Sorry for the necrothreading, but I found the topic really interesting.
I’m just a curious amateur, so please excuse the potential naivety of my questions.
In a world without the “peace dividend’ a MU with VLS would have made these ships quite powerful.
From my understanding, turning the Virginia into Aegis would have been more costly.
One of the points leading to the early decommissioning of the class is the size of complement.
Would a ‘VLS MLU’ (if possible) allow reducing the ship's complement?
The ships were designed with a service life of 38 years. It would lead to a class decommission between 2014 and 2020. I suppose that the service life could have been extended, but probably costly.
Longer service life of the Virginia class would also impact ‘successor’ GC project. Instead of CG(X) Next Generation Cruiser, maybe a CGN(X) Next Generation Nuclear Cruiser could have been envisioned. Maybe the Zumwalt-class would note happens either.
What are your thoughts on this?
Expanding upon my above post, one issue with a major VLS refit like you’re talking about is that NTU was never wired to use Mk41s. Apparently the Koreans did it with one of their indigenous AAW destroyer classes that uses a NTU derivative though, so it would appear it’s possible nonetheless.
I couldn’t tell you how expensive wiring NTU to use Mk41s would be, but I do question if it’s worth the cost. With the age of NTU and it being based off Digital Tartar, one must wonder if NTU should be scrapped in favor of a more modern combat system.
Assuming the Cold War continues (which is the only way a CGN refueling is possible in the first place), one thing I could see happening is COMBATSS-21, which is a drastically toned down version of AEGIS for the LCSs, being pushed into service in the 1990s to succeed NTU as a drop-in successor. From what I understand it’s a very flexible system, so presumably you could hook it up to use NTU electronics while retaining the Standard missile capability that full-scale AEGIS offers. Think of it as a halfway between real life COMBATSS-21 and AEGIS, essentially making it AEGIS Lite.
I’d think such a system would be more capable than SSDS Mark 2 as well, because you can control Standards from it. Another thing to consider is you could refit the Californias, Kidds, and potentially even the Sprucans with this alternative COMBATSS-21 as well, assuming you have Cold War scale budgets. All of the above ships would likely last into the 2010s in one way or another
In regards to an alternate CG(X) and Zumwalt, that’s where things get a bit fuzzy. The Zumwalt was the culmination of 2 things, the 1990s NGFS craze fueled by the Gulf War and a Congressional Shitfuckery, and the apparent hate for the Perrys and Sprucans, which filled the ASW niche in the fleet.
Assuming the Soviet fleet doesn’t collapse like it did in real life, or it instead morphs into a true Blue Water Navy like Gorshkov intended, it’s plausible the NGFS craze never catches on. That would mean the alternate Zumwalt would be more ASW-centered with a hint of NGFS weapons to appease Congress, as the Navy is still focussed on blue-water fleet battles. I’d also suspect it would be less “revolutionary” and more “evolutionary” than the Zumwalt, as there’s much higher stakes with the VMF still running around. I’d think that would put less of an emphasis on stealth because of that. It’s plausible such a ship could look like an enlarged SC-21 3C1 (you can find pictures under the SC-21 thread) with AGS.
As for a hypothetical CG(X) in this world, I almost question if such a ship is necessary. Since the 1960s, the line between cruiser and destroyer has become increasingly blurred, to the point where the two only exist for political reasons. Too further that point, remember the Tico was initially laid down as a destroyer. With that in mind, the only meaningful difference between a Burke and Tico is that the Tico has 32 extra cells, facilities for an Air Warfare Commander, and an extra illuminator.
As an alternative to the more “austere” Flight IIA Burkes, they wanted the 1989 Burke Flight III, which would’ve added both 32 extra cells (bringing the total to 128), as well as the AWC facilities. For all intents and purposes, that would make later Burkes cruisers. But, from a pure numbers perspective, assuming a production run of nearly 30 hulls, that would only replace the old Terrier cruisers. If they could be built at a rate of 3-5 hulls per year, which was the intention, our Burke Flight III run would wrap up in the mid-to-late 2000s at 50-60 hulls. On a side note, I’d expect to see a Flight IV in the early 2000s that adds DBR, but that’s besides the point.
That said, the Ticos would still need replacement. Assuming we wouldn’t jump right to a DDG(X) which seems to combine the “separate” cruiser and destroyer roles into one hull, I could see CG(X) still happening. But, it would likely be a completely separate development from our Zumwalt, as that’s a ~8500 ton AAW destroyer, and we don’t want a repeat of the Tico debacle. Also seeing as we need ~22-27 of them, that would instantly rule out nuclear power on grounds of cost, assuming we still have access to Saudi oil. I’d expect the resulting ship to be a huge monohull, even larger than CGBL. Something like 160 cells, 19-foot AMDR-S and then 4’x6’ AMDR X-Band, and a few Mk110s for point defense. Something like that would result in a ~16,000 ton hull. It would be very expensive obviously, just like the real CG(X), but I’d expect it to stick on a similar time scale to the real life CG(X), first hull in 2019 or so, with 2.33 hulls per year. Increased fleet numbers would also mean the Ticos wouldn’t be run as hard, so they could actually go on deployments and receive modernizations on time and on budget.
Apologies for the very long winded post, and hijacking the thread. I’m sure this if full of grammar and spelling errors as I’m typing this on mobile.
