US Navy, 25,000-ton cruiser under consideration

Happy Times · 07-26-07, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Under pressure from the Navy to develop a new cruiser based on the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class hull form, and from Congress to incorporate nuclear power, a group of analysts working on the next big surface combatant may recommend two different ships to form the CG(X) program.

One ship would be a 14,000-ton derivative of the DDG 1000, an “escort cruiser,” to protect aircraft carrier strike groups. The vessel would keep the tumblehome hull of the DDG 1000 and its gas turbine power plant.

The other new cruiser would be a much larger, 25,000-ton nuclear-powered ship with a more conventional flared bow, optimized for the ballistic missile defense (BMD) mission.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/0...se_cgx_070723/

baggygreen · 07-26-07, 07:14 AM

wow...

JSLTIGER · 07-26-07, 09:19 AM

Good for the Navy...I was starting to wonder what the heck we were going to do about replacing the Ticonderogas.

DAB · 07-26-07, 09:55 AM

I wonder whether the 25,000ton ship is perhaps too big. The only reason you would a platform that big would be 1) Battleship Guns, 2) A through deck cruiser design that allows you to operate aircraft: EG: British Invincible Class (21,000tons)

I don't see any indication that she is being designed for either weapon. And surely one or two giant ships for ballistic missile defence would leave the US in an exceptionally precarious position should one get torpedoed.

fatty · 07-26-07, 10:48 AM

The Virginia CGN displaced ~11,000 tons. Add two VLS grids for BMD and modern AAW, assume she will carry two helos, then figure fuel and other misc. logistical factors, extra crew... it adds up quite quickly!

geetrue · 07-26-07, 11:23 AM

I say scrap it and build the submarines that would or could sink it someday, but I know how the high brass thinks and it's not pro-submarine's.

Did you see the price tag on this thing?

I think it was one billion dollars for the nuclear power plant alone, plus another seven (7) billion dollars to finish it and they want more than one.

AntEater · 07-26-07, 11:29 AM

What's it with all that nukular fetish??
Seriously until the USN fields the big bad interceptor missile (TM) at the size of a Saturn V in multiple cell VLS launchers, I don't see a reason for a missile dreadnought

To me this seems to be a rehash of the old "arsenal ship" thing only now with ballistic missile defense as the excuse, not cruise missile platform as before.

Heibges · 07-26-07, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntEater

What's it with all that nukular fetish??
Seriously until the USN fields the big bad interceptor missile (TM) at the size of a Saturn V in multiple cell VLS launchers, I don't see a reason for a missile dreadnought

To me this seems to be a rehash of the old "arsenal ship" thing only now with ballistic missile defense as the excuse, not cruise missile platform as before.

I too wonder why Congress is "pressuring" the Navy to make the ship nuclear.

JSLTIGER · 07-26-07, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heibges

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntEater

What's it with all that nukular fetish??
Seriously until the USN fields the big bad interceptor missile (TM) at the size of a Saturn V in multiple cell VLS launchers, I don't see a reason for a missile dreadnought

To me this seems to be a rehash of the old "arsenal ship" thing only now with ballistic missile defense as the excuse, not cruise missile platform as before.

I too wonder why Congress is "pressuring" the Navy to make the ship nuclear.

That's easy...not enough production without it. The know-how and expertise to build nuclear vessels is quickly fading, as the number of nuclear powered ships in the US Navy has dropped dramatically since the end of the Cold War. If they make a new class of ship nuclear-powered, it may help to retain that knowledge/expertise for future use.

geetrue · 07-26-07, 04:07 PM

If your building a ship today to look good ... go bunker fuel oil.

If your building a ship to go to war ... go nuclear power. Then
you don't have to refuel in the middle of one.

fatty · 07-26-07, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geetrue

If your building a ship today to look good ... go bunker fuel oil.

If your building a ship to go to war ... go nuclear power. Then
you don't have to refuel in the middle of one.

I don't think UNREP is any big deal... but you raise another good point. If we expect the new cruisers to operate ~30 years like the Ticos, and if they're ordered in 2011-2023, then that means they have to be good for us until around 2040-2050. Who can say for certain what the oil situation will be in the U.S. and in the world by then?

Tchocky · 07-26-07, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatty

Who can say for certain what the oil situation will be in the U.S. and in the world by then?

I'm sure it will be the focus of several more wars than it is already

bookworm_020 · 07-26-07, 07:12 PM

It soulds a little to big in size, and doesn't seem to have much in the way of flexablity. Nuclear power is a 50-50 bet either way the oil situation goes.

Heibges · 07-26-07, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSLTIGER

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heibges

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntEater

What's it with all that nukular fetish??
Seriously until the USN fields the big bad interceptor missile (TM) at the size of a Saturn V in multiple cell VLS launchers, I don't see a reason for a missile dreadnought

To me this seems to be a rehash of the old "arsenal ship" thing only now with ballistic missile defense as the excuse, not cruise missile platform as before.

I too wonder why Congress is "pressuring" the Navy to make the ship nuclear.

That's easy...not enough production without it. The know-how and expertise to build nuclear vessels is quickly fading, as the number of nuclear powered ships in the US Navy has dropped dramatically since the end of the Cold War. If they make a new class of ship nuclear-powered, it may help to retain that knowledge/expertise for future use.

I could cetanly understand that if the Navy said to Congress, "we need a nuclear cruiser to keep the skill alive", but this went the other way. What does Congress know about the art of shipbuilding, that the Navy doesn't?

The art of shipbuilding in general is a rapidly declining skill in the United States.

AntEater · 07-27-07, 08:22 AM

Energy might be a reason, even though I suppose the navy would be the last thing to run out of gas in the US.
More like "station time" being the watchword in current naval building.
A nukular (love the word) supercruiser with a boomer like "gold/blue" crew concept and automated logistics could basically stay on station forever.
Like a surface boomer, only with the task of not causing Armageddon, but preventing it (or better, preventing 50% of it

)

07-26-07, 09:19 AM	#3
JSLTIGER The Old Man Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Parkland, FL, USA Posts: 1,437 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Good for the Navy...I was starting to wonder what the heck we were going to do about replacing the Ticonderogas. __________________ Thor: Intel Core i7 4770K\|ASUS Z87Pro\|32GB DDR3 RAM\|11GB EVGA GeForce RTX 2080Ti Black\|256GB Crucial M4 SSD+2TB WD HDD\|4X LG BD-RE\|32" Acer Predator Z321QU 165Hz G-Sync (2540x1440)\|Logitech Z-323 2.1 Sound\|Win 10 Pro Explorer (MSI GL63 8RE-629 Laptop): Intel Core i7 8750H\|16GB DDR4 RAM\|6GB GeForce GTX 1060\|128GB SSD+1TB HDD\|15.6" Widescreen (1920x1080)\|Logitech R-20 2.1 Sound\|Win 10 Home

07-26-07, 09:55 AM	#4
DAB Lieutenant Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 263 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	I wonder whether the 25,000ton ship is perhaps too big. The only reason you would a platform that big would be 1) Battleship Guns, 2) A through deck cruiser design that allows you to operate aircraft: EG: British Invincible Class (21,000tons) I don't see any indication that she is being designed for either weapon. And surely one or two giant ships for ballistic missile defence would leave the US in an exceptionally precarious position should one get torpedoed. __________________ ...snorting / snorkelling after several years of silent running.

07-26-07, 11:23 AM	#6
geetrue Cold War Boomer Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Walla Walla Posts: 2,837 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	I say scrap it and build the submarines that would or could sink it someday, but I know how the high brass thinks and it's not pro-submarine's. Did you see the price tag on this thing? I think it was one billion dollars for the nuclear power plant alone, plus another seven (7) billion dollars to finish it and they want more than one. __________________

07-26-07, 11:29 AM	#7
AntEater Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 936 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	What's it with all that nukular fetish?? Seriously until the USN fields the big bad interceptor missile (TM) at the size of a Saturn V in multiple cell VLS launchers, I don't see a reason for a missile dreadnought To me this seems to be a rehash of the old "arsenal ship" thing only now with ballistic missile defense as the excuse, not cruise missile platform as before. __________________

07-26-07, 04:07 PM	#10
geetrue Cold War Boomer Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Walla Walla Posts: 2,837 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	If your building a ship today to look good ... go bunker fuel oil. If your building a ship to go to war ... go nuclear power. Then you don't have to refuel in the middle of one. __________________

07-26-07, 07:14 AM	#2
baggygreen Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canberra, ACT, Down Under (really On Top) Posts: 1,880 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	wow...

07-26-07, 10:48 AM	#5
fatty The Old Man Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 1,448 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	The Virginia CGN displaced ~11,000 tons. Add two VLS grids for BMD and modern AAW, assume she will carry two helos, then figure fuel and other misc. logistical factors, extra crew... it adds up quite quickly!

07-26-07, 07:12 PM	#13
bookworm_020 Navy Seal Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Sinking ships off the Australian coast Posts: 5,966 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	It soulds a little to big in size, and doesn't seem to have much in the way of flexablity. Nuclear power is a 50-50 bet either way the oil situation goes. __________________ "There is always one person in any organization who knows whats going on, That person must be fired"

07-27-07, 08:22 AM	#15
AntEater Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 936 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Energy might be a reason, even though I suppose the navy would be the last thing to run out of gas in the US. More like "station time" being the watchword in current naval building. A nukular (love the word) supercruiser with a boomer like "gold/blue" crew concept and automated logistics could basically stay on station forever. Like a surface boomer, only with the task of not causing Armageddon, but preventing it (or better, preventing 50% of it ) __________________