• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

CG(X) Air-Dominance Cruiser

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Does anyone have additional information or concept art for the Air-Dominance Cruiser, CG(X)? It sounds like it will be a replacement of the Ticonderoga-class (CG-47) and use technology developed from the Zumwalt-class project.

http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/CGX/default.htm
Air-Dominance Cruiser, CG(X)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Navy is currently developing a next-generation cruiser, currently known as CG(X). CG(X) will provide the future class of Navy cruisers to replace the CG 47 class.

CG(X) is expected to provide area anti-air warfare and afloat ballistic missile defense through advanced integrated air and missile defense capabilities. CG(X) will help ensure airspace dominance and protection to joint forces. The next-generation cruiser program has been structured to leverage multiple DDG 1000 critical technologies as well as develop capabilities essential to CG(X) primary mission areas.

The CG(X) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA), which completed in the fall of 2007, developed, refined and assessed potential solutions and provided the analytical basis for the Capabilities Description Document (CDD). The AoA is currently being reviewed by Navy leadership.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,045
Reaction score
871
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/795.pdf
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22559.pdf
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34179.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CG(X)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cg-x.htm
 

Attachments

  • sc21pic.jpg
    sc21pic.jpg
    61.8 KB · Views: 1,899
  • CG_X_logo.jpg
    CG_X_logo.jpg
    13.5 KB · Views: 2,959

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,045
Reaction score
871
adding to what sealordlawrence just said:

http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/SeaPowerForumShipbuilding.pdf

BARNARD: The defense budget is under tremendous
pressure. Will the Navy be forced to bypass the
procurement of one of its planned ships, such as the
DD(X) [future destroyer]?
O’ROURKE: Prudent
people in the industry or
elsewhere should not
assume that the funding situation
is going to get
markedly easier in future
years. They should count
on it remaining as tight as it
is now or maybe even
growing somewhat tighter
in the future.
The cutback in the
DD(X) program that was
announced recently is significant
not only for the
DD(X) itself but potentially
for the CG(X) [future cruiser] as
well. When this program was first
announced, nominally they were
looking at building up to 24 DD(X)s
and 24 CG(X)s and you could
spread the [research and development]
costs for that program, which
are at least $10 billion, over as many
as 48 ships. The DD(X) program is
now being planned for one ship per
year for five years and maybe one
additional ship during a CG(X) gap year. That’s six
ships at one per year, more or less.
The cutback in the DD(X) program raises the
possibility that the average acquisition cost for the
entire DD(X)/CG(X) effort may now have increased
to the point where it may attract attention and raise
questions about the cost effectiveness of the entire
effort. That situation is somewhat analogous to
where the Seawolf program was in early 1992, just
before the previous Bush administration announced
that it was terminating procurement of the Seawolf
— a decision that ultimately resulted in the Seawolf
being limited to three ships. When the submarine
community saw that the Seawolf program was in
trouble, they began early conceptual work on a new,
smaller and less-expensive attack submarine design
— today’s Virginia class.
The surface community might want to take a good
hard look at the situation to avoid getting into an even
more difficult situation potentially than the submarine
community found itself in the mid-1990s. One
option would be to start looking right now at working
up an alternative smaller and less-expensive design
than the basic DD(X)/CG(X) design.
TONER: If the number of ships in a new program
collapses, then the cost of the individual ship is going
to be significant. It really gets down to a stable Navy
plan … how many and what capabilities, which we
don’t know.
BARNARD: Would it be wise to at least do some
preliminary work on smaller, less costly design?
PETTERS: We have this kind of dilemma on virtually
every program that the department puts forward.
Is this the right design? Or should we be working
on something a little less capable or a little bit
smaller, a little bit more affordable. With submarines,
there is talk right now of something even smaller
than the Virginia. But as soon as you start making
noises about working on something that’s more
affordable and less capable, then you start to lose the
steam behind the program that you really need to
have. That’s a big challenge.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,045
Reaction score
871
some morte worth reading
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/secnav/Winter/Speech/American%20Society%20of%20Naval%20Engineers%2024%20June%2008%20rel.pdf

