement...nothing fancy, 1 for 1 Tico replacement. And build some LPD-17 littoral combat ships full of smaller vessels and SOF forces that can take care of the recon, small boat threat, and SOF insertion/extraction.

I dunno, just daydreaming here in between classes.

gunnut

Of course then you would run into the problem of the smaller ship with incomplete defenses that need protection from Aegis ships, thus siphoning escorts away from carriers.

Rick made the argument that smaller frigates really aren't worth the cost for the capabilities and vulnerabilities. What if a frigate with reduced capabilities were hit by a missile and some lives were lost? Then navy will be forced to deploy bigger ships to protect the smaller ships.

JA Boomer

Well...in my perfect world the Frigate has a limited 3D radar capability (maybe AEGIS and a SPY-F depending on the cost)...and carries 24 Standard missiles and 32 ESSM under a standard mission loadout. The Corvette would have a standard radar set and 24 ESSM in the standard loadout. Therefore both ships will be completely capable of protecting themselves. I do not submit to the theory of single mission designs. A warship should be able to protect itself and should not have to rely on other more powerful ships to operate effectively.

jimmo

JA Boomer,

Sorry, I did not mean it to come off that way. I've heard the term "proper frigate" used before and was curious what was meant by it.

Many would advocate for a ship like the Nansen class or the Spanish frigates. My view is the US needs mode of a "utility" frigate than a mini-Burke (which is what those Spanish and Norwegian ships are). We have (or will have) enough of real Burkes that we probably do not need the mini-versions. What would be the point? What we do not have is a ship that is cheap enough to buy in numbers, with enough sea-keeping and endurance to do long-range patrolling, anti-piracy, ASW, ... I've come to like the idea of building a Navy version of the Coast Guard's National Security Cutter. Such a ship would be the size of your proposed frigate with similar aviation capabillites, but would not necessarily have the organic sensor and weapons load of a Nansens or Bazans . Such a ship would not be sexy, but would be usefull and would hopefully be cheap enough to buy in numbers.

ArmchairGeneral

DDG51 and CG47: equal?

Comparison of Burke and Tico. Doesn't deal too much with future upgrade possibilities, although I would think it shouldn't be too hard to make a Burke development capable of fully replacing the Ticos. Looks like Korea's King Sejong the Great class may be a step in that direction.
King Sejong the Great class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

gunnut

One more thing about the DDX. It would have carried 88 cells (if I remember correctly) max, 8 fewer than Burkes.

I think an evolved Burke can take over Tico's duties. Burke flight IIa have another 20 years left. In this time we can probably see some new technologies mature and put them into a new hull around 10000t for the next generation of ships.

A frigate with reduced Aegis capacity still runs the risk of having the defenses overwhelmed.

I was thinking smaller surface action groups based on 1 or 2 Aegis cruisers. Surround them with 4 to 6 frigates with enhanced ASW and cargo capacity (like the LCS concept). Not sure if this is how things are done right now. Of course that's provided we have engough escorts for the carrier groups.

jimmo

Keep in mind the cells on the DDX will be bigger than than those on the Burkes, Ticos, .... They will be able to house bigger missiles than the older ship classes. Comparing the cells in a Burke to the cells in the DDX is not exactlly apples to apples.

JA Boomer

Fair enough...BUT you don't want to handicap the class. My first choice would be an AEGIS system with SPY-F with Standard/ESSM missiles. If this proves too expensive my second choice would be a 3-D non-AEGIS radar with Standard/ESSM missiles. If this proves too expensive my third choice would be a 2-D radar with an ESSM loadout.

Bottom line, no surface ship build in this modern age should be designed, built, and deployed without organic anti-air self defense capabilities (beyond a CIWS/RAM). This is the single biggest flaw in the current LCS designs IMO.

I'm not talking about a Bazan class either, but if the US were to built a frigate it must be more than a utility boat, as the Perrys have become. 3-D radars seem to be flying of the selves these days, so even if and AEGIS system proves too much, a 3-D radar set should be standard. I think a Frigate should be able to defend itself against a significant air threat, and participate in the air defense of a battle group / convoy if the submarine threat is not taking up it's time.

The Corvette design on the other hand, should only have the air defenses to take care of itself given a limited attack, hence only 24 ESSM. It would not actively engage air threats, but protect itself from attacks.

I dunno about adapting a coast guard Cutter into a Frigate design. I think something like the Formidable class or MEKO-D design would fit the bill.

Thanks for the thread! Maybe, maybe not...it appears the Tico’s are definitely more capable vessels (again, worried about Burke the superstructure needing to be redesigned). I would hesitate updating a 20 years old design to replace the Cruisers. I know it would cost more, but I would develop a sort of conventional off-the-shelf design from Tico/Burke experience.

True, one of the things that surprised me about the DDX design was the peripheral VLS system. I know this was to reduce the chance of a single missile/shell/bomb hit exploding the ENTIRE fore or aft missile launcher and all of its missiles. BUT...with the peripheral system, almost ANY hit will explode at least some portion of the launchers and missiles. The logic doesn't make sense to me.

Any ship with any sensor/electronics/countermeasure/weapons setup runs the risk of having its defenses overrun. It comes down to how much you are willing to pay and the expected missions (threats) the vessel is expected to undertake. If an AEGIS system is prohibitively expensive, I don't think you'd loose too much with a 3-D set without the AEGIS system as far as the Frigate mission is concerned.