A nice idea but, once again, navy leadership fails when it comes to developing & fleshing-out ideas.

Navy’s top officer lays out aggressive new cruiser replacement approach

quote:

WASHINGTON – Buoyed by rapid progress on the next-generation frigate, the U.S. Navy’s top officer is ready to quickly move out on the long-debated replacement for the Navy’s aging cruisers.

In an exclusive interview with Defense News, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson laid out a strategy for a new large surface combatant that uses some of the tricks the Navy is employing on the FFG(X) program: looking at existing hull forms as a base for a tailor-made future combatant that can evolve over time.

“We’re going to start putting the pedal to the metal on the next major surface combatant,” Richardson said Wednesday afternoon. “I think we learned a lot in the frigate discussion and turned around the major surface combatant discussion in record time.

“I’d like to do the whole thing, well, as fast as possible but do it in the frigate timeframes: in terms of defining what we want, the requirements, getting industry involved, making it a very open competition."

....

Richardson pointed to three main focus areas for a new major surface combatant: An existing hull form to speed up acquisition; excess power capacity; and the ability to rapidly switch out systems.

“Some parts of that ship are going to be very similar to ships that are around right now (hull forms) and that’s going to last the life of the ship,” Richardson said. “So, let’s get a hull form — and there are probably ones out there that are just fine."

We're talking about a cruiser, which means bigger than a destroyer, only Russia and China operate cruisers, where do you plan on getting a off-the-shelf hull design? Zumwalt? Can it handle rough seas. San Antonio? It's an amphib with a well. Tico-cruisers used an old Spruance hull form, this time around they're gonna need to design an entirely new hull.

quote:

The second area Richardson pointed to is the electrical plant, a must if the Navy is going to integrate lasers and electromagnetic weapons in the future.

“Power plant and power generation — you need to really pay attention to that because its very hard to change after you buy it," he said. "And if you think about the kinds of combat systems and weapons systems we’re going to have on future ships, they have got to be able to generate pulsed power and those sorts of things.

“So, lots of power. Buy as much power as you can afford because it’s like RAM on your computer, you’re going to need more as soon as you buy it.”

Zumwalt's IPS power plant. Done.

quote:

The third area, Richardson said, is that new technology must be easily switched during short stints in the yards, not requiring major ship alterations to accommodate new systems.

“Everything else, though, is swappable,” Richardson continued. “And that has to be designed in to the DNA of the ship so you can come in on a short upkeep and swap out your radar system, or your combat system, or put this weapons system in.

“It has a lot to do with designing standards so that everybody can build to those standards so it’s a much more dynamic, swappable type of a thing.”

WTF!?!...headslap...did you not learn with the LCS debacle? Your idea is swappable DNA of a ship's systems...and what kind of crew is going to man this jack-of-all trades/master of none? I can just see it, ship gets out of the yard, Capt is gripping with the new system module as four departments are down because theres an endless feed of error codes, meanwhile down in the Chief's mess, they're dealing with 90-new sailors trying to get adjusted to the new digs and shipmates.

Good grief...maybe, just maybe, it's time to get industry working on a replacement for Aegis and it's associated weapons systems.

Well, I bet if you took a Nimitz hull and stripped off the flight deck you'd have a hell of a lot of room for VLS launch tubes...

Surface Navy has been a shit show for decades.



I see nothing has changed.

quote:

Originally posted by copaup:
Well, I bet if you took a Nimitz hull and stripped off the flight deck you'd have a hell of a lot of room for VLS launch tubes...

They retired the Enterprise. That'd make for a hell of a platform to reuse for a new ship class.

How about an updated Iowa class?

Hull designs have REALLY improved since around 2000 on all ships, from designs prior to that. It's also fairly quick for a hull designer to design a hull on a cad computer compared to the old days where it was all drawings and corrections and changes and formulas. They can then make a scale model fairly quick thanks to Cad/cam machines and subject them to all kinds of sea conditions via a tank test. But bottom line. A new design from scratch would be far superior to 20-50 year old ship hull designs.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Surface Navy has been a shit show for decades.



I see nothing has changed.

That is a fact. Just another reason why I switched to the FAO community.

The next gen cruiser is desperately needed to support fleet operations sooner than later. I would prefer making more Burke Destroyers to support Carrier battle groups and developing the arsenal ship concept which is not designed to provide humanitarian assistance, provide C2 or do anything else other than fulfill the capability required to defeat anti-access strategies & provide maximum volume of precise fire onto enemy targets. The Chinese are working towards this ship concept. Btw, AC Carriers Today are not surprisingly very vulnerable to advanced weapons and modern sensors. The Navy gets this, playing catch up and has been augmenting the strategy for their use.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
Hull designs have REALLY improved since around 2000 on all ships, from designs prior to that. It's also fairly quick for a hull designer to design a hull on a cad computer compared to the old days where it was all drawings and corrections and changes and formulas. They can then make a scale model fairly quick thanks to Cad/cam machines and subject them to all kinds of sea conditions via a tank test. But bottom line. A new design from scratch would be far superior to 20-50 year old ship hull designs.

If they could design the SR-71 50+ years ago, using slide rules and steno pads, then I don't think designing a decent new hull today (with all the computers, CAD/CAM, hi-tech hydrodynamic test facilities, etc) should be an insurmountable problem. I mean, we have been operating steel-hulled ships (yeah, I know - and aluminum) for quite some time now - it's not exactly virgin territory that we are exploring here. I bet any good group of engineering college students should be able to come up with an acceptable hull design as a class project.

I see the main problem as one of getting TOO 'hi-techy' with something that doesn't NEED to be 'hi-tech.' I'm thinking of the F-35 here. They see all this new possible tech, and think they need ALL of it in one design (and much of this new tech isn't mature or even demonstrated to work in real life designs yet). Granted, when this works, it is amazing. However, getting to this level of functionality is time-consuming and expensive. I think something similar is happening with the Navy's new 'all electric' designs?

Another example is the Objective Individual Combat Weapon ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...vidual_Combat_Weapon ) rifle competition the Army had - instead of 'just a rifle' to replace the M-16, they tried to create a Starship Troopers-type 'smart' weapon with air-bursting grenades (to kill enemy troops behind cover), and they failed miserably.

I don't think DoD has a really impressive track record (at least publicly) lately. They tend to over-think and over-design stuff, and often over-reach their capabilities.

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
The next gen cruiser is desperately needed to support fleet operations sooner than later. I would prefer the arsenal ship concept which is not designed to provide humanitarian assistance, provide C2 or do anything else other than fulfill the capability required to defeat anti-access strategies & provide maximum volume of precise fire onto enemy targets. The Chinese are working towards this ship concept. Btw, AC Carriers Today are surprisingly very vulnerable to advanced weapons. The Navy gets this and has been augmenting the strategy for their use.

I love the concept behind an arsenal ship. I just think the Navy will never build it. Not 'sexy' enough.

IMO.
But, of course, I've never been a sailor.

I agree. Not enough “upward mobility” from its command structure to flag rank. Never mind the platform need or effectiveness.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
The next gen cruiser is desperately needed to support fleet operations sooner than later. I would prefer the arsenal ship concept which is not designed to provide humanitarian assistance, provide C2 or do anything else other than fulfill the capability required to defeat anti-access strategies & provide maximum volume of precise fire onto enemy targets. The Chinese are working towards this ship concept. Btw, AC Carriers Today are surprisingly very vulnerable to advanced weapons. The Navy gets this and has been augmenting the strategy for their use.

I love the concept behind an arsenal ship. I just think the Navy will never build it. Not 'sexy' enough.

IMO.
But, of course, I've never been a sailor.

I guess my first questions is simple...

why?

the Air Force is retiring the B1 and the B2 in favor of the 'new B21' and at the same time spending about a billion on new engines for the B52

does the Air Force actually know what it needs, or do they not know what they have?

the F35 seems to be a 3-pronged solution to a problem that doesn't exist, yet they have a pathological aim to get rid of the A10 - an aircraft that can actually do its job

don't know much about the Navy but I gotta wonder why

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
I guess my first questions is simple...

why?

Military people LOVE LOVE LOVE to change things. Even things that don't NEED to be changed.

The Tico cruiser is relatively old, as they were built between 1980 and 1994. I don't know enough about modern warships to determine if they really need to be replaced or not.

As for *why* we need a new 'Cruiser,' I don't know. A Flight III Arleigh Burke 'Destroyer' has the same displacement as a Tico and is only about 60 feet shorter. Ships have steadily grown over time, so the newer Burkes are bigger than many older "Cruisers."

Perhaps an upgraded Burke would do everything a new 'cruiser' could do. I thought it was smart of the Navy to label the Super Hornet as the "F-18E/F" instead of giving it a brand new F- designation ('regular' Hornets are F-18A/B/C/D). While the USAF was getting crucified in the media over the 'new' F-22, the Navy quietly built and equipped itself with brand new fighters without much notice in the media, from what I could see (the Super Hornet has only about 25% commonality with the 'regular' Hornet; and, while it looks the same to the untrained eye, is essentially a completely different aircraft). By simply giving it a new letter suffix, they avoided all the media crap about getting a 'new' fighter, while the media harped on about why the USAF needed new fighters when the F-15 was the world's greatest fighter (this was 20+ years ago). Maybe they could do the same thing here.

quote:

the Air Force is retiring the B1 and the B2 in favor of the 'new B21' and at the same time spending about a billion on new engines for the B52

The 'B-21' design hasn't even been finalized yet, IIRC. Give it another 5-6 years until first flight (if they fast-track it), and then another 5-8 for IOC (Initial Operational Capability - when they are ready for standard squadron operations). As I recall, the F-22 took about 10 years from first flight to IOC, and that is a very small aircraft compared to an intercontinental range bomber.

As for new engines for the B-52 - they have been talking about that for decades. I know some B-52 pilots, and they said re-engining a Buff would pay for itself in a year in saved fuel costs. I don't know if the USAF will really do it - the BUFFs flying now are OLD (Wiki indicates the last one was built in 1963), though they are allegedly planning to operate them through 2050. New, more efficient engines would do wonders for them in maintenance hours and fuel costs. . .

quote:

does the Air Force actually know what it needs, or do they not know what they have?

The jury is still out on both counts.

quote:

the F35 seems to be a 3-pronged solution to a problem that doesn't exist, yet they have a pathological aim to get rid of the A10 - an aircraft that can actually do its job

The A-10 is not 'sexy.' It's ugly (relatively speaking; I, personally, think it's beautiful). I think the A-10's biggest problem is that it's not a pointy 'high-performance' fighter like the F-22.

Vietnam PROVED that supersonic fighters make lousy close support aircraft. Hence, the A-10 was born, and it was awesome. However, I think the USAF wants to get out of the close support mission, as it isn't glamorous enough. So, we get the F-35 that is supposed to be a jack of all trades. It also goes against EVERYTHING close support taught us in 'Nam. Certainly, close support has changed since then (who ever would have thought that B-52s would provide close support with precision munitions that didn't exist when it was built?), so we will have to see if replacing the A-10 with F-35s is a good call.

They need to integrate the bulbous nose of the cargo ships so they can just ram other ships since it seems to work so good at damaging our existing ships!

I served in USS BUINKER HILL (CG-52) from APR 2000 - OCT 2001. The reason the cruisers need replaced has to do with the next generation of radars coming out and the wear and tear on the hulls and mechanical systems.

Why not just more DDGs? The CO of a cruiser is a Navy Captain (O-6) and the Department Heads are all on their second tours, so the leadership is much more experienced. The duties assigned to a cruiser in a strike group depend on this experience. So, it is not just about the number of VLS cells, it is the additional requirements of C2 and the ability to embark additional staffs on a CG that require (in my opinion) a different platform.

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
The next gen cruiser is desperately needed to support fleet operations sooner than later. I would prefer making more Burke Destroyers to support Carrier battle groups and developing the arsenal ship concept which is not designed to provide humanitarian assistance, provide C2 or do anything else other than fulfill the capability required to defeat anti-access strategies & provide maximum volume of precise fire onto enemy targets. The Chinese are working towards this ship concept. Btw, AC Carriers Today are not surprisingly very vulnerable to advanced weapons and modern sensors. The Navy gets this, playing catch up and has been augmenting the strategy for their use.

The arsenal ship concept I like and has been mocked up on the San Antonio-hull design. Unfortunately, that design isn't fast enough to keep up with a CSG but would be perfect for a amphib group. You'd basically need a nuclear reactor to generate enough power to muscle it's way through the waves at those speeds.
As for adding more Burke's, there's already 65 in the fleet, with an additional 12 on the way. The Flight-III are maxed-out with as much tech that the power plant can handle. It has no accommodation for a air defense commander and staff of a CSG, which is the purpose of the cruiser in the fleet and deals with its main threat, anti-ship missiles. Finally, they only hold 96 VLS cells, vs 122 with the Ticos, you give up 26 cells, a swarm of hypersonic anti-ship missiles, you're gonna shoot anywhere between 2-5 missiles per threat...that's a lot of cells dedicated just to fleet air-defense.

Because anything like a WWII battleship concept would be useless in modern naval warfare.

In point of fact the Zumwalt Class, with it's bigger guns, was going somewhere in that general direction, and has been judged a failure.

If they every actually get a weaponized, deployable EM railgun working, it may be worth looking at. But even then, it wouldn't like be worthwhile.

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:
How about an updated Iowa class?