New World Order Navy (major surface combatants)

[Burton K Wheeler]

Third in a series of alternate 1990's Navy threads. The last were:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/air-wing-for-an-american-cvl-post-cold-war.428535/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/a-helicopter-for-the-usmc.428328/

Anyway, for a bit of background the POD is a long messy Iraq occupation following the Gulf War in 1991, which prevents the US military from reaping the peace dividend of the 1990's as much as OTL.

The Navy and Air Force use the extra funding to pay for a high/low mix of forces, with high-dollar programs being balanced with off the shelf simpler programs. The Navy goes more in on littoral policing, with closer cooperation with the Marines and Coast Guard. The Navy commits to keeping 9 MEUs afloat, with four ships (1 LHD, 1 LPH, 2 LSD or other cargo staging ship), as well as entire Marine companies associated with carrier battle groups. The Marines have a full wartime structure of 6 MEBs (plus the 9 MEUs) instead of 3 MEFs. Three MEBs are associated with the three MPSRONs and have standing headquarters at Okinawa, Rota, and Bahrain, one each is amphibious on the East and West coasts, and one, in the USMC Reserve, is associated with the prepositioned stocks in Norway.

The Navy of the Cold War wanted 12-13 carriers at least to meet its needs. The current Navy is no less busy, but reduces to the OTL 10 CVNs, and launches 7 CVL, approximately the size of the old Essex class or the current America. This means the Navy can have three carrier battle groups on station at all times (one in the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf, one in the western Pacific, and one in the Med or Atlantic), with two smaller battlegroups either accompanying the CVN, accompanying the ESG, or dispersed.

The next thread will be a more detailed examination of amphibs and the Marines. Right now, let's talk about major surface combatants.

The 600-ship Navy of the 1980's was operating several categories of ships:

First, the battleships. All four Iowas were reactivated in the 1980's and two were used for gunfire support in the Gulf War. The Navy acknowledged the need for naval gunfire support and Congress required them to keep them in reserve even as they were inactivated in the 1990's. The alternate navy needs some kind of gun platform.

Next, the nuclear cruisers, the Californias, Virginias and singleton Leahy, Bainbridge, and Truxton. The Navy chose to not refuel them and retire them early, since there was massive cost required both for nuclear refuelling and updating them to match the AEGIS system of the Ticonderoga air defense cruisers.

The Ticonderogas were the new hotness in 1991 and the Navy built 27 of them from 1981 to 1994. They were built on the hull of the Spruance class destroyers with all sorts of electronic gee-whizzery. When comparing the old cruisers, nuclear or not, with the Ticos, remember that it would cost almost as much to upgrade them to AEGIS standards as it would to build a new ship.

The Navy received its first Arleigh Burke air defense destroyers in 1991, which had a similar AEGIS capability to the Ticos but lacked the ability to coordinate air defense battles. Basically, the thought was that one Ticonderoga and several Burkes would make up the air defense complement of the carrier battle group or amphibious strike group.

The navy's ASW escorts were the Spruance class antisubmarine destroyer, built from 1975 to 1980, and the Oliver Hazzard Perry frigate, which was kind of a hot mess but was fairly new, having been built from 1977 to 1989.

OTL, these ship classes were all replaced by the abortive Zumwalt-class "destroyers" (of which only three managed to be built), the utterly useless LCS (now apparently officially an unarmed frigate or something), and iterative versions of the Arleigh Burkes.

Here's the question. Imagine you're CNO in the 1990's. Given the requirement to 10 CSGs, 10 ESGs, and possibly 6 smaller carrier groups, how do you do it? The Navy wants a mix of 80's style super-ships and smaller simpler combatants. How do we solve the naval gunfire problem? What are our escorts?

Thoughts on frigate replacements in the 1990's:

1990's? Personally I'd want two Frigate designs. The problem with the period is that the navy has a bunch of needs that are hard to fulfill with just one design

A high end ASW Frigate for use with CVBGs, basically replacement of the Spruance DD's with something smaller, cheaper to operate. 30+ knots (exact speed of carrier classified), hangar capacity for 2 SH-60 class Helos, Helipad strengthened for SH-53, 32 cell Strike Length VLS (extra cost and tonnage not significant compared to capability gain), 76mm gun, 2 25mm autocannon, some machine guns, 2 Rolling Airframe Missile Launchers, 2 Mk. 141 Quadpacks for Harpoon, 2 triple 324mm torpedo tubes, same towed array and hull sonar fitted to the DDG-51's for commonality, Radar fit decent enough for full use of Evolved Sea Sparrow, interoperability with Aegis ships and as much stealth as practical without significant cost penalties. Tonnage not specified as steel is cheap and designing to fit tonnage quotas can rapidly increase costs. This covers blue water ASW and can serve with CVBGs or surface action groups

And to complement this a low end mine warfare/Patrol Frigate. The Gulf War showed that it is a real pain to get conventional Mine Warfare Craft anywhere fast, and WWII demonstrated that minefields can be laid anywhere (see German fields off Australia), hence OTLs MCM LCS. So I would want a Frigate capable of 30+ knots, Hangar for 2 SH-60 class Helos, Helipad strengthened for SH-53 and fitted with collapsible deck shelter for such craft (MH-53 has already demonstrated minesweeping at this time), remote minesweeping gear, minehunting sonar and a degaussing system with space reserved for future upgrades. For armament a 76mm gun, 2 25mm Autocannon, some machine guns, 2 Rolling Airframe Missile Launchers, a basic Radar fit and as much stealth as practical without significant costs. The ship would be fitted for but not with 2 triple 324mm torpedo tubes, 2 Mk. 141 Harpoon Quadpacks and an ASW towed array; with the mine warfare gear being removable without much difficulty. Design should be adaptable to fitting 2 8 cell strike length Mk. 41 VLS and an air defense Radar for possible export versions. This covers mine warfare and low end patrol duties, and after a short refit can do blue water ASW and serve with battle groups or surface action groups, though better served as an escort

Sorry to restart this, but I realized this may be a bit of a cop out answer and did some more thinking

Assuming I was CNO in the early 90's, and could only chose one surface combatant between an all up DDG and a patrol ship, this is what I would do

Given that the OHPs exist and are in service, the "cheap" workhorse role can be put off until they are retired. Likewise the Avenger class MCMs are brand new and the Osprey class Minehunters are in the pipeline so minewarfare can mostly just remain at its current state until they need replacement, leaving the addition of a fast mine warfare capability to an early 2000s CNO

Take the high end ASW Frigate I mention above. Make the Torpedo Tubes, Harpoon missiles, 1 Rolling Airframe Missile Launcher and 16 of the VLS cells fitted for but not with, save a small amount here, plus reduce the crew a bit. 16 VLS cells are enough for 8 ASROC for ASW, reducing need for Torpedoes and 8 Sea Sparrows for self defense (same as Spruance DD originally carried), to be replaced with 8 ESSM Quadpacks when available, extra cells merely add flexibility for other roles. 1 RAM launcher is probably enough for a small ship and Harpoon is unnecessary for a carrier escort or patrol work. Try to save some equipment from decommissioned vessels like torpedo tubes that could be reused if decided to uparm the class. Run it with only 1 helicopter for the foreseeable future to save costs. Not going to reduce the hangar capacity, as steel is cheap, extra elbow room would be welcomed and ability to ship a second chopper has operational uses, plus if budget appears for fully arming them, you need two helos to effectively prosecute an SSN, not really a concern in the early 90's, but maybe in 15-20 years. Add a collapsible canvas and piping or similar shelter on the helipad for covering an MH-53, being able to cart one around in decent weather could be useful for airborne minesweeping without having to divert an amphib, should be cheap enough. Probably save enough to add another 2-3 units to the class with some leftover

For a workhorse initiate studies to look into reducing operating costs of the OHPs. Look at reducing or outright removing the ASW fit, and other cost saving measures, the lower operating costs the longer you can afford use them, and the longer a workhorse class has to be planned. Whatever changes are determined best will be implemented in the 2000's most likely, but best look at alternatives now. A new class cheaper to operate than the OHPs would be necessary eventually, but that is more of a long term priority in the 90's

Use some of the money saved to uncancel the last two Cyclone Patrol ships, already you are using full size warships for tasks like anti drug patrols they can do much cheaper, maybe see about getting extra units but make no definite plans. Also keep some of the Abnaki class Tugs and Bolster class Salvage ships in reserve, just in case one has to tow Minewarfare vessels somewhere again. Plan to keep Powhatan, Narraganset and Mohawk in a 90 day reserve status for that sort of mission. Look into subsidizing a few civilian lift ships, with the understanding that USN would have priority on them if they needed to use them to move something

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Here's a first proposal/question:

This guy's proposal for a modern "battleship" is basically an American version of the Kirov. http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2016/01/modern-battleship.html

He's a bit of a crackpot, but this got me thinking. I'd probably replace the two 6" triple mounts with a couple Mk71 8 inch guns. This thing could serve as a Ticonderoga replacement, but instead of having 20 of them, have 6-8 of them to serve as fleet flagships for amphibious assaults (finally retire the Blue Ridges) and then have 15-20 Burke-based AAW leaders as lesser cruisers. Think of it as a modern CA with the Burke-based cruiser being a CL.

In the CVL thread (which wound up advocating more of a Midway than a CVL), we sort of decided on 25 cruisers, 60-some destroyers of both AAW and ASW variety (or one that can do both), 40-50 light frigates, and more patrol boats and minesweepers than the OTL Navy. If so, that means the 8-inch gun cruiser can start coming on line in the late 1990's/early 2000's, the Spruances and the OHPs can be replaced by an ASW-variant Burke (as per OTL) or perhaps a smaller ship, and the Ticos and Flight I Burkes can get replaced by another Burke variant starting in the mid-2000's.

Thoughts?

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Also, I gave some thought to the "CVL", to the extent of making a spreadsheet. If you extend the Forrestal class carriers for a couple more cruises each (not as long as the Kitty Hawks or the Kennedy) and launch the first new small conventional carrier in 1998, here's the breakdown of the smaller carriers with their commission date:

Lexington CV-75 1-Jan-98
Saratoga CV-77 1-Jan-02
Ranger CV-78 1-Jan-05
Constellation CV-80 1-Jan-09
America CVN-82 1-Jan-13

(Forrestal replaces the Lexington Mk II as training carrier from 1991-2009, then JFK takes its place into the 2020's)

After John C. Stennis is commissioned in 195, the Navy slows down Nimitz procurement a tad to the rate they've planned for the Fords. That leaves the Gerald R. Ford, a regular Nimitz class carrier, as the last Nimitz, commissioned in 2017. The new Enterprise doesn't need to launch until 2024, replacing the Nimitz, with a new carrier launching every four or five years thereafter and replacing the Nimitz class carriers to maintain 15 carriers in service.

I'm not sure whether the Navy would at this point want to launch nothing but CVs until the Navy consists of 6 supercarriers and 10 smaller ones, or what the best plan would be to keep 12-15 carriers operational. This would be a decision the Navy needs to make sometime between 2010 and 2015.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Here's a first proposal/question:

This guy's proposal for a modern "battleship" is basically an American version of the Kirov. http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2016/01/modern-battleship.html

He's a bit of a crackpot, but this got me thinking. I'd probably replace the two 6" triple mounts with a couple Mk71 8 inch guns. This thing could serve as a Ticonderoga replacement, but instead of having 20 of them, have 6-8 of them to serve as fleet flagships for amphibious assaults (finally retire the Blue Ridges) and then have 15-20 Burke-based AAW leaders as lesser cruisers. Think of it as a modern CA with the Burke-based cruiser being a CL.

In the CVL thread (which wound up advocating more of a Midway than a CVL), we sort of decided on 25 cruisers, 60-some destroyers of both AAW and ASW variety (or one that can do both), 40-50 light frigates, and more patrol boats and minesweepers than the OTL Navy. If so, that means the 8-inch gun cruiser can start coming on line in the late 1990's/early 2000's, the Spruances and the OHPs can be replaced by an ASW-variant Burke (as per OTL) or perhaps a smaller ship, and the Ticos and Flight I Burkes can get replaced by another Burke variant starting in the mid-2000's.

Thoughts?

By the late 90's the US has 27 cruisers, POD is too late for stopping the Ticonderogas, with an MLU you can get 40 years of service out of them, and refit the existing Twin Arm units to VLS, so new cruisers should wait until the 2020's. Assuming you don't upgrade the twin arm Tico's and don't MLU VLS units, new cruisers should come online early 2000's. Of course the Mk. 71 was judged merely as effective as the 5"/54 so questionable on arming cruisers with that, should probably develop new. If you MLU the Tico's develop a CGN for the 2020's, if not variant of the DDG-51, basically a US Sejeong, or SC-21 2B (Zumwalt was a modified 3B1)

Not a fan of a US Kirov equivalent, build something like that and temptation will always be to keep it with the CVN's. One idea I had for naval fire support was to use an LSD/LDP variant, plenty of space for large guns and possibly a naval MLRS, plus command space, nobody tempted to place it in with the CVNs and if you can send an LDP/LSD in, you can send it in

The difference in procurement cost of a destroyer that can do just AA over one that can do AA and ASW is pretty negligible, steel is cheap and air is free, course that don't include the helos, ops cost difference is ~40% more, AFAIK multirole DDG ~28million a year, AAW DDG ~$20 million, $16 million ASW Frigate

1990's is probably too late to stop DDV so you are stuck with at least half the IIA Burkes. For a replacement probably go with an updated version of the SOCS DDG, 12,000 tons conventional but stealthy hull, networked, electric propulsion, its an existing concept so choosing it to avoid a process that would probably lead to a Zumwalt is ideal. Probably reduce the number of VLS cells from 128 to 96 to take advantage of ESSM's ability to quadpack, upgrade to Mk. 57 for future proofing and free up space for a larger gun, as Mark 71. is inferior to the 5"/62 so would need to develop a new one, though might want to add another 1000 tons for extra stealth and extra gun (stealthy shape is hard)

You already know my thoughts on Frigates

Also you would have a hard time slowing down CVN production, they are already slow rolling things in OTL, and there is that bump in numbers from the Reagan years. Current production rate is about right to maintain 10 CVNs. I usually favor the kill the CVL get 14 CVNs approach, but now that I think about it 12 CVN and 3 CVL is likely a good compromise, get 4 CVNs deployable at any one time, 1 CVL to replace Lexteen as the training ship, one as an aircraft ferry/emergency 5th carrier, and one in refit

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

By the late 90's the US has 27 cruisers, POD is too late for stopping the Ticonderogas, with an MLU you can get 40 years of service out of them, and refit the existing Twin Arm units to VLS, so new cruisers should wait until the 2020's. Assuming you don't upgrade the twin arm Tico's and don't MLU VLS units, new cruisers should come online early 2000's. Of course the Mk. 71 was judged merely as effective as the 5"/54 so questionable on arming cruisers with that, should probably develop new. If you MLU the Tico's develop a CGN for the 2020's, if not variant of the DDG-51, basically a US Sejeong, or SC-21 2B (Zumwalt was a modified 3B1)

I didn't mean to stop the Ticonderogas or replace them early, but the Navy needs to be looking at a replacement by the 2020's.

Not a fan of a US Kirov equivalent, build something like that and temptation will always be to keep it with the CVN's. One idea I had for naval fire support was to use an LSD/LDP variant, plenty of space for large guns and possibly a naval MLRS, plus command space, nobody tempted to place it in with the CVNs and if you can send an LDP/LSD in, you can send it in

Crazy Internet blogger guy suggested that his "battleship" should be the center of Surface Action groups. I thought it should go along with either ESGs or the smaller CVs. The smaller CV would basically be an escort for the cruiser, giving it CAP and Hawkeye coverage.

The difference in procurement cost of a destroyer that can do just AA over one that can do AA and ASW is pretty negligible, steel is cheap and air is free, course that don't include the helos, ops cost difference is ~40% more, AFAIK multirole DDG ~28million a year, AAW DDG ~$20 million, $16 million ASW Frigate

I had the idea in my head that the same ship can do ASW and AAW, but I was expecting to be told I was wrong. Glad I'm on the right track.

1990's is probably too late to stop DDV so you are stuck with at least half the IIA Burkes. For a replacement probably go with an updated version of the SOCS DDG, 12,000 tons conventional but stealthy hull, networked, electric propulsion, its an existing concept so choosing it to avoid a process that would probably lead to a Zumwalt is ideal. Probably reduce the number of VLS cells from 128 to 96 to take advantage of ESSM's ability to quadpack, upgrade to Mk. 57 for future proofing and free up space for a larger gun, as Mark 71. is inferior to the 5"/62 so would need to develop a new one, though might want to add another 1000 tons for extra stealth and extra gun (stealthy shape is hard)

Are we fine with continuing to build Burkes for thirty years? Is there anything inherently wrong with the Flight IIIs? I've never heard of the SOCS DDG, do you have a link?

You already know my thoughts on Frigates

Yep. Just use Burkes as escorts and something like the German Braunschweig (maybe a bit bigger) as the ultimate replacement for the Perrys and for littoral ASW.

Also you would have a hard time slowing down CVN production, they are already slow rolling things in OTL, and there is that bump in numbers from the Reagan years. Current production rate is about right to maintain 10 CVNs. I usually favor the kill the CVL get 14 CVNs approach, but now that I think about it 12 CVN and 3 CVL is likely a good compromise, get 4 CVNs deployable at any one time, 1 CVL to replace Lexteen as the training ship, one as an aircraft ferry/emergency 5th carrier, and one in refit

I don't even remember how much I changed CVN production. Looks like I bumped Bush, Reagan, and Truman a couple years back so they wouldn't be launched right on top of the Lexingtons, then Ford commissioned in July 2017 as per OTL. As it is, the current Navy has 10 CVN with no backup and is likely close to only having 9. I guess you could call the America a neutered CVL, but as is we have three deployable carriers with no backup. My thought was that having three CVNs and two smaller carriers deployable was a compromise compared to 4 CVN and nothing else, and a lot better than 3 CVN and nothing else.

I'm thinking you're right that the Enterprise launched in the early 2020's should be a supercarrier. The Lexingtons are going to be good for decades to come and the Navy doesn't need a lot more.

 

[SsgtC]

He's a bit of a crackpot, but this got me thinking. I'd probably replace the two 6" triple mounts with a couple Mk71 8 inch guns. This thing could serve as a Ticonderoga replacement, but instead of having 20 of them, have 6-8 of them to serve as fleet flagships for amphibious assaults (finally retire the Blue Ridges) and then have 15-20 Burke-based AAW leaders as lesser cruisers. Think of it as a modern CA with the Burke-based cruiser being a CL.

Maybe not the 8"/55 Mk71, since it specifically designed to be lightweight to fit on a destroyer sized hull. (Ramscoop, one thing to remember that the 5"/54 only stacked up to the 8"/55 when using rocket assisted projectiles.) If this new heavy gun cruiser is going to be tasked primarily with NGFS or striking land targets, I'd suggest a heavier gun mounted in two superfiring three gun turrets forward with a 61 cell Mk41 Mod0 mounted aft with most used for Tomahawks. I'd also investigate developing a heavier shell for the gun. The Marine Corps is not going to like hearing that the Navy is replacing a 1,900 pound shell with a 260 pound shell. I'd also equip the ship with 3-4 quadpacks for Harpoons.

The current Navy is no less busy, but reduces to the OTL 10 CVNs, and launches 7 CVL, approximately the size of the old Essex class or the current America.

I still think Essex or America size is a bit too small. I'm not advocating for something the size Midway was at her decommissioning, but around the size she was after her SCB-110 refit in '55. I also don't see any reason why the Navy wouldn't build your Lexington class right alongside the Nimitz. They do it with our LHDs. Plus, building them concurrently let's you keep one other shipyard in the business of building aircraft carriers other than just Newport. Maybe Fore River? Politics would play a huge part in this, and getting less militarily inclined states on board by promising a massive number of jobs would help.

For the rest, I pretty much agree with what's already been stated. Though if you don't want to buy quite so many Burkes, you could just give the Spruance ships the Kidd treatment and turn them into multipurpose destroyers. They were retired really early IOTL. ITTL, it can be cast as the Navy being willing to save some money escorts while Congress funds two new classes of ships (a heavy cruiser and a light aircraft carrier).

Edit: I love that you've named the class after Lexington with her wreck having just been found.

 

[jsb]

I'd probably replace the two 6" triple mounts with a couple Mk71 8 inch guns. This thing could serve as a Ticonderoga replacement, but instead of having 20 of them, have 6-8 of them to serve as fleet flagships for amphibious assaults (finally retire the Blue Ridges)

his "battleship" should be the center of Surface Action groups. I thought it should go along with either ESGs or the smaller CVs. The smaller CV would basically be an escort for the cruiser, giving it CAP and Hawkeye coverage.

I have to ask why?

What does this combination of CV(L ish) and BB(/CA) give you that a larger CV and a few DDGs would not do better?

Would you ever be willing to risk this BB within 6" (or 8") range of anything you had not already really won?

I would simply build,

- large CVs or CVNs size is relatively cheap if you can force yourself not to fill it and carriers are very deck space limited especially take off and landing lengths.

- DDGs to escort them (and some CG for once you need to replace the Ticos)

- Some small slower cheaper frigates for escorting convoys, if we don't care about speed (escorting LPHs etc so 25Knt should do?) can we make them fat and wide for good helicopter performance and some could be fitted with a large gun in place of other systems to act as semi-disposable monitors?

 

[jsb]

This guy's proposal for a modern "battleship" is basically an American version of the Kirov. http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2016/01/modern-battleship.html

Reading his Blog makes me just question why?

Striking Power – Missiles have taken the place of guns but a modern BB should have the heaviest, fastest, most powerful missiles. The modern BB should have large, supersonic anti-ship/land missiles along the lines of the Soviet/Russian P-270 Moskit (also reported as SS-N-22 Sunburn) or Indian Brahmos. Further, a BB might well carry intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBM) for deep strike. Secondary armament would include a long range, high subsonic anti-ship missile like the Naval Ship Missile or Swedish RB-15. Finally, a gun fit of two 6” triple mounts would provide inshore or close range gun power and four 25-30 mm guns would round out a self-defense fit.

Stand and Fight – there’s no getting around it, a modern BB needs armor that incorporates traditional armor, meaning thick steel, and modern advances in armor along the lines of tank composite and layered armor. Double layer void and crush spaces would be included below the waterline and along the keel along with reinforced keel and bulkhead structures. Weapons and sensors need to be enclosed within armor to the extent possible consistent with their function (there’s a limit to how much armor you can place over a radar and have it work!). This might take the form of retractable weapons and sensors to some extent. Stealth shaping of the hull and superstructure would contribute to the ability to stand and fight. Stealth would include extensive IR suppression. Redundancy is key to fighting damaged and would be an important characteristic. The AMDR would be backed up by a multiple, lesser radars, for example.

Defense – a BB would incorporate a Ticonderoga’s AAW capabilities including AMDR and VLS fits with 120 or so VLS cells, not counting any IRBM cell requirements. Passive defenses like ECM and decoys would be far more emphasized than those on current ships.

Command – a modern BB would have extensive communications facilities for flag staffs.

Independence – a modern BB would be able to act as the centerpiece of surface action groups in concert with Burke escorts.

Endurance and Speed – as with the old BBs, a modern version would have a range of 15,000 nm and be capable of 30+ kts.

I really question the logic of this, I think this is simply a wish list of stuff with a very weakly thought out mission and absolutely no cost control.

It has things to do everything (apart from ASW and mines) that a navy might want to do in one ship but then talks about redundancy, why not just split it into multiple hulls to get the ultimate in redundancy?

Looking at each part,

Stand and Fight – This is the weakest one IMO, large modern weapons will still kill you or at least destroy the systems they hit so I question the relevance of such thick protection?
Once you start adding so much redundancy and trying to protect everything why not split it up on different ships and I would ask if such a large number of the systems will not simply interfere with each other?

Striking Power & Defense – Basically add everything you can think of, the problem is if we are just talking about different VLS missiles why cant you split them over more DDGs or even FFGs? What's the advantage of the larger ship apart from having more of everything? Do you really want your IRBMs on a ship within 6" range of anything?

Independence – Can it really win or even survive a fight without a CV and therefore AEW or over the horizon targeting?

Endurance and Speed- Why do you need that speed and range with missiles and under way refuelling, what's the actual requirement for each?

Command – Should definitely fit due to size of it.... But will the admiral not have picked to command from the CV or ashore?

Thoughts?

Would love anybody else's on the subject?

 

[SsgtC]

Reading his Blog makes me just question why?


I really question the logic of this, I think this is simply a wish list of stuff with a very weakly thought out mission and absolutely no cost control.

It has think to do everything (apart from ASW and mines) that a navy might want to do in one ship but then talks about redundancy, why not just split it into multiple hulls to get the ultimate in redundancy?

Looking at each part,

Stand and Fight – This is the weakest one IMO, large modern weapons will still kill you or at least destroy the systems they hit so I question the relevance of such thick protection?
Once you start adding so much redundancy and trying to protect everything why not split it up on different ships and I would ask if such a large number of the systems will not simply interfere with each other?

Striking Power & Defense – Basically add everything you can think of, the problem is if we are just talking about different VLS missiles why cant you split them over more DDGs or even FFGs? What's the advantage of the larger ship apart from having more of everything? Do you really want your IRBMs on a ship within 6" range of anything?

