Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 84

Thread: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

  1. #1
    MadBurgerMaker's Avatar lolwut
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    6,623

    Default US Navy proposal - Tico replacement



    Designation: CG
    Length: 575 ft (175m)
    Beam: 66 ft (20m)
    Draft: 35 ft (11m)
    Displace (Full Load): 12,000 tons
    Propulsion: 4 GE LM2500, COGAG; two shafts
    Speed: 30+ knots
    Range: 7,000 nautical miles (20 knots)
    Crew: 300
    Helicopter(s): 2 SH-60 Seahawk
    Sensors:
    - AN/SPY-2HPDR Radar
    - AN/SQQ-89 Sonar Suite
    - AN/SQQ-28v LAMPS III
    Armament:
    - 64 cell Mk-41 VLS For SM-6/3,TLAM,Harpoon III,VLA,ESSM
    - 64 cell Mk-41 VLS Aft SM-6/3,TLAM,Harpoon III,VLA,ESSM
    - 2 X 21 RAM (42 misiles)
    - 2 X 155mm AGS DP Gun
    - 2 X 20mm MK 38 guns
    - 4 X 50-cal MG
    - 12 X Mk-50 ADCAP LW Torpedoes
    Ships in class: 12 est.

    USS Shanksville (CG 74) (Hypothetical)

    By the late 20-teens, the vaunted Ticonderoga cruisers of the United States Navy will begin to approach the end of their service life. DDX and CGX programs and their DD21, DD1000, and CG21 alternatives are all languishing on cost basis. An interim, or "bridge" design is necessary to see US production through to the advent of the new, fully fleshed out, and feasable CG-21 program, or its alternative.

    With the successful introduction of the KDX-III, Sejong class AEGIS DDGs for the Republic of Korean Navy (ROKN), which the United States worked closely with, it is clear that a cruiser size variant of the Arliegh Burke class of DDGs can be built, and built affordably.

    This page represents a hypotheticlal, proposed cruiser sized AEGIS vessel to supplement and "bridge" the Ticonderoga class that incorporates many of the desired future technologies proposed for the CGX and CG21, without the burdensom costs of an entirely new hull for those systems at too premature a date.

    The proposed 12,000 ton vessel would incorporate all of the following:

    * 70-80% commonality with Arliegh Burke Flight II Destroyers.
    * New AEGIS SPY/AM-2 HPDR electronics and radar.
    * The new 155mm Advanced Gun System (AGS), optimized for naval surface warfare and direct fire support.
    * Use of the SM-6 missile as the principle long range air defense missile.
    * Use of the SM-3 missile for ballistic missile defense.
    * Use of Evolved Sea-Sparrow Missiles (EESM) for mid to short range air defense.
    * Use of two RAM systems for close-in air defense (CIWS).
    * Installation of heavy close range defense (20mm and 50-cal) for port or close-in littoral defense.
    * Use of the VL Harpoon III Anti-shipping missile.
    * Use of the Tomahawk Tactical Missiles in the Land Attack Role.
    * Heavy use of Mk-50 ADCAP (enhanced for littoral warfare & to combat new AID SS & new SSns) via VLA & triple launchers.
    * Use of manpower reduction technologies and policies learned from CVN-77 and CVN-78 programs.

    Such systems and armament as is proposed for this vessel would create the most modern, most heavily armed, and most capable escort vessels on earth, and would allow these vessels to fulfill their own 40 year service life capabilities while retaining that world-wide position as technology and weapon system advances are incorporated into the design, which would be built with that in mind.

    The initial vessles in class, the USS Shanksville, is a worthy suggestion for this class name given that locations recognition as the first victory in the global war on terror, and in keeping with naming many of the modern CG class after famous battle names.
    I tried to post this a few minutes ago, but I was having problems with TWC, so my comments aren't nearly as witty and cool as they would have been.

    This looks to be an interesting idea, a Burke on roids, but I dislike the fact that it only carries the RAM system for CIWS. RAM is groovy and all, but I would think a last ditch gun system is still a good idea, at least until missiles become as reliable as radar directed 20mm rounds. Maybe they will by the time this ship is deployed (if it ever is, of course)...who knows. One thing about this proposal is that it is cheaper than the other ideas currently on the table (It's still hideously expensive, of course, but not AS hideously expensive).

    Discuss if you like, TWC. If not........oh well. I'm particularly interested in what tBP (the other guy on here who I know is obsessed with naval matters) has to say, if he can spot things I missed, etc.

    More ("fake") images here: http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvessels...orld/newcg.htm

    Edit: This is a Ticonderoga class cruiser (USS Monterey, CG-61), by the way:



    Last edited by MadBurgerMaker; June 02, 2007 at 03:52 AM.
    (Patron of Lord Rahl)











    Quote Originally Posted by Hahahaha David Deas
    Thinking about it some more, perhaps losing to the the Jags and the Colts really will come as a complete surprise to you.

  2. #2
    Kanaric's Avatar Praefectus Castrorum
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    17,750

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    I thought that any replacement would have stealth characteristics, this doesn't mention that.
    Swear filters are for sites run by immature children.

  3. #3
    MadBurgerMaker's Avatar lolwut
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    6,623

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by Kanaric View Post
    I thought that any replacement would have stealth characteristics, this doesn't mention that.
    It doesn't appear that this particular ship would, interestingly enough (except for the guns...those appear to have the same characteristics as the guns on the Zumwalt class DD-1000, or DD(X)...oddly enough, this cruiser appears to actually be smaller than the Zumwalt class destroyers, if the proposed measurements hold up...). The CG-21 is another proposal (one of the "hideously expensive" things I was talking about) that I believe has stealth characteristics.

    I believe they're looking at this thing as sort of a "bridge" to a totally new class of cruisers, although whether or not the "next big thing" will ever happen remains to be seen. The Ticos are getting to be fairly old, so this is actually a pretty good idea, if they follow through and make it a patch, instead of a truly long term, er...(how do I put this)...single...solution. If that makes sense. Sorry...I'm having a dumbass moment.
    Last edited by MadBurgerMaker; June 02, 2007 at 04:17 AM.
    (Patron of Lord Rahl)











    Quote Originally Posted by Hahahaha David Deas
    Thinking about it some more, perhaps losing to the the Jags and the Colts really will come as a complete surprise to you.

  4. #4
    the Black Prince's Avatar British Patriot
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Chester, England
    Posts
    17,237

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    ok, 1st thoughts are aesthetic in nature... and its a case of praise the gods... i've always thought ticonderoga to be a fabulously ugly vessel. rather like a big hulking man at arms, very very capable, but not that pretty. This shankesville appears much nicer.

    some issues
    RAM, definately is a big issue. Like you MBM, i'm not sure of the wisdom of abandoning altogether a gun based CIWS, even merely as a single unit redundant backup. There's more chance of a missile going wrong than a gun, and if the missile does misfire...

    alas the Royal navy has gone down the same route, with the Daring coming equipped with Aster/PAAMS but no phalanx, though it does have the hardpoints to mount to phalanx guns in the future should it be deemed necessary.

    next... Seahawk helicopters... obviously this is a different project altogether, but Seahawk must surely be getting a bit outdated now as well... almost like building a brand new carrier and equiping it with F-4 Phantoms. Don't you have a next generation ASW coptor program as well?

    I was especially surprised by the inclusion of 2 lines of mounted close in machine guns... ship design of late has moved away from mounting point defence type weapons, tending to fare with 2x standard machine guns mounted port and starboard with the possibility of using the CIWS as a backup, and arming the crew. Perhaps a realisation that not all ports a naval vessel wilkll dock will be entirely safe and friendly. The emphasis on close in fighting is further enhanced by not one but 2 naval guns.

    no mention of sea boats, hardly surprising, but the modern role of a warship requires them, i'm just curious as to how many and what type she'd mount.


    finally, radar... i suppose it depends what role you want these vessels to play, as i understand the CG role, its as a surface escort group command ship (for destroyer squadrons), and principle surface escort (for battle groups), but the AN/SPY-2 seems to have a very low profile, compared to the SAMSON radar thats parts of the PAAMS system. i'd be interested in some comparrisons between the two, though of course noting that PAAMS, and its principle ship, the Daring, are designed as aerial defence destroyers, not guided missile destroyers... in other words, its maybe better to compare the AN-SPY with our type 911 Sea Wolf radar system, used on the Duke class guided missile frigates.

  5. #5
    LSJ's Avatar Equites Cohortales
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,936

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    The RAM has a higher hit to miss ratio than the Phalanx... PER SHOT.
    The Phalanx spews out a hell of a lot of bullets, and it can be used against small vessels. A combination of the two is best, not just dropping one and adopting the other.
    As for aesthetics, it is a big improvement.

