Replacement for the Ticonderoga-class CGs

The warships of today's navies, current naval events, ships in the news, etc.
jackbrown
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:20 am

Replacement for the Ticonderoga-class CGs

Postby jackbrown » Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:42 am

Ran across a website a few years ago with the topic "Aegis Warships" in use. It also discussed ships with systems similar to Aegis. One of the topics was a replacement for the Aegis cruisers. The idea was to take the Arleigh Burke DDG & make it a bit larger. That's how the CG-47s were designed (they were, basically, enlarged versions of the "DD-963/Spruance" class). To me, that would be much cheaper than building the "Zumwalt" class, which even though they're classed as DDGs, by weight they are more like cruisers. An enlarged DDG-51 would be a much better idea. Comments?

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Replacement for the Ticonderoga-class CGs

Postby Bgile » Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:09 am

jackbrown wrote:Ran across a website a few years ago with the topic "Aegis Warships" in use. It also discussed ships with systems similar to Aegis. One of the topics was a replacement for the Aegis cruisers. The idea was to take the Arleigh Burke DDG & make it a bit larger. That's how the CG-47s were designed (they were, basically, enlarged versions of the "DD-963/Spruance" class). To me, that would be much cheaper than building the "Zumwalt" class, which even though they're classed as DDGs, by weight they are more like cruisers. An enlarged DDG-51 would be a much better idea. Comments?


An enlarged AB might make sense as a fleet defense ship, but I don't think today's economic climate supports that. All the "extra" money (and more) is going to pay for operational expenses of the forces fighting in the middle east. If anything, the fleet is going to begin to shrink. We already have a fighter gap since the F-35 is being delayed. I think a lot of already planned naval construction is being delayed.

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Replacement for the Ticonderoga-class CGs

Postby yellowtail3 » Sat Apr 10, 2010 4:49 am

the USN has PLENTY of ships. We should auction some of it off...
Shift Colors... underway.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Replacement for the Ticonderoga-class CGs

Postby Bgile » Sat Apr 10, 2010 7:07 am

yellowtail3 wrote:the USN has PLENTY of ships. We should auction some of it off...


There are a lot of people who would dispute that. There are lots of commitments, all over the world. A typical ship is deployed or ready to deploy only about 1/3 of the time.

jackbrown
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:20 am

Re: Replacement for the Ticonderoga-class CGs

Postby jackbrown » Sat Apr 10, 2010 7:18 pm

Some people who replied to my post just don't get it. The "Zumwalt" class is turning out to be quite expensive. So, an enlarged AB would be the best idea. The ABs are not just "air defense ships", but they also have ASW, anti-ship, and land-attack capability as well. As for the idea of "auctioning off" some of our ships, that is an idiotic idea. If anything, we need more ships. The F-35 JSF is suffering from delays (partially driven by cost overruns), so how's about a naval version of the F-22?

Today's economic climate, in a way, won't support increased defense spending, because we have people in Washington who would rather cut our military down to almost nothing, because they don't feel we need a military. We need people in DC who support a strong military, especially when you consider who we might have to fight against in the near future (China, N.Korea, etc.).

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Replacement for the Ticonderoga-class CGs

Postby yellowtail3 » Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:19 pm

Bgile wrote:
yellowtail3 wrote:the USN has PLENTY of ships. We should auction some of it off...


There are a lot of people who would dispute that. There are lots of commitments, all over the world. A typical ship is deployed or ready to deploy only about 1/3 of the time.

Yeah, a lot would dispute. But we've had been on a war footing, more or less, since 1945, and we might should trim some of those (imperial?) 'commitments'

IMHO, of course.
Shift Colors... underway.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Replacement for the Ticonderoga-class CGs

Postby Bgile » Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:32 am

yellowtail3 wrote:Yeah, a lot would dispute. But we've had been on a war footing, more or less, since 1945, and we might should trim some of those (imperial?) 'commitments'

IMHO, of course.


Are you really from North Carolina?

Why don't we cut our navy down to, say, British Size? That would be nice. Is that what you want, and if not, why not?

Stay out of all world hot spots like G.W. Bush said he was going to do during his first election campaign?

I suspect Obama thought he was going to pull out of some of these "imperialistic" places right away, but he is finding things look a bit different from the Oval Office. Every president does.

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Replacement for the Ticonderoga-class CGs

Postby yellowtail3 » Sun Apr 11, 2010 4:34 am

Bgile wrote:Are you really from North Carolina?

No, but I've been here for twenty-plus years.
Shift Colors... underway.

User avatar
chcrawfish
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:39 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Contact:

Re: Replacement for the Ticonderoga-class CGs

Postby chcrawfish » Sun Apr 11, 2010 6:32 am

As a just-retired US Sailor, I can surely say that our Navy does NOT have too many ships. Our crews are getting a bit worn down from the accelerated deployment schedules we are currently operating under.