Independence – Can it really win or even survive a fight without a CV and therefore AEW or over the horizon targeting?

Endurance and Speed- Why do you need that speed and range with missiles and under way refuelling, what's the actual requirement for each?

Command – Should definitely fit due to size of it.... But will the admiral not have picked to command from the CV or ashore?

Would love anybody else's on the subject?

I think you're right on all of it. That's why my own suggestion is quite a bit simpler. Think along the lines of early cruiser conversions where the aft turret was deleted and Talos or Terrier SAM systems installed. The ship I'm picturing in my head is in the 17-22,000 ton range, it is armored, but only against guns of no more than 8" caliber (and that only because it's job will be to stand inshore and provide NGFS to landing Marines and could conceivably be targeted by field artillery). This ship would be seen as being somewhat disposable. Systems would also be automated where possible to reduce manpower needs.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

I didn't mean to stop the Ticonderogas or replace them early, but the Navy needs to be looking at a replacement by the 2020's.

Crazy Internet blogger guy suggested that his "battleship" should be the center of Surface Action groups. I thought it should go along with either ESGs or the smaller CVs. The smaller CV would basically be an escort for the cruiser, giving it CAP and Hawkeye coverage

I had the idea in my head that the same ship can do ASW and AAW, but I was expecting to be told I was wrong. Glad I'm on the right track.

Are we fine with continuing to build Burkes for thirty years? Is there anything inherently wrong with the Flight IIIs? I've never heard of the SOCS DDG, do you have a link?

Yep. Just use Burkes as escorts and something like the German Braunschweig (maybe a bit bigger) as the ultimate replacement for the Perrys and for littoral ASW.

I don't even remember how much I changed CVN production. Looks like I bumped Bush, Reagan, and Truman a couple years back so they wouldn't be launched right on top of the Lexingtons, then Ford commissioned in July 2017 as per OTL. As it is, the current Navy has 10 CVN with no backup and is likely close to only having 9. I guess you could call the America a neutered CVL, but as is we have three deployable carriers with no backup. My thought was that having three CVNs and two smaller carriers deployable was a compromise compared to 4 CVN and nothing else, and a lot better than 3 CVN and nothing else.

I'm thinking you're right that the Enterprise launched in the early 2020's should be a supercarrier. The Lexingtons are going to be good for decades to come and the Navy doesn't need a lot more.

The issue with building a large CG, is that anyone is going to want it to deploy with the most valuable units, ie the CVNs, and only deploy it with them. certainly no one is going to want to use it as a true Blue Ridge replacement, not leave it standing around like that

Nothing wrong with the Burke besides the Flight III using up almost all the growth margin. No link to the SOCS study, sorry

Much, much bigger than a Braunschweig, steel is cheap, air is free, any new US Frigate should be at least as big as an OHP (twice as big as a Braunschweig) up to 7,000 tons or so. Trying to cram everything needed for even a low end frigate into a 2,000 ton hull, you are making a clown car not a warship

 

[jsb]

...That's why my own suggestion is quite a bit simpler. Think along the lines of early cruiser conversions where the aft turret was deleted and Talos or Terrier SAM systems installed. The ship I'm picturing in my head is in the 17-22,000 ton range, it is armored, but only against guns of no more than 8" caliber (and that only because it's job will be to stand inshore and provide NGFS to landing Marines and could conceivably be targeted by field artillery). This ship would be seen as being somewhat disposable. Systems would also be automated where possible to reduce manpower needs.

I think you are still far too expensive and gold plated.

I would go for a monitor with,
- slow simple twin direct diesels for 22Kn (amphib speed and long range self deployment) two separated engine rooms as well as a forward back up generator and deployable all direction thruster
- two normal 5" guns each end A/X mount (155mm/8" if in large scale fleet service)
- one Sea RAM for AA/CIWS, say on bridge roof (or phalanx earlier)
- two RWS mounted light cannon (20-40mm what ever the rest of the fleet is using) for small boats, on bridge wings
- armoured ops room deep inside the ship with spaced steel protection with seating for entire of the small crew.
- minimal radar and electronic systems, ie only stuff needed for fire support and jamming as part of a larger force
- remote controlled fire suppression and pumps, ship also fitted with blow outs and protected bulkheads to form three zones to protect the crew/ship from magazine hit on A or X, ie ship can get home with having lost one of the ends.
- stern helipad (not hangar) for RAS

This could be relatively large for its systems but still cheap say 6000t?

Alternatively,
Multiple Launch Rocket System Craft Air Cushion (MLRSCAC) Fit a LCAC with M270s for fast insertion and large immediate fire power for acronym lovers?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

For NGS?

Retrofit Spurance class with one 8"/62 Mark 73 gun (My fictional take on what the Mk 71 might have become) replacing its 2 x Mk 45s

In addition and as per OTL retrofit the class with Mk 41 VLS with 61 cells for Land attack tomahawk in place of the 8 cell

All ships fitted with the RIM 116 21 cell system and hanger space is optimied for latest Helo as well as MQ-8B Fire Scout Drone

In the OPs TL these ships are mantained in the fleet for longer than OTL and with the cancellation of the DDG 1000 many are entering their 40th year in commission.

 

[SsgtC]

I think you are still far too expensive and gold plated.

I can see that. I should probably add a couple things to clarify. This ship will not have AEGIS, too expensive. It will not have sonar or any ASW capability. It's size is needed to act as a flagship of a SAG or during amphibious operations. It has Command and Control capabilities for a fleet and for a ground force Commander to manage a battle during landing operations. The VLS is so the ship can pack one hell of punch from long range to soften up targets on land. It also let's you concentrate the Ticonderogas on air defense by moving their Tomahawks to this ship and replacing them with SM-2s or -3s. The AA fit for the ship is 2-4 Phalanx mounts (thinking built with 2, fitted for 4), and ESSMs in a few of the Mk41 cells. I don't think the 5"/54 is an acceptable gun to replace the 16"/50 in the NGFS role. It fires a 70lb shell vs a 1,900lb shell. Granted, it fires a lot more of them, but no one has ever believed it was a replacement for true, heavy artillery. Hence my suggestion of 2x3 8" guns. Still fires a 335lb shell and can fire 10 per barrel per minute. That will make up for the loss of firepower. (I based those numbers on the Mk 16 btw.) That let's you put 60 335lb shells downrange every minute, or just over 20,000 pounds of explosives and steel.

The ship needs armor to stop field artillery from scoring a cheap kill, not to try and stop an ASM. Against ASMs, it goes with the, "the best defense is not to get hit" approach.

As for speed, I agree, you don't need 30+ knots. 25-27 will do just fine. So you could easily go with direct drive diesels or maybe even azimuth pods to give the ship enhanced inshore manuverability. The last is obviously not needed, but could be an option.

Crew wise, you're probably looking at around 500 total. A Tico is right around 400 including Officers and Chiefs. This would probably be only slightly more (bigger gun crews needed). And you could possibly even get it to about the same size depending on how much automation you include.

Basically, the reason the ship seems somewhat gold-plated is that I've designed it to replace multiple platforms. It replaces the Iowa-class battleships and the Blue Ridge-class command ships. You're also freeing up Ticonderogas and Burkes to serve as escorts instead of strike platforms.

 

[Kevin Renner]

This may not be popular
8 to 10 Nimitz class plus one old carrier for flight training.
2 Tico's and 6 Burkes per Carrier group.
1 Tico and 2 or 3 Buried per MAU
Sufficent Burke's and Perry's for show the flags patrols
New construction would be Metcalf type modular ships equippd with 8 or 10 modules that may equippd for ASW, Special Operations, Air Defense or Gun Fire Support. The gun fire support modules would have 155mm guns derived from either the Army's Pallidin or the West German 155mm SPG

 

[jsb]

Basically, the reason the ship seems somewhat gold-plated is that I've designed it to replace multiple platforms. It replaces the Iowa-class battleships and the Blue Ridge-class command ships. You're also freeing up Ticonderogas and Burkes to serve as escorts instead of strike platforms.

I think there are very good reasons to separate these functions,
- Iowa Bombardment fire power - needs fire power and to be close in
- Blue Ridge command and control - needs huge space and to be safe
- Escorts - needs to be everywhere so need to be cheap(ish) to be bought in numbers

I think combining them is the wrong idea, it will be cheaper to split functions over ships with different abilities and characteristics to mitigate risk and reduce cost.

Regarding your ship

I can see that. I should probably add a couple things to clarify. This ship will not have AEGIS, too expensive. It will not have sonar or any ASW capability. It's size is needed to act as a flagship of a SAG or during amphibious operations. It has Command and Control capabilities for a fleet and for a ground force Commander to manage a battle during landing operations. The VLS is so the ship can pack one hell of punch from long range to soften up targets on land. It also let's you concentrate the Ticonderogas on air defense by moving their Tomahawks to this ship and replacing them with SM-2s or -3s. The AA fit for the ship is 2-4 Phalanx mounts (thinking built with 2, fitted for 4), and ESSMs in a few of the Mk41 cells. I don't think the 5"/54 is an acceptable gun to replace the 16"/50 in the NGFS role. It fires a 70lb shell vs a 1,900lb shell. Granted, it fires a lot more of them, but no one has ever believed it was a replacement for true, heavy artillery. Hence my suggestion of 2x3 8" guns. Still fires a 335lb shell and can fire 10 per barrel per minute. That will make up for the loss of firepower. (I based those numbers on the Mk 16 btw.) That let's you put 60 335lb shells downrange every minute, or just over 20,000 pounds of explosives and steel.

The ship needs armor to stop field artillery from scoring a cheap kill, not to try and stop an ASM. Against ASMs, it goes with the, "the best defense is not to get hit" approach.

As for speed, I agree, you don't need 30+ knots. 25-27 will do just fine. So you could easily go with direct drive diesels or maybe even azimuth pods to give the ship enhanced inshore manuverability. The last is obviously not needed, but could be an option.

Crew wise, you're probably looking at around 500 total. A Tico is right around 400 including Officers and Chiefs. This would probably be only slightly more (bigger gun crews needed). And you could possibly even get it to about the same size depending on how much automation you include.

Why does the commander and especially his staff need to be on a warship rather than a floating HQ or with the marines on the LPH or back on dry (US) soil safe from being knocked out?

I think you should use the advantage on modern data links and split your force so only the parts you need to risk forward are risked and you keep the expensive soft parts and staffs back away from the threat.

Ie you should have during an amphibious operations (SAGs are simply going to fight with SSMs at long range and die before they get to gun range IMO) a force looking like this,
Beach - landing craft - fire support monitors - escorts (AA/ASW/MCMV) - Amphib mother ships - CVN, HQ, supply and hospital ships etc - Home
With greater risk at one end and long range expensive (both in cost and number of lives) systems at the other.

 

[gatordad699]

What about subs? Updated 688, more Seawolfs, more Ohio SSGNs, more Virginia’s? Fast boats are best, maybe only, ASW protection. Scouting, long range strike, etc.

Two types of ships, submarines and targets.

 

[CV12Hornet]

So, let’s back this up and think about what the US Navy actually needs. The Tico production run is already set, so let’s ignore that for now. This is in order of priority.

First, they need a general AAW ship for carrier escort to replace all the old Terrier and Tartar ships that are being retired. That’s the Burkes.

Second, they need a ship to take over the lower-end fire support role. Not only are the Iowas retiring, but the 90s OTL saw Burke’s and Ticos constantly popping up in the news for firing off Tomahawks at some asshole.

Third, a cheap, inshore vessel that can operate overseas.

Fourth, a replacement for the Spruances as carrier ASW escorts. If, as the DDV is already under development, then we can go with that.

Fifth, a Perry replacement as a relatively cheap open ocean patrol frigate.

And sixth, a Ticonderoga replacement, emphasis on better BMD capabilities.

The sixth is the easiest, IMO. Ever since I heard about the Flight III Burke I’ve always thought they should go the route of a Sejong or Atago: a larger, stretched hull. This would get back the tonnage for the new radar, extra electrical power, flag facilities, and probably another 32 VLS cells if we want these doing BMD a lot. Honestly, you really don’t need to go any bigger.

The fifth isn’t hard, either. Just basically do the current FFG(X) requirements a decade and or two early.

The third turned into the LCS. Honestly, a simple corvette like, say, the Type 056 would probably be a lot less of a hassle and still do the job.

The second is the tricky part. I’ll have to think on that.

Edit: for submarines, just leave the Virginia program alone. It’s doing exceptionally well.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

For NGS?

Retrofit Spurance class with one 8"/62 Mark 73 gun (My fictional take on what the Mk 71 might have become) replacing its 2 x Mk 45s

In addition and as per OTL retrofit the class with Mk 41 VLS with 61 cells for Land attack tomahawk in place of the 8 cell

All ships fitted with the RIM 116 21 cell system and hanger space is optimied for latest Helo as well as MQ-8B Fire Scout Drone

In the OPs TL these ships are mantained in the fleet for longer than OTL and with the cancellation of the DDG 1000 many are entering their 40th year in commission.

Can't be done, only the fore position on the Spruance has the extra bracing for an 8" gun, so does the fore position on a Ticonderoga or Arleigh Burke

One solution I thought of, modified Newport class LST, fit a 5"/62 or whatever gun you are using, I would prefer no heavier than a 155mm, 8" was eliminated from ground forces for a reason, a bunch of MLRS systems with an automatic reload system, a few RWS for close in defense and a CIWS, the Newport class has the hull life left and is being pulled out of service, so you can convert existing ships, modern USS Carronade

 

[jsb]

Can we build the Burkes slightly bigger from the start so they can be used as a CGs and have two helicopters hangars? Then we can talk about the mix of costs with a high low mix or not?

Second, they need a ship to take over the lower-end fire support role. Not only are the Iowas retiring, but the 90s OTL saw Burke’s and Ticos constantly popping up in the news for firing off Tomahawks at some asshole.

Third, a cheap, inshore vessel that can operate overseas.

The third turned into the LCS. Honestly, a simple corvette like, say, the Type 056 would probably be a lot less of a hassle and still do the job.

The second is the tricky part. I’ll have to think on that.

I think just fitting the standard 5"/62 to your cheap slow overseas corvette would work fine?

I think a LCS/corvette that's limited to 28Kn on a large steel hull with OTL sized hangars/deck and RAM/small guns but with a 5/62" instead of the 57mm could easily do both jobs? It should even be cheaper than OTL due to much smaller engines v larger gun.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Can we build the Burkes slightly bigger from the start so they can be used as a CGs and have two helicopters hangars? Then we can talk about the mix of costs with a high low mix or not?




I think just fitting the standard 5"/62 to your cheap slow overseas corvette would work fine?

I think a LCS/corvette that's limited to 28Kn on a large steel hull with OTL sized hangars/deck and RAM/small guns but with a 5/62" instead of the 57mm could easily do both jobs? It should even be cheaper than OTL due to much smaller engines v larger gun.

The US Navy at the time wants more capability than just the 5” gun. I still think adoption of a 155mm gun is the most likely option. The arguments vis a vis Army commonality are too great to ignore.

As for bigger Burke’s, not with this POD. The first batch is already almost done. Bigger Burke’s from the start also misses the point of the class: a lower-end AEGIS combatant procured is greater numbers compared to the Ticos.