  6. #6
    Lavastein's Avatar Akaboshi
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,316

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    i love the navy......yes..USN...build that sexy ship

    all i want is a modern battleship. Boy would i love that.....
    Without a sign, his sword the brave man draws, and asks no omen but his country's cause

    Liberalism is a mental disorder


  7. #7
    LoZz's Avatar who are you?
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Northants, UK
    Posts
    10,030

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by Lavastein View Post
    i love the navy......yes..USN...build that sexy ship

    all i want is a modern battleship. Boy would i love that.....
    would be cool

    anyway i like the ship, but i am suprized at the lack of stealth and it doesnt look as modern as i would of thought

  8. #8
    Lavastein's Avatar Akaboshi
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,316

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    u mean like laser beams and photon cannons?


    its an ok ship i say. I just long for the day when we have heavy weapons ships. God...bring back those battleships...just because they are slow and easy targets means nothing!
    Without a sign, his sword the brave man draws, and asks no omen but his country's cause

    Liberalism is a mental disorder


  9. #9
    Farnan's Avatar Useful Idiot
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Right behind you starring over your shoulder.
    Posts
    31,420

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...icial%26sa%3DN
    Can't even come close to this.

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.incat.com.au/defence.cgi?task=TSV
    TSV-1X Spearhead

    - General Arrangements
    - Photo Gallery

    Acceptance Ceremony USAV Spearhead TSV-1X

    Over one year after the Acceptance Ceremony of Joint Venture HSV-X1 which took place on 11 October 2001 at the Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek Virginia, representatives from the US Military and Bollinger / Incat USA, joined together on the other side of the world for another Acceptance Ceremony of Incat’s innovative, high speed vessel technology.

    On 14 November 2002 the US Army took acceptance of its first Theater Support Vessel TSV-1X, United States Army Vessel Spearhead in Hobart, Tasmania Australia. The U S Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM), on behalf of the Program Executive Office for Combat Service and Combat Service Support (PEO CS & CSS) and PM Force Projection are leasing the vessel from Bollinger / Incat USA.

    USAV Spearhead is part of the Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator (ACTD) program. The ACTD program is a joint effort by the acquisition and operational (war fighter) communities within the Department of Defence (DoD). Typically ACTD’s begin by identifying significant military needs and then matching them with current commercial technology or other programs ready to focus on military application.

    The ceremony was held on the vehicle deck with the official reception in the passenger lounges. Remarks were delivered by the official guests including Brigadier General Roger Nadeau (PEO - CS & CSS), Colonel Michael Toal (Director of Combat Developments for Army Transportation) and Dr Robert Clifford, Chairman and CEO for the Incat Group of Companies and Executive Vice-President of Bollinger / Incat USA.

    This time, with the sun shining in the southern hemisphere and the Royal Australian Air Force Band playing in the background, the atmosphere was once again full of excitement. Crew and visitors aware of the significant milestone being achieved and eagerly anticipating what lay ahead with the future TSV award and other military procurement plans.

    Both BG Nadeau and Colonel Toal commented on the significance of what Spearhead means to the US Army in facilitating their evaluations of the potential operational impact that high speed vessels such as Spearhead provide.

    Robert Clifford noted that “the United States Army is to be soundly congratulated for having the foresight and vision to recognise the capability of our (Incat) craft and the contribution they can make towards Transformation. They are to be congratulated also for taking that vision to the next step – not just studying and talking about it, but actually moving forward and doing it.”

    In appreciation of the overwhelming effort put into the modifications and in readying the vessel for delivery Robert further highlighted, “In addition to congratulating the U.S. Army I congratulate the team at Incat and at Bollinger / Incat US, and all those who have lived through the past few years of concept development, and all those people who contributed to bringing the Spearhead project to contract”.

    TSV - SPEARHEAD
    The TSV is critical to the Army’s ability to perform its Title 10, intra theatre mission. Spearhead will be utilised on missions to maximise its speed and flexibility and is needed for both sustainment deliveries and the movement of Army pre-positioned supplies and troops.

    The TSV’s promise is to change the way the US Army gets to the fight. The future vessels promise to transport units within a theatre of operations in hours instead of days. The TSV will support the Army’s Transformation goal of deploying a combat ready brigade anywhere in the world within 96 hours, a division in 120 hours and five divisions within 30 days.

    Colonel Toal
    Colonel Toal remarked, “To push the envelope in high speed catamarans; you need to focus as a Team. Both the builder and operator must come together in a meeting of the minds. I have been impressed with the penetrating questions asked as we educated each other and pushed Incat to meet our exact needs. Spearhead is the next step in meeting the Army's intra theatre lift requirements. Spearhead is no longer about the Navy, Army and Marines sharing a platform with competing requirements. Spearhead is about meeting Army Needs. We learned a lot from Joint Venture and are prepared to give Spearhead a good scrub as we finalise our requirements and learn even more as we refine the way we will do business in the future.”

    He further added, “In my mind Spearhead is about ‘Speed, Precision, and Knowledge’ to quote MG Dail. In an unsafe world Speed is an even more priceless commodity. You can't buy back time. Once time has passed it has passed forever. Precision is the ability to cross various distances to get combat power delivered to the right port and keep it moving. Knowledge is the ability to answer our customer's (warfighter's) question on where he is, where the enemy is and what is happening.”
    “The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”

    —Sir William Francis Butler

  10. #10
    Carach's Avatar Praefectus Castrorum
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    17,842

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    Tic's have to be some of the most ugly ships ive ever seen in the modern age tbh.. hideous beasts to look at - armed to the teeth though :/ heh

    America's naval industry is under major threat, some of these future plans have already been dropped or severely restricted in hull numbers.

    Those guns look wierd...

    capability is everything and from the specs it looks pretty mean - however as stated: no stealth except for retractable guns? and a CIWS that is completely reliant on missiles is a little dodgey, considering the RN did the same and have had both success and major failures on that route :/

    as others have said, not nearly as "forward looking" as some of the other projects that are already being built.
    Last edited by Carach; June 02, 2007 at 11:30 AM.

  11. #11
    Curtana's Avatar Chinen
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Engerland
    Posts
    475

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    FAS.org on SC-21 report
    (21st century Surface combat)
    And some handy links there too.

    In other words, the replacement is just an initial step dependent on new technologies which they probably won't be mentioning even if they exist already.
    I don't drink water fish **** in it. W.C. Fields

    I always advise people never to give advice. P.G. Wodehouse

  12. #12
    Kanaric's Avatar Praefectus Castrorum
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    17,750

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    The only kind of modern battleship they would make would be some kind of ship ridiculously decked out with missiles. They have no interest in cannon regardless of the benefits of cost and the fact that they can be directed like missiles.
    Swear filters are for sites run by immature children.

  13. #13
    Trey's Avatar Equites
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Land of the Evergreens
    Posts
    3,882

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by Farnan View Post
    Deja Vu! I've talked to the man who owns the company that is building this ship. The things it will be capable of are just amazing. Interestingly enough, he also said that there was no security concerning the development and construction of it. Anyone could just walk in and take pictures of it being built in his shipyard. (I saw it but didn't take pictures.)
    It was actually the US military that said those precautions wouldn't be necessary, although he was concerned about it.
    for-profit death machine.

  14. #14
    MadBurgerMaker's Avatar lolwut
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    6,623

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by Farnan View Post
    It doesn't need to. It sinks things like that from a long ways off.

    Quote Originally Posted by tBP
    next... Seahawk helicopters... obviously this is a different project altogether, but Seahawk must surely be getting a bit outdated now as well... almost like building a brand new carrier and equiping it with F-4 Phantoms. Don't you have a next generation ASW coptor program as well?
    To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what the USN/A/AF/MC are doing to completely replace the 60. I know they have repeatedly modernized the aircraft (I believe they're up to M or N, as in SH-60N, now). Any new helicopter design is going to need to be able to fit on the decks of the Burkes, Ticos, and whatever other ship types it is operated from anyway, so it's not really that big of a deal. Of course...they could always completely **** it up and try to replace the 60 with something the size of a 53....you never know when it comes to government agencies.

    I was especially surprised by the inclusion of 2 lines of mounted close in machine guns... ship design of late has moved away from mounting point defence type weapons, tending to fare with 2x standard machine guns mounted port and starboard with the possibility of using the CIWS as a backup, and arming the crew. Perhaps a realisation that not all ports a naval vessel wilkll dock will be entirely safe and friendly. The emphasis on close in fighting is further enhanced by not one but 2 naval guns.
    I think you're probably right about the machine guns (assuming these are kept in with the final design, of course). A couple of .50 cals up on the bridge wings, along with maybe a couple of guys roaming the decks with M-14s/16s/4s/9s/fire hoses/whatever isn't really enough to fight off an attack while in port.