and - if you want cool pics, voila

All info found with Google in 15 minutes or so
 

Attachments

  • CG_X_Project_Page_9.png
    CG_X_Project_Page_9.png
    209.7 KB · Views: 557
  • CG_X_Project_Page_8.png
    CG_X_Project_Page_8.png
    244.6 KB · Views: 473
  • CG_X_Project_Page_7.png
    CG_X_Project_Page_7.png
    84.2 KB · Views: 433
  • CG_X_Project_Page_6.png
    CG_X_Project_Page_6.png
    208.5 KB · Views: 571
  • CG_X_Project_Page_5.png
    CG_X_Project_Page_5.png
    219 KB · Views: 1,834
  • CG_X_Project_Page_4.png
    CG_X_Project_Page_4.png
    9.2 KB · Views: 1,816
  • CG_X_Project_Page_3.png
    CG_X_Project_Page_3.png
    210.9 KB · Views: 2,061
  • CG_X_Project_Page_2.png
    CG_X_Project_Page_2.png
    8.5 KB · Views: 1,741

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
sealordlawrence said:
USN Shipbuilding is up in the air at the moment, the consensus seems to be that this will get killed and that USN shipbuilding through to at least 2015 and perhaps beyond will be filled with DDG-51 derivatives (probably very little derivation). I expect the Future Surface Combatant to look very much like the Zumwalt but with an Air and Missile Defense Radar. However for now the project looks to be very much on the back burner.

Thanks sealordlawrence for the information. With the Zumwalt-class with only two units, I presumed that the CG(X) Air-Dominance Cruiser program was in trouble as well. It's starting to look as if the future United States Navy will be composed prinicipally of Arleigh Burke-class ships or derivatives?

Thanks flateric for finding the additional sources and the artwork.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,389
Reaction score
1,431
sealordlawrence said:
USN Shipbuilding is up in the air at the moment, the consensus seems to be that this will get killed and that USN shipbuilding through to at least 2015 and perhaps beyond will be filled with DDG-51 derivatives (probably very little derivation). I expect the Future Surface Combatant to look very much like the Zumwalt but with an Air and Missile Defense Radar. However for now the project looks to be very much on the back burner.

Actually it's even more up in the air than that. I read a couple days ago that The Messiah is looking at killing the DDG-51 and LPD-17 (in addition to killing the DDG-1000) which will leave us with one or two SSNs and maybe a few ridiculously expensive and boarderline useless LCSs being built each year. Now that's "change" I can live without.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/102218/cuts-in-weapon-spending-mean-loss-of-jobs.html

"Sherman described the efforts of the Gates team as part of a broader effort to rebalance military capabilities between conventional and irregular warfare. President Obama embraced that goal on the campaign trail, but nobody knew when he drew up his defense agenda that credit markets were about to collapse. Obama now finds himself trying to rescue an economy that is in free fall, yet the Pentagon is going ahead with plans to cut weapons despite the likely economic impact.

Among the targeted programs listed by Capaccio in his Bloomberg story are the Navy's DDG-51 destroyer and LPD-17 amphibious warship, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Joint Tactical Radio System, the F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter, and the Army's future family of networked combat vehicles."


Way to stick it to the USN. :mad:
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
sferrin said:
sealordlawrence said:
USN Shipbuilding is up in the air at the moment, the consensus seems to be that this will get killed and that USN shipbuilding through to at least 2015 and perhaps beyond will be filled with DDG-51 derivatives (probably very little derivation). I expect the Future Surface Combatant to look very much like the Zumwalt but with an Air and Missile Defense Radar. However for now the project looks to be very much on the back burner.

Actually it's even more up in the air than that. I read a couple days ago that The Messiah is looking at killing the DDG-51 and LPD-17 (in addition to killing the DDG-1000) which will leave us with one or two SSNs and maybe a few ridiculously expensive and boarderline useless LCSs being built each year. Now that's "change" I can live without.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/102218/cuts-in-weapon-spending-mean-loss-of-jobs.html

"Sherman described the efforts of the Gates team as part of a broader effort to rebalance military capabilities between conventional and irregular warfare. President Obama embraced that goal on the campaign trail, but nobody knew when he drew up his defense agenda that credit markets were about to collapse. Obama now finds himself trying to rescue an economy that is in free fall, yet the Pentagon is going ahead with plans to cut weapons despite the likely economic impact.

Among the targeted programs listed by Capaccio in his Bloomberg story are the Navy's DDG-51 destroyer and LPD-17 amphibious warship, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Joint Tactical Radio System, the F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter, and the Army's future family of networked combat vehicles."


Way to stick it to the USN. :mad:

From what I have read, it sounds like LCS is a jack-of-all-trades and a master at none in addition to being overpriced. :( Common platform schemes never seem to work out as advertised. I wouldn't be surprised if new DDG-1s, new LPD-17s, and the F-35 are cancelled.
 

Just call me Ray

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
676
Reaction score
10
sferrin said:
the Joint Tactical Radio System

*facepalm*

Way to go, we get to live with legacy radios. Maybe we'll just end up issuing every soldier an encrypted cell phone.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,389
Reaction score
1,431
Just call me Ray said:
sferrin said:
the Joint Tactical Radio System

*facepalm*

Way to go, we get to live with legacy radios. Maybe we'll just end up issuing every soldier an encrypted cell phone.

But hey, we'll be able to pay those collecting welfare checks another $250 for next time's vote.

"http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/stimulus_individuals/index.htm"

"For most working individuals, the credit will be paid over time at roughly $15 per period, assuming 26 pay periods in a year. Estimated cost: $116 billion.

One-time payments to those who don't work: For retirees, disabled individuals and others who don't work, the bill provides a one-time $250 payment. Estimated cost: $14.2 billion."


Seriously, do these idiots think anybody making $75k is even going to notice $15 a pay period for a year? And how long do they think a one-time gift of $250 is going to last with someone already on welfare? In either case it's not going to make one goddamn bit of difference in the long run. On the other hand what could $130.2 billion do towards resetting our military equipment? The sooner these bozos are out of power the better.

(I swear that's my last political rant Paul. ;) )
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,045
Reaction score
871
RP1 said:
Source on the images please?

Regards,

RP1

http://www.zshare.net/download/55568629de8383aa/
 

RP1

I see the truth in it.
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
447
Reaction score
86
Website
rp-one.net
Flateric,

Thanks for that, but apart from the date of 2006-April-07 there is no information on who created them? Considering they resemble the fictional DD(X) generated for AGS artists impressions and refer to 8 inch guns and waterjet propulsion, the "eyebrow of healthy skepticism" is at this moment raised.

RP1
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,389
Reaction score
1,431
RP1 said:
Flateric,

Thanks for that, but apart from the date of 2006-April-07 there is no information on who created them? Considering they resemble the fictional DD(X) generated for AGS artists impressions and refer to 8 inch guns and waterjet propulsion, the "eyebrow of healthy skepticism" is at this moment raised.

RP1

And twin-gunned turrets at that. The thing that makes me the most skeptical about the origin though is nine RAM launchers when the average CVN only has two?
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,045
Reaction score
871
History of appearing this pdf on my HDD is lost in ages...Quite can be a fanart. It makes me curious of finding more info on actual proposals.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
flateric said:
History of appearing this pdf on my HDD is lost in ages...Quite can be a fanart. It makes me curious of finding more info on actual proposals.

Thanks flateric. I look forward to seeing what you are able to locate. ;D
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,898
Reaction score
807
Triton said:
sferrin said:
sealordlawrence said:
USN Shipbuilding is up in the air at the moment, the consensus seems to be that this will get killed and that USN shipbuilding through to at least 2015 and perhaps beyond will be filled with DDG-51 derivatives (probably very little derivation). I expect the Future Surface Combatant to look very much like the Zumwalt but with an Air and Missile Defense Radar. However for now the project looks to be very much on the back burner.

Actually it's even more up in the air than that. I read a couple days ago that The Messiah is looking at killing the DDG-51 and LPD-17 (in addition to killing the DDG-1000) which will leave us with one or two SSNs and maybe a few ridiculously expensive and boarderline useless LCSs being built each year. Now that's "change" I can live without.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/102218/cuts-in-weapon-spending-mean-loss-of-jobs.html

"Sherman described the efforts of the Gates team as part of a broader effort to rebalance military capabilities between conventional and irregular warfare. President Obama embraced that goal on the campaign trail, but nobody knew when he drew up his defense agenda that credit markets were about to collapse. Obama now finds himself trying to rescue an economy that is in free fall, yet the Pentagon is going ahead with plans to cut weapons despite the likely economic impact.

Among the targeted programs listed by Capaccio in his Bloomberg story are the Navy's DDG-51 destroyer and LPD-17 amphibious warship, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Joint Tactical Radio System, the F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter, and the Army's future family of networked combat vehicles."


Way to stick it to the USN. :mad:

From what I have read, it sounds like LCS is a jack-of-all-trades and a master at none in addition to being overpriced. :( Common platform schemes never seem to work out as advertised. I wouldn't be surprised if new DDG-1s, new LPD-17s, and the F-35 are cancelled.

LCS is grossly misunderstood on the internet, for what it is meant to do it is outstanding, the problem si that what it is meant to do is far too specialised in what is perceived to be an uncertain world. Rumor has it that the USN is trying to do to LCS what it did to DDG1000......kill it.

The short problem with USN shipbuilding is that for most of the Cold War it was not innovative enough (that is not to say that it was not innovative) and then post Cold War it went over the top producing the absurdly expensive SC21 concept. In the meantime the Europeans have done very well for themselves even with their reduced hull numbers. The likes of the Johan de Witte and the Type-45 are exceptional ship designs that fit well with the available tech level.

I would be astonished if the Burkes get killed, if they do at least one of the big shipyards will go with them and coward Obama really can not afford the job losses that would go with that.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
sealordlawrence said:
LCS is grossly misunderstood on the internet, for what it is meant to do it is outstanding, the problem si that what it is meant to do is far too specialised in what is perceived to be an uncertain world. Rumor has it that the USN is trying to do to LCS what it did to DDG1000......kill it.

The short problem with USN shipbuilding is that for most of the Cold War it was not innovative enough (that is not to say that it was not innovative) and then post Cold War it went over the top producing the absurdly expensive SC21 concept. In the meantime the Europeans have done very well for themselves even with their reduced hull numbers. The likes of the Johan de Witte and the Type-45 are exceptional ship designs that fit well with the available tech level.

I would be astonished if the Burkes get killed, if they do at least one of the big shipyards will go with them and coward Obama really can not afford the job losses that would go with that.


What is LCS meant to do and why is it outstanding? Why does the Navy want to kill it? I was under the impression that the Navy wanted LCS? I also thought that the Navy wanted DDG-1000. I was under the impression that the US Congress wants to kill LCS and the DDG-1000.

It seems to me that one of the goals of the SC21 concept was to give the US Navy capability like those offered by Iowa-class battleships that were decommissioned because they were too expensive to operate. Is the experience of the Royal Dutch Navy and the Royal Navy really a good example? It seems to me that the mission of these navies is different than that of the US Navy.

Planning for a battle with the Soviet Navy made the job of designing ships a little bit easier during the Cold War. In these uncertain times, the US Navy not only has the job of defending the territorial waters of the United States but also be capable of fulfilling missions anywhere in the world as a superpower.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,389
Reaction score
1,431
sealordlawrence said:
LCS is grossly misunderstood on the internet, for what it is meant to do it is outstanding,

Not for the price it isn't. Other nations are turning out full-blown frigates and destroyers for that kind of money. Exactly what is so special about it anyway? Modularity? So basically you can have a missile launcher OR a gun not both like many less expensive ships? The top speed requirement surely added to the bill but I've yet to hear what ten more knots are going to give anybody.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
sferrin said:
sealordlawrence said:
LCS is grossly misunderstood on the internet, for what it is meant to do it is outstanding,

Not for the price it isn't. Other nations are turning out full-blown frigates and destroyers for that kind of money. Exactly what is so special about it anyway? Modularity? So basically you can have a missile launcher OR a gun not both like many less expensive ships? The top speed requirement surely added to the bill but I've yet to hear what ten more knots are going to give anybody.

I am left scratching my head when they say that the LCS "platform" can be used for minesweeping. Is the job of minesweeping really that high-tech to require such an expensive and modern ship?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,389
Reaction score
1,431
Moreover who the hell in their right mind would do minesweeping with a BILLION dollar ship? <smacks forehead>
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
As of 2006, the US Navy wanted 55 LCS ships. The modular mission modules sound like something out of a Gerry Anderson science fiction program. It sounds like something accountants would come up with that was supposed to save money. Instead of building five different specialized classes of ship, let's just build one that doesn't do those jobs particularly well with swappable modules to perform different missions.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,898
Reaction score
807
sferrin said:
sealordlawrence said:
LCS is grossly misunderstood on the internet, for what it is meant to do it is outstanding,

Not for the price it isn't. Other nations are turning out full-blown frigates and destroyers for that kind of money. Exactly what is so special about it anyway? Modularity? So basically you can have a missile launcher OR a gun not both like many less expensive ships? The top speed requirement surely added to the bill but I've yet to hear what ten more knots are going to give anybody.

And there is the misunderstanding, LCS is not a Frigate, it was never mean to be and never will be, just because it has a similar size the the European ASW frigates it does not mean that is its role. LCS was designed to sale to anywhere in the world then enter the littorals and challenge small boat forces (FAC's) with helicopters and the 57mm, avoid and hunt mines, land small troop units on small Islands, pick up down downed pilots and have a small littoral ASW role. The reason for the speed is associated with survivability against most of those threats. The vessels is perfectly designed for that role. Rapid exceleration, very low draft, large hangar, room for troop detachments etc etc make it well suited. the model for idea was the lessons drawn out of Gulf War 1.

Unfortunately that is its downfall, being that specialised has made it highly limited in any other role and (as with anything USN) its high spec has pushed the cost up to beyond what is exceptable for such a specialised vessel. With the budget likely to hit a brick wall and the Burke design as the most useful ship on the production lines today LCS's future is doubtful.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,389
Reaction score
1,431
sealordlawrence said:
And there is the misunderstanding, LCS is not a Frigate, it was never mean to be and never will be, just because it has a similar size the the European ASW frigates it does not mean that is its role.

I know it's not a frigate. It should cost LESS than a frigate but in fact it's costs are more in line with a destroyer. That's the problem.




sealordlawrence said:
LCS was designed to sale to anywhere in the world then enter the littorals and challenge small boat forces (FAC's) with helicopters and the 57mm, avoid and hunt mines, land small troop units on small Islands, pick up down downed pilots and have a small littoral ASW role.

That might have been useful in the Vietnam war (but not at a billion a pop) but exactly who's littorals were these designed for?



sealordlawrence said:
The reason for the speed is associated with survivability against most of those threats.

10 more knots isn't going to enable you to outrun speedboats, antitank missiles, antiship missiles, helicopters, directfire artillery (since you'll be near shore), and so forth, and you don't need that kind of speed to outrun a mine.



sealordlawrence said:
The vessels is perfectly designed for that role. Rapid exceleration, very low draft, large hangar, room for troop detachments etc etc make it well suited. the model for idea was the lessons drawn out of Gulf War 1.

Again, who's litorrals?


sealordlawrence said:
Unfortunately that is its downfall, being that specialised has made it highly limited in any other role and (as with anything USN) its high spec has pushed the cost up to beyond what is exceptable for such a specialised vessel. With the budget likely to hit a brick wall and the Burke design as the most useful ship on the production lines today LCS's future is doubtful.

We can hope they kill it dead but it seems they're looking at killing the most worthwhile class out there- the Burkes.
 

Chris Hawkinson

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Greetings!

I just stumbled across this thread this afternoon. Normally I wouldn't post in a thread this old, but since some of my artwork was the basis for part of the discussion, I thought I'd chime in.

The CG(X) artwork that flateric posted is mine; the drawings appear can be found at http://home.centurytel.net/cthjlh/CG_X_%20Project.pdf. My CG(X) concepts are purely fiction and will (hopefully) eventually become a large scale r/c warship.

The inspiration for such a ship goes back to the game mid-90s naval simulation HARPOON 2, which contained an ALASKA-class CGN with 256 VLS cells. That class of ships was instantly my favorite, and I thought the concept of a cold war 25,000+ ton cruiser with loads of VLS cells and 8" guns would make a good r/c model.

Several years ago (April 2006 I guess), I came up with a some different fictitious designs based on cold war type specifications. A large, general purpose cruiser that is capable of air dominance while offering the ability, with its 8" gun, to support troops ashore. One design is loosely based on an ALASKA-class cruiser hull from WWII and one loosely based upon a VISBY-hull. Since I was looking for something that looked cool and carried loads of cool stuff (as opposed to a real ship that has to fit into a budget), the result is what you see in the PDF file. A low observable 30,000-ton cruiser carrying 8" guns and water jet propulsion? Probably totally unrealistic, but (IMO) pretty cool.

I had actually forgotten that PDF file was on the internet. I placed it online so I could show some of my modeling friends my designs. I never realized others would be able to find it. I only found this thread today because I have recently been updating my drawings and I have been looking for more inspiration.

I hope this clears up some confusion.

Chris
 

colombamike

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
18
Reaction score
2
A official view (2006-2009 ?) from the possible builder ::)
;)
 

Attachments

  • lastsc24.jpg
    lastsc24.jpg
    219.8 KB · Views: 812

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,836
Reaction score
196
Does the US Navy really know what it wants these days?
Its recent history (past 10-years) has not been to inspirational in my opinion - especially when budgets are reducing!
The US Navy changes its mind, wants and needs whilst trying to field a new class of ship like my daughter changes her clothes before going to school!

If I was Congress - I would be riding them like a bull and watching them like a hawk!

Regards
Pioneer
 

Charles Gray

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
sealordlawrence said:
sferrin said:
sealordlawrence said:
LCS is grossly misunderstood on the internet, for what it is meant to do it is outstanding,

Not for the price it isn't. Other nations are turning out full-blown frigates and destroyers for that kind of money. Exactly what is so special about it anyway? Modularity? So basically you can have a missile launcher OR a gun not both like many less expensive ships? The top speed requirement surely added to the bill but I've yet to hear what ten more knots are going to give anybody.

And there is the misunderstanding, LCS is not a Frigate, it was never mean to be and never will be, just because it has a similar size the the European ASW frigates it does not mean that is its role. LCS was designed to sale to anywhere in the world then enter the littorals and challenge small boat forces (FAC's) with helicopters and the 57mm, avoid and hunt mines, land small troop units on small Islands, pick up down downed pilots and have a small littoral ASW role. The reason for the speed is associated with survivability against most of those threats. The vessels is perfectly designed for that role. Rapid exceleration, very low draft, large hangar, room for troop detachments etc etc make it well suited. the model for idea was the lessons drawn out of Gulf War 1.

Unfortunately that is its downfall, being that specialised has made it highly limited in any other role and (as with anything USN) its high spec has pushed the cost up to beyond what is exceptable for such a specialised vessel. With the budget likely to hit a brick wall and the Burke design as the most useful ship on the production lines today LCS's future is doubtful.

But the problem with the LCS is just that-- why do you want an expensive ship in the littorals where, TBH, there is a very good chance of losing them? If w're serious about that, smaller ships, based off of mother ships are much cheaper. The 40Knot requirement has drastically increased the cost of the LCS to very little purpose-- because let's be honest, you don't need a speed boat to chase down an enemy ship, not when you have helicopters and UAVS.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
colombamike said:
A official view (2006-2009 ?) from the possible builder ::)
;)

This artwork is probably the reason that the CG(X) was believed to be based on the DG(X). It has the same wave-piercing tumblehome hull. Thank you for the artwork colombamike.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,290
Reaction score
1,246
Triton said:
This artwork is probably the reason that the CG(X) was believed to be based on the DG(X). It has the same wave-piercing tumblehome hull. Thank you for the artwork colombamike.

Actually, that belief came from official Navy statements on the program. When the Navy announced the "realignment" of DD-21 into DD(X) back in 2001, it specifically mentioned that there would be a CG(X) based on DD(X) hull and mechanical systems.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,777
Reaction score
1,913
Interestingly enough, the CG(X) project isn't considered fully dead as of now.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,045
Reaction score
871
NG CG(X) CGI from 2006
 

Attachments

  • CG-X 2006.jpg
    CG-X 2006.jpg
    211.4 KB · Views: 1,157

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
983
Reaction score
31
I remember future cruiser was originally divided into 2 types - using the new destroyer's hull and scale it up for air defense against aircraft and cruise missiles, and another one that is nuclear powered at least 20,000 tons for BMD.

So together future force would have been comprised of LCS, DDG-1000, DG(X), and BMD versioned DG(X). There was the dream....
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Navy CG(X) Cruiser Program: Background for Congress"
by Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
June 10, 2010
Congressional Research Service

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34179.pdf
 

Marko Dash

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
with the way the navy is trying the get the railgun and other DE weapons online in the near future is there any reason why the next gen cruiser isn't a CGN?
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,779
Reaction score
156
Marko Dash said:
with the way the navy is trying the get the railgun and other DE weapons online in the near future is there any reason why the next gen cruiser isn't a CGN?

Yeah, money.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
983
Reaction score
31
student design:
http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~brown/VTShipDesign/2006Team1T30.pdf
 

Similar threads

Top