That's unfortunate. I was under the impression that AB flight III's when transition to DDG(X) once it's mature. Then a cut down BBG(X) would be something on top. I believe that SPY6v1 on the AB III's and DDG(X) won't be sufficient for BM/hypersonic defense of either ships or other targets.
You do know why they fit SPY-6, right? The proliferation of AShMs makes this basically the minimum required to meaningfully contribute to a CSG. Also Aegis Baseline 10 has open architecture which allows it to work in with basically any sensor so that's even less of an issue. Standardizing around Aegis is a good goal and, other than LCS which uses COMBATSS-21, all surface combatants were well on their way to achieving this goal.
Why??? Why can't they just have DDG(X)? The BBG doesn't fit the proposed fleet architecture and doesn't fit the USN shipbuilding plan. Why would you take a ship with the same capabilities but that costs more over DDG(X)???
Why on earth would a ship of this nature escort merchant convoys??? Dude, even the Ticos weren't meant to do that. Come on, can we at least ground the discussion in some reality?
That doesn't change the fact that the USN said they were surplus to requirements. If they weren't the issues could've been fixed or the hulls would've been replaced.
Neither is the current FF(X) plan so...
Beyond the scope of the discussion but even then, that doesn't have much utility in the modern US fleet architecture so...
Not quite yet, apparently (this is nothing but rumors so treat it as such) there is even confusion within NAVSEA as to what the future looks like under the new direction as they've been totally blindsided. This still has to pass congress and in the meantime it is my understanding that progress is going ahead.
Are you realizing how entirely stupid this clearly political and not strategic decision is?
Correct. Which is why I caveated the statement of the ASW DD.
Because giving 100+ DDGX the full flag suite each is more expensive than building a limited number of dedicated flagships.
Because it's the only ship in the fleet with the flag space to coordinate the defense of the convoy.
They were not economical to repair and the USN finally admitted internally that the LCS were damn near worthless.
The politics is that they're making it a 35kton ship instead of something in the mid 20s. Which means that Congress can whine about the costs and the Navy can come back with a ~20-25kton design that is much more affordable in comparison. Congress thinks they won and the Navy gets the 20-25kton ship that they actually wanted in the first place.
Another quite interesting discussion on YouTube.
Nil. Whatever its merits might be, the US is reluctant to procure foreign-designed military equipment at the best of times, and the Constellation-class experience will be seen as evidence that doing so for warships doesn't work at all.
Would only even be considered if the ship would have been designed under the requierments for DDG(X).
While it will be a modern AEGIS destroyer, for one the program hasn't officially started yet. Second the F127 will be designed and constructed to our standards, not the American ones. And lastly the Americans successfully managed to associate the complete failure of Constellation on it being based on a foreign design they thought necessary to modify. They won't touch anything foreign for large surface ships in the coming decades because of that. That the FREMM is a great frigate that works and serves well and in numbers, and that all the failures are completely inherent to the Americans, their Navy and their need to tinker with the work of others beyond what would have been absolutely necessary is irrelevant (to them).
Another possible option is the Japanese ~ 17,000 ASEV, Aegis System Equipped Vessel, design is completed and now in full build. At first glance would save many $billions and years in build, but don't think Congress would fund it as its not designed in US to whatever survivability NAVSEA standard chosen and also its fitted with the more powerful two main RR GTs (as in the Zumwalt) not GE GTs and the Lockheed SPY-7 radar and expect Navy would insist on the Raytheon SPY-6.
To be fair, the RR turbines ARE in use in the Navy. And not just in the Zumwalts, but also in the LCS. They have a parts and maintenance pipeline for them.
Every country on this planet has politics mixed into their military complex planning, just the way things go unfortunately.
But opening with a 35kton design for a ~25kton operational need seems a bit gratuitous.
Valid concerns.
I'm not sure that the Burke Replacement is going to be able to shrink much, if any. The BMD mission requires big antennas mounted up high, which makes for a large ship. Crud, the Constellation and contemporaneous Euro-frigates are 7000-8500 tons.
I’m not sure there’s any actual difference in actual systems costs, just the physical size of the hull. The old adage that “steel is cheap and air is free” may very well be the basis of this design evolution. Personally, I think that adding the near Polaris sized CPS missiles shifted thinking towards an actual capital ship designation instead of a mere escort.
"Battleship" isn't a generic term either, it comes from "Ship fit for the Line of Battle", which turned into "Line-of-Battle Ship" and finally "Battle-Ship".
That could be.
Maybe?
Very much agree here. At a bare minimum, one for each carrier. And per the 800 ship navy thread, the old Cold War standard was two cruisers per carrier, plus 2x DDG51s and 2x Sprucans.
Sammy Roberts was blown in half (her keel snapped, but they managed to hold her together with some cabling. But her sensors and weapons never went offline. Stark was hit by two exocets (only one warhead fused) in close proximity to the CIC and her crew initially took around 15% dead and 25% total casualties. There were a few issues that led to it, but her crew hadn't been properly maintaining the CIWS and the CIWC/STIR guy was in the head taking a leak during the engagement. The location and nature of her damage (especially the large fuel fires due to the very short range of the engagement) meant she was not capable of combat.
The Sejongs look like they have unit construction, given the spacing between the funnels, but I think I read somewhere they don't. Can anyone confirm one way or the other?
Well, my problem is why the need bigger?
Consider that for decades the Ticonderoga replacement was to be based on the 16,000 ton DD-21 / DD(X) / Zumwalt, and that was BEFORE CPS cells were a thing. That they would want a ship this large should surprise exactly nobody.
But then if you stick your CPS cells on their own, lightly armed ships then they'll need escorts too. . .