    As far as the deck guns go, there have been some instances of the guns on the Ticos jamming and becoming unusable at...bad times (it happened to the USS Vincennes, I believe, during a battle against some Iranian ships/boats) . I imagine they're just continuing the (good) practice of having a redundant system.

    no mention of sea boats, hardly surprising, but the modern role of a warship requires them, i'm just curious as to how many and what type she'd mount.
    I suppose she would carry a couple of standard RHIB type boats, like what you can see in that photo of the Monterey. *shrug* Your guess is as good as mine though.

    finally, radar... i suppose it depends what role you want these vessels to play, as i understand the CG role, its as a surface escort group command ship (for destroyer squadrons), and principle surface escort (for battle groups), but the AN/SPY-2 seems to have a very low profile, compared to the SAMSON radar thats parts of the PAAMS system. i'd be interested in some comparrisons between the two, though of course noting that PAAMS, and its principle ship, the Daring, are designed as aerial defence destroyers, not guided missile destroyers... in other words, its maybe better to compare the AN-SPY with our type 911 Sea Wolf radar system, used on the Duke class guided missile frigates.
    I really don't know a whole lot about PAAMS or your Type 911 system, so I can't help you with a comparison.
    Last edited by MadBurgerMaker; June 02, 2007 at 11:42 PM.
    (Patron of Lord Rahl)











    Quote Originally Posted by Hahahaha David Deas
    Thinking about it some more, perhaps losing to the the Jags and the Colts really will come as a complete surprise to you.

  15. #15
    Carach's Avatar Praefectus Castrorum
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    17,842

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by Kanaric View Post
    The only kind of modern battleship they would make would be some kind of ship ridiculously decked out with missiles. They have no interest in cannon regardless of the benefits of cost and the fact that they can be directed like missiles.
    give it 20 years... railguns soon!

    (and you think im joking? )

  16. #16
    the Black Prince's Avatar British Patriot
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Chester, England
    Posts
    17,237

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    PAAMS is the overall system, equivalent to AEGIS. It comprises of the Samson radar system and the Aster 30 and Aster 15 missiles.

    In terms of computing power, PAAMS probably outstrips AEGIUS simply coz its newer, but i'd be more interested in seeing how Samson matches up with the fairly new AN-SPY2 radar newer AEGIS ships come equipped with. As far as i'm aware, Samson is a more powerful system, with longer range, but then, it was specifically designed for an anti-air warfare system, not a missile defence system, like AEGIS, and i have no idea if the difference in mission statement would filter through into specification difference. If it did, then the modern AN-SPY2 is more comparable to our type 911 radar used by our Sea Wolf II missile defence system

  17. #17
    Hotspur's Avatar I've got reach.
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Charlotte
    Posts
    11,983

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    I would have thought Eric would be here already. Somebody did post the word battleship after all...

    Sea RAM is by any measure superior to CIWS.

  18. #18
    the Black Prince's Avatar British Patriot
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Chester, England
    Posts
    17,237

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    a cruise missile is superior to a mark 5 naval gun, but ships still have both.

    CIWS stands for Close In Weapons System... its not an actual gun you know, its any gun designed as last line point defence. The two commonly used CIWS in western navies are Gatekeeper and Phalanx.

  19. #19
    Hotspur's Avatar I've got reach.
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Charlotte
    Posts
    11,983

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by the Black Prince View Post
    a cruise missile is superior to a mark 5 naval gun, but ships still have both.

    CIWS stands for Close In Weapons System... its not an actual gun you know, its any gun designed as last line point defence. The two commonly used CIWS in western navies are Gatekeeper and Phalanx.
    They have both because they have very different mission requirements. If you are going to compare weapon systems, then compare apples to apples. Sea RAM has a longer engagement range, higher hit probability and can tract multiple targets, which CIWS cannot.
    Last edited by Hotspur; June 04, 2007 at 07:33 PM.

  20. #20
    the Black Prince's Avatar British Patriot
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Chester, England
    Posts
    17,237

    Default Re: US Navy proposal - Tico replacement

    you say Sea Ram is superior to CIWS, and i don't disagree, i'm just saying thats no argument for not mounting CIWS either...

    our frigates carry Sea Wolf and Phalanx for the same reason. I believe an Arleigh Burke carries AEGIS and Phalanx. The idea of using only the missile without the backup CIWS system seems incredibly flawed. Unfortunately, thats whats happening aboard Daring. We just have to hope i guess.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •