New US Cruisers

User avatar
MikeJames
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 1349
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 09:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: RAN DDL HMAS Kokoda
Australian Coast Guard cutter Nemesis
RAN FCPB HMAS Wollongong
German SAR Launch DGzRS Berln
SS Geest Atlas (Building)
Location: Sydney
Contact:

New US Cruisers

Postby MikeJames » 13 Apr 2018 15:37

Well this is a surprise, I didn't think the US would look at another cruiser design, but here we are.

Mike


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

By: David B. Larter   18 hours ago

Image
The cruiser Normandy gets underway for deployment as part of the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group. (MC3 Colbey Livingston/Navy)

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."

The Navy will be zeroing in on what they want out of their new ship very quickly, Richardson said, which means shipbuilders and industry could be getting bids together on the Navy’s new major surface combatant in a matter of months instead of years.

“I’d like to get this pretty well defined in the 2018, 2019 timeframe,” he said.

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."
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.”

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.”

Since taking over as CNO, Richardson has championed an aggressive approach to acquisitions that brings in industry earlier in the process to define what is possible with mature or maturing systems, an approach designed to get new technology out in the fleet faster than the long timeline associated with developing new technologies for a blank-slate design.

It’s an approach he’s pushed with the FFG(X) and the unmanned MQ-25 Stingray tanker. The idea is to get new tech out in the fleet quickly and in the hands of sailors and officers to put it to work.

“We’ll get this design done. And because some things will be permanent and some things will be swappable, let’s just get that thing out there. It will be 100 percent better than the current cruiser,” Richardson said. “And then [when] we get smarter, we’ll put the next iteration out there.”

Power and sensors

Experts who reviewed Richardson's comments on the next surface combatant were generally positive about the CNO's approach to getting the next large surface ship on the water sooner rather than later.

An important part of the discussion about a new large combatant of this nature will be what sensors the Navy wants on it, said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

One of the growing concerns among Navy leaders is the massive radar signature of the fixed phased-array radars that have been the fixture of the AEGIS surface Navy.

“I would be very interested in what the Navy is thinking regarding the main sensors of the future large surface combatant,” Clark said. “The vulnerability of active sensors to counter-detection may argue for the next large surface combatant having large, high-gain passive sensors.”

Clark said it was a great move to ensure that the next surface combatant has excess power and capacity for future capabilities. The Navy’s current large surface combatant program, the DDG-51 destroyers, are moving on to a Flight III variant that supports Raytheon’s AN/SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar.

But to support the power-hungry sensor, engineers had to pack a ton of extra power generation capability in the Arleigh Burke hull form.

The Navy has said that the addition of more power just about maxed out space inside the Burke.

This suggests that the Burke hull form is probably not appropriate for the next major surface combatant under the parameters laid out by CNO, Clark said, and it may suggest the Navy has even broader plans for this hull than just replacing the cruisers.

“This approach will help get the new large surface combatant out there sooner, which would help the Navy address the constraints of the DDG-51 design, which with Flight III has little margin left for growth,” he said. “The desire for a faster design process suggests the Navy wants to shift to a new large surface combatant design earlier than 2029, which is when he next [large surface combatant] appears in the FY19 shipbuilding plan.

“The CNO is talking about the new surface combatant as if it were a replacement for the [cruisers], but the shipbuilding plan does not reflect two classes of large surface combatants being constructed. I assume this new ship will replace the CGs initially and then replace the DDG-51 Flight 1s.”

Hull contenders

If CNO wants to build the ship into an existing hull forms with lots of extra capacity, the list of contenders isn’t very long at the moment.

Most countries are focused on frigate-sized ships, which meant the Navy had a glut of contenders for FFG(X), but there is a much more limited supply of large surface combatants, said Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain and analyst with the Center for a New American Security.

“As I see it just right off the bat, there are really only three: the British Type 26, Burke and the Zumwalt (DDG-1000),” Hendrix said. And of those contenders, really only Zumwalt has the excess power generation CNO is looking for.

Huntington Ingalls has also done designs for its LPD-17 San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock that added vertical launch tubes and other surface combatant capabilities, but such a ship would have difficulty keeping up with the aircraft carrier, Hendrix added.

Image
The future USS Michael Monsoor passes Fort Popham travels down the Kennebec River as it heads out to sea for trials, Monday, Dec. 4, 2017, in Phippsburg, Maine. The ship is the second in the stealthy Zumwalt class of destroyers. (Robert F. BukatyAP)

Using the Zumwalt hull form has its own challenges, said Clark. The Navy has been thrilled with the extra space and extra power generation the Zumwalt offers, but stability in the water for the stealthy destroyer has been a limiting factor in some conditions, he said.

Bryan McGrath, a retired destroyer skipper and consultant with The FerryBridge Group, said the focus on power and quick upgrades was good, but agreed that that stock of large combatant hulls is slim at the moment.

“Focusing on power is a good thing,” McGrath said. “Focusing on the ability to rapidly modernize through what he calls ‘swappable’ capabilities is a good thing. I hope [CNO] has an open mind on hull forms though, as I think the DDG-51 hull form is about played out and likely wouldn’t be large enough to accommodate the basket of things we want on a large surface combatant, leaving the DDG-1000 and the LPD-17 from existing U.S. designs.”

“Both are fine ships, but I’d like to see what the naval architecture and design community is capable of before limiting the playing field.”
glenhowells
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 06 Nov 2012 23:09
Fleet Base: Perth
My Ship Yard: HMAS Derwent
HMAS Swan (building)
HMAS Tarakan (building)
HMS Hermes (Hull being built)

Re: New US Cruisers

Postby glenhowells » 14 Apr 2018 14:33

Yes Mike surprise indeed. I thought the US was building all the AB destroyers in large numbers to compensate for the cruisers. With only the yanks and the Russians that still operate cruisers they might go the same way as the battleships in the near future. With the fire power modern destroyers have are cruisers really worth it in the long run.

Cheers Glen
User avatar
MikeJames
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 1349
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 09:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: RAN DDL HMAS Kokoda
Australian Coast Guard cutter Nemesis
RAN FCPB HMAS Wollongong
German SAR Launch DGzRS Berln
SS Geest Atlas (Building)
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: New US Cruisers

Postby MikeJames » 15 Apr 2018 09:41

I believe that the Arleigh Burke design is seen as having limitations in terms of space and future growth potential, hence the search for a new, larger hull design.

The Tico's provide the lynchpin for the AAW capability of an entire task force, plus are the ships of choice for anti-ballistic capability.

The recent defence budget is having the same effect as the Reagan defence budgets did on the increasingly fragile US Military back in the 80s.

Back then, once the flood gates opened and the US Military started to introduce capabilities like the Bradley, the F117, the M1 Abrams, the Aegis system, the Tomahawk, the Los Angeles class, all in significant numbers, the Russian's realised their hopes of defeating the west in a conventional war were as dead as Lenin.

Today the same thing is happening under Trump. He has stated that he wants a 355+ surface combatant ship Navy, a revitalised Air Force, includig a new strategic stealth bomber and an Army that can fight any peer force and win. With the budget locked in for the next few years the US military is doing just that.

For the US Navy that means:

Looking at ordering carriers in batches of 2 to save money and get them faster
New cruisers to replace the aging Ticos.
Frigates to replace the LCS which were someone's idea of trying to fight Iranian boghammer boats without building frigates. They don't work.
Replacing the legacy Hornets in carrier air wings with F35s and Super Hornets
Continuing the Arleigh Burke production line with at least 42 additional ships of the Batch III type
More ships amed with anti-ballistic missile capability
Developing UAVs to provide round the clock air to air refuelling capability for carrier air wings.
Increasing the Virginia class ordering tempo
Developing and fielding directed energy and rail guns at sea.

The Russians and to a much greater extent the Chinese must be cursing.

MIke
rritchie71
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 787
Joined: 27 Jan 2010 12:59
Fleet Base: Perth
My Ship Yard: HMAS Adelaide (LHD), USS Roosevelt, USS Anzio, RFS Peter the Great, Scharnhorst, HMAS Melbourne, HMAS Sydney (AWD), ITS Carlo Bergamini, HNLMS Evertsen, HMS Middelton, HMS Severn, RFS Arkangelsk, Fairplay 30, Normand Master, Fure West

Re: New US Cruisers

Postby rritchie71 » 15 Apr 2018 11:24

According to USNI, the new AMDR panels are denser (so heavier) and require a lot more power, the Tico's cannot take the additional top weight or produce the power.

Still love them though, they were designed back in the 80's and by the time they have gone they will have provided around 45 years at the sharp end, retiring still more capable than the modern ships of most navies.

I just hope the new cruisers look as good as the Tico's, as I cannot say I'm enthusiastic about building a Zumwalt (or something that looks like it) from a modelling perspective.

Robert

Most destroyers and frigates have the sensors required to fight concentrated together, i.e. damage the bridge area of an AB and you are dead from a fighting perspective, even if the ops room deep in the ship is undamaged, same for the AWD, Type 45 or Zeven Provincien etc, etc. In the new cruiser requirement, I would be surprised if you do not find a mandatory split of sensors just like the Tico’s fwd and aft, meaning you can take damage and still fight. Not to mention the extra gear and people to act as a battle group commander that the Tico’s have and the AB’s don’t.
User avatar
MikeJames
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 1349
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 09:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: RAN DDL HMAS Kokoda
Australian Coast Guard cutter Nemesis
RAN FCPB HMAS Wollongong
German SAR Launch DGzRS Berln
SS Geest Atlas (Building)
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: New US Cruisers

Postby MikeJames » 15 Apr 2018 19:20

Dead right Rob, the Command and Control functionality of the Ticos is what stands them head and shoulders above the Arleigh Burkes.

Mind you, the Burkes are still the second most capable AAW platform at sea after a modernised BMD-capable Tico.

I still believe the F100 / AWD was a mistake and that we should have plugged into the US production line for Type IIA Burkes and spent the money saved buying off the US production line on additional kit for the RAAF and Army. That way we'd have more capable destroyers with twin hangars and a larger loadout. I don't buy the argument that you have to build here to maintain here. It didn't affect the RAN's ability to maintain the DDGs and the FFGs or the Oberons.

Still, the AWD can piggyback off the US Navy's long term commitment to Aegis and the SM-3 / SM-6 missile.

I have to agree with you that the Zumwalt hull is an abomination.

Mike
rritchie71
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 787
Joined: 27 Jan 2010 12:59
Fleet Base: Perth
My Ship Yard: HMAS Adelaide (LHD), USS Roosevelt, USS Anzio, RFS Peter the Great, Scharnhorst, HMAS Melbourne, HMAS Sydney (AWD), ITS Carlo Bergamini, HNLMS Evertsen, HMS Middelton, HMS Severn, RFS Arkangelsk, Fairplay 30, Normand Master, Fure West

Re: New US Cruisers

Postby rritchie71 » 16 Apr 2018 11:37

They have committed very big to the Aegis/SPY combination indeed, announcing that all AB’s will have a 45 year life span. That means USS Roosevelt will serve until late 2045 and the current half life refit she is undergoing, is no longer her half life. I hope my model lasts that long..... :shock:

The last 10 of the Flight IIA’s have engineering changes (apparently two thirds of the ship had to be redesigned to accommodate this, making it a sub class effectively) so they could be upgraded to AMDR in the future.

As for the rest of existing Fight I, II and IIA versions, like O'Kane, Roosevelt and Spruance for example, they cannot be changed to this extent, so unless a new AMDR panel is produced that does not need 30% more cooling than these versions can produce, then they will always be limited to pre SPY6 (what AMDR has been renamed) for their service lives.

Robert

Return to “US Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users