Now back to the real subject.
The TICO-class has done very well, and an enlarged AB would fill the need, but what about a larger ship? Could we not build a new class of battlecruisers that would fill the roles of fleet defense and support for the Marines as well? Think of a ship in the 30K tons size range, with 2 triple turrets of 12" naval rifles, verticle launch boxes full of SAMs, Tomahawk batteries, and Harpoon (or the next generation) batteries? Put one of these with each amphib group.
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."
- General George S. Patton, Jr

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Replacement for the Ticonderoga-class CGs

Postby Bgile » Sun Apr 11, 2010 6:41 am

chcrawfish wrote:As a just-retired US Sailor, I can surely say that our Navy does NOT have too many ships. Our crews are getting a bit worn down from the accelerated deployment schedules we are currently operating under.

Now back to the real subject.
The TICO-class has done very well, and an enlarged AB would fill the need, but what about a larger ship? Could we not build a new class of battlecruisers that would fill the roles of fleet defense and support for the Marines as well? Think of a ship in the 30K tons size range, with 2 triple turrets of 12" naval rifles, verticle launch boxes full of SAMs, Tomahawk batteries, and Harpoon (or the next generation) batteries? Put one of these with each amphib group.


I think you would have a problem with the bean counters. They would look at the AB it would replace and question whether they would want to spend CVN scale money on something like that which wouldn't be used for anything an AB couldn't do about 99 percent of the time. You would probably have to decommission a CVN and not replace it to open up the purse for your support ship. Just look at the current boondoggle around the support ship they tried to build with two 155mm guns and similar in other respects to what you are requesting. Yes, the Zumwalt.

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Replacement for the Ticonderoga-class CGs

Postby yellowtail3 » Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:01 pm

chcrawfish wrote:As a just-retired US Sailor, I can surely say that our Navy does NOT have too many ships. Our crews are getting a bit worn down from the accelerated deployment schedules we are currently operating under.
Well, we've too much empire. But anyhow...
chcrawfish wrote:Now back to the real subject. The TICO-class has done very well, and an enlarged AB would fill the need, but what about a larger ship? Could we not build a new class of battlecruisers that would fill the roles of fleet defense and support for the Marines as well? Think of a ship in the 30K tons size range, with 2 triple turrets of 12" naval rifles, verticle launch boxes full of SAMs, Tomahawk batteries, and Harpoon (or the next generation) batteries? Put one of these with each amphib group.

Not much need for 12" guns, that I can think of. Yeah, yeah... I know the marines and fans of battleships talk big about NGFS, but big guns aren't all that useful there, for the dollar.

How about this route: buy 2nd hand merchant ship, refurbish, drop in radar and a CIC and some VLS boxes and there you go, mobile missile base on the cheap. And auction off a couple carriers to someone else.
Shift Colors... underway.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Replacement for the Ticonderoga-class CGs

Postby Bgile » Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:45 pm

yellowtail3 wrote:Well, we've too much empire. But anyhow...


Excuse me, but where is this empire you speak of? The last bit I'm aware of was the Philippines.

User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: Replacement for the Ticonderoga-class CGs

Postby Legend » Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:00 pm

jackbrown wrote:...so how's about a naval version of the F-22?


I really like this idea. The F-22 is a supreme aircraft! I can see some of the downsides however. It is LARGE. The notion of folding wings occurred to me... but I didnt know how that would affect the systems built into them.
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

User avatar
chcrawfish
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:39 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Contact:

Re: Replacement for the Ticonderoga-class CGs

Postby chcrawfish » Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:39 am

yellowtail3 wrote:
chcrawfish wrote:As a just-retired US Sailor, I can surely say that our Navy does NOT have too many ships. Our crews are getting a bit worn down from the accelerated deployment schedules we are currently operating under.
Well, we've too much empire. But anyhow...
chcrawfish wrote:Now back to the real subject. The TICO-class has done very well, and an enlarged AB would fill the need, but what about a larger ship? Could we not build a new class of battlecruisers that would fill the roles of fleet defense and support for the Marines as well? Think of a ship in the 30K tons size range, with 2 triple turrets of 12" naval rifles, verticle launch boxes full of SAMs, Tomahawk batteries, and Harpoon (or the next generation) batteries? Put one of these with each amphib group.

Not much need for 12" guns, that I can think of. Yeah, yeah... I know the marines and fans of battleships talk big about NGFS, but big guns aren't all that useful there, for the dollar.

How about this route: buy 2nd hand merchant ship, refurbish, drop in radar and a CIC and some VLS boxes and there you go, mobile missile base on the cheap. And auction off a couple carriers to someone else.


The Marines certainly appreciated the IOWA-class during Desert Storm.
As for an empire...puh-leeeze return to reality.
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."
- General George S. Patton, Jr

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Replacement for the Ticonderoga-class CGs

Postby yellowtail3 » Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:40 am

chcrawfish wrote:The Marines certainly appreciated the IOWA-class during Desert Storm.
As for an empire...puh-leeeze return to reality.


Marines may well have appreciated them, and so did lots of sailors who always wanted to sail on one - but that's no reason to throw money down that rathole. Battleships - they're all gone, aren't they? - are poor bang-for-the buck, when it comes to supporting troops onshore. they were designed to fight armored ships back in the pre-aviation worlds; that job doesn't exist anymore. NGFS as a primary role was an attempt to find a job for them, a sort of 'virtue of necessity' move. Are we planning on doing any more Saipans?

Oh, puh-leeeze... I'm living in reality, and it sucks bad enough. Don't pretend like it ain't here.
Shift Colors... underway.


Return to “World Navies Today”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest