By: sferrin
- 13th June 2006 at 06:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
my thought was the marine gunfire support be given from a smaller ship that lacks the huge C3I component and large# of P-VLS cells (would carry mainly land attack Thawk and a few ESSM). the ATBM/AAW version would skip the siege gun , have the full featured SPY3, ATBM SAMs and conventional SM2 also in a full array of VLS.
i.e. a bifurcation into the old DD21 and CG21 concept :D
the puppy above looks like swiss army knife with 21 blades. the more "austere" marine version would be built in bigger numbers and cost less, the bigstick CG21 would be fewer units and accompany future carriers and hang around off "countries with issues" like iran, pakistan and Noko :diablo:
The thing is they really can't afford specialist ships anymore. They pretty much are all multirole though without a decent antiship missile you really couldn't consider any US surface unit a ship-killer. (I suppose if they thought they needed one real bad they'd have just put Fasthawk into production). Be that as it may DDX will have significant antiair capability though not to the degree of CG21 (CGX?), be able to do antisub warfare, surface support, land attack, and so forth.
By: harryRIEDL
- 13th June 2006 at 17:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
im sorry to say that the CG[X] is no more its dead acroding to wikapidia
in 2006 Congress massively cut the DD(X) program, with only two ships of the Zumwalt class still planned.
it means only two have congress funding but it still many be revied.
but ording to wikapidea it has been cancesseled [sorry about the spelling ]
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 13th June 2006 at 17:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
im sorry to say that the CG[X] is no more its dead acroding to wikapidia
in 2006 Congress massively cut the DD(X) program, with only two ships of the Zumwalt class still planned.
it means only two have congress funding but it still many be revied.
but ording to wikapidea it has been cancesseled [sorry about the spelling ]
The entire USN is in big trouble from a funding point of view. The Congressional Budget Office recently released report saying that the plan for a 313 ship navy is all but impossoble without massive spending increases, it projects that in 2030 the US will have just 205 ships including only seven aircraft carriers 35 LCS and 44 submarines.
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 13th June 2006 at 18:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The current Mk41 VLS is maxed out. You can't fit bigger than a Tomahawk. A full caliber Standard would give you more performance out of a SAM but then you're stuck there too. Keep in mind the only missile that uses the full cell size (even today) is the Tomahawk. But as they say "better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it". Also the cell groups themselves have been designed to be more survivable. From what I've read they want the bigger cells because come CG-21 they'll be able to put a pretty high performance SAM/ABM in there. Something else that occurred to me was what they did with Spruance. At the beginning of the program you had a pretty big ship with 2 5" guns, an 8 cell Sea Sparrow launcher and an Asroc launcher. Keep in mind these things were bigger and heavier than a "double end" Leahy. But in the end they had 61 VLS cells, 8 Harpoons, and 2 Phalanx added to the list. DDX is designed to be able to take advantage of railgun/electromagnetic guns and directed energy weapons when they come available.
There is no missile on the horizon for the USN which will need a silo bigger than the Mk-41, virtually all, if not all the plans to multipack missiles into these new cells have been abandoned so all they are doing is taking up space that could be used by more Mk-41. The only thing that will make any real difference to the survivability of the new cells is where they are positioned on the ship, they will be spread around the outside of the ship around the hull (see the pictures posted above) thus meaning that they are more spread out so you wont loose half the VLS loadout to a single hit. This could be done easily with the existing Mk-41. All the USN is doing is spending money, that they dont have, on things that they realy dont need.
By: Super Nimrod
- 13th June 2006 at 18:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looks like they are getting into similar funding problems as the RN. They really will have to re-consider how many Carrier battle groups they can operate, as each one has a very long and expensive support tail.
By: sferrin
- 14th June 2006 at 13:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For land attack I would like to see one of the ships in a formation without any helos and just have Army MLRS trucks on the aft deck. :dev2: :D
At one time LM proposed using Guided MLRS rockets at four per VLS cell. Don't recall what they called it but it was listed on their missiles and munitions site for some time.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 13th June 2006 at 06:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The thing is they really can't afford specialist ships anymore. They pretty much are all multirole though without a decent antiship missile you really couldn't consider any US surface unit a ship-killer. (I suppose if they thought they needed one real bad they'd have just put Fasthawk into production). Be that as it may DDX will have significant antiair capability though not to the degree of CG21 (CGX?), be able to do antisub warfare, surface support, land attack, and so forth.
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 13th June 2006 at 17:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
im sorry to say that the CG[X] is no more its dead acroding to wikapidia
in 2006 Congress massively cut the DD(X) program, with only two ships of the Zumwalt class still planned.
it means only two have congress funding but it still many be revied.
but ording to wikapidea it has been cancesseled [sorry about the spelling ]
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 13th June 2006 at 17:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The entire USN is in big trouble from a funding point of view. The Congressional Budget Office recently released report saying that the plan for a 313 ship navy is all but impossoble without massive spending increases, it projects that in 2030 the US will have just 205 ships including only seven aircraft carriers 35 LCS and 44 submarines.
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 13th June 2006 at 18:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is no missile on the horizon for the USN which will need a silo bigger than the Mk-41, virtually all, if not all the plans to multipack missiles into these new cells have been abandoned so all they are doing is taking up space that could be used by more Mk-41. The only thing that will make any real difference to the survivability of the new cells is where they are positioned on the ship, they will be spread around the outside of the ship around the hull (see the pictures posted above) thus meaning that they are more spread out so you wont loose half the VLS loadout to a single hit. This could be done easily with the existing Mk-41. All the USN is doing is spending money, that they dont have, on things that they realy dont need.
Posts: 1,039
By: Super Nimrod - 13th June 2006 at 18:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looks like they are getting into similar funding problems as the RN. They really will have to re-consider how many Carrier battle groups they can operate, as each one has a very long and expensive support tail.
Posts: 1,574
By: SteveO - 13th June 2006 at 20:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
DD(X) website http://www.ddxnationalteam.com/
Posts: 2,210
By: ELP - 14th June 2006 at 13:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For land attack I would like to see one of the ships in a formation without any helos and just have Army MLRS trucks on the aft deck. :dev2: :D
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 14th June 2006 at 13:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At one time LM proposed using Guided MLRS rockets at four per VLS cell. Don't recall what they called it but it was listed on their missiles and munitions site for some time.