Another 15-20 years and most of the Ticonderogas will be nearing

>>31493017
They'll either be overhauled or replaced with Burkes/whatever-replaces-the-Burkes

File: USS Zumwalt.jpg (639KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

639KB, 1500x1000px

>>31493024
>That'll be $4 billion/per ship please :-)

File: 1417657282749.jpg (19KB, 480x308px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x308px

Never mind. Just looked some stuff up.

https://news.usni.org/2016/01/12/navy-weighing-options-for-a-family-of-future-surface-ships

https://news.usni.org/2016/02/09/fy-2017-budget-navy-wants-to-modernize-last-7-cruisers-instead-of-following-246-directive-from-congress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CG(X)

Apparently the Ticonderogas aren't going to be modernized. They'll slowly be phased out and replaced with Flight 3 Burkes that will be able to handle the larger radar. The Navy is throwing a fit about it but Congress doesn't appear to be budging.

So long, cruisers. Another ship class lost to the waves of time :(

F

>>31493569

Modern cruisers are pretty much indistinguishable from destroyers anyway.

Personally, I think they should just redesignate the Zumwalt-class as cruisers and order more of them.

>>31493603
The Ticonderogas can carry a lot more missiles than the Burkes though. Which seems to be the Navy's big argument right now. They claim that the extra firepower a cruiser can bring will be vital for any future conflicts with China.

Is that a load of shit? I don't know. I'm not an admiral. But I do believe people need to stop laughing at China's navy. The West did the same thing with Japan at the turn of the century and then they shocked the entire world when they BTFO the entire Russian fleet at Tsushima. China's navy might be inferior now but in 10-20 years they could easily have a true, blue-water navy with force projection.

The US wastes billions of dollars on stupider shit than modernizing cruisers. I think we should design a new cruiser or at the very least modernize the Ticonderogas.

>>31493650

I'm pretty sure that the next batch of Burkes is going to hold almost as many missiles as a Tico.

>>31493693
Really? It seems they've already got so much shit on those things, there can't be much room left. The Burke is a great platform and it's nice we've kept them so modernized. But I feel like it's just a situation of trying to be jack-of-all-trades. I mean fuck, how many roles does the Burke have now? First it was just a destroyer, so basic anti-ship activities and anti-submarine. Then they got rid of the Perrys, so now most of the anti-submarine burden lies with them (except for carrier based helos). And now they're talking about getting rid of Ticos and loading even more missiles onto this already bloated platform in an attempt to make it both an amazing ship killer, an amazing AA defense, and an amazing sub killer.

Maybe I could see it if they used different mission packages on different ships and assigned them different roles. But loading all of this shit onto just the Burkes and making them the entirety of our fleet seems bizarre and quite dangerous. What's the saying? A man with only one hand to play always loses.

>>31493650
If they wanted to stuff more missiles onto the Burkes they could

But like, its never been used, and they run around mostly empty anyways since missiles sitting in VLS are a big fire/explosion risk.

So quantity of missiles is not a super relevant thing, especially now that everything is networked & they can put launchers on support ships.

File: image.jpg (15KB, 277x271px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 277x271px

>>31493693

>>31494020
>& they can put launchers on support ships.
[Citation needed]

Yes and we "can" make a moon base.

Doesn't make it logical or cost-effective.

>>31493650
It's not that big a difference honestly. Only 32 more cells.

And the Ticos are being modernized, the only argument between Congress and the Navy is how to do it. The Navy wants to do it all at once, Congress wants to do it over time. The navy's plan would stretch them into the 2040s while Congress's plan will have them all out of service by the end of the 30s.

Hopefully we'll have a new class of ship entering service by then. Maybe a modified Zumwalt with more focus on air defense?

>>31494106
Is there any relevant need for large surface ships that aren't carriers?

What would a new cruiser do that a flight 3 burke couldn't?

>>31494106
32 missile cells per ship seems like a big fucking difference when going up against a Chinese zerg rush.

>>31494106
I thought the congress plan last till early 2030's.

>>31494128
Yes; they can be more efficient ship killers.

Size doesn't make a difference anymore in terms of armor or armament. They carry the same shit on cruisers that they do on destroyers and frigates. The difference is that a cruiser can carry much more and much larger radar and electronics equipment.

It might not seem like that much of a difference but as
>>31494140
pointed out, in a full-out shooting war, those extra missiles might make the difference between getting through an enemy CIWS screen or not.

Also, larger ships have better endurance. The Soviet Kirov-class is a nice example of a large warship used properly. The Soviets knew they could never dominate the sea with carriers the way the US does. So they designed the Kirov, a massive battlecruiser, with the sole intent of carrying enough missiles to hunt down carrier groups and take them out of commission.

>>31494192
?
The US does not and never will kill ships with their own ships

The point of destroyers/cruisers is air-defense & intercepting AShM's

>>31494140
4 Burkes have almost 400 cells between them. When you consider ESSM can be quadpacked, it gets absurd.

If a swarm of ASHMs gets through a Burke screen, it's going to be because it overwhelmed it's ability to fire and respond to many threats at once, not because it ran out of missiles.

>>31494106
>only 32 cells

That's 128 ESSMs, and that's a pretty big deal.

>>31494219
>The US does not and never will kill ships with their own ships

The US recently copied Russia and China's idea for ship-launched ASM's.

>>31494285
>If a swarm of ASHMs gets through a Burke screen, it's going to be because it overwhelmed it's ability to fire and respond to many threats at once, not because it ran out of missiles.
You're not thinking at China boat-spam scale here.

>>31494307
They will use the F-35 to direct the AShM's to their target

>>31494316
Yeah but they still need a launch platform, and ship launched AShMs are WAY killier than an LRASM unless the LRASM has a plutonium surprise inside.

>>31494327
what ship launched AShM's are you talking about, LRASM is like a modern stealthy intelligent harpoon.

>>31494313
Missile boat spam is not the primary method the Chinese would use to take down a carrier group. That would be H-6s with ALCMs. Realistically you're never going to be able to coordinate a large enough ship-based strike on a CSG.

File: bmd san antonio.jpg (394KB, 1425x1071px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 1425x1071px

>>31493569
>Apparently the Ticonderogas aren't going to be modernized. They'll slowly be phased out and replaced with Flight 3 Burkes that will be able to handle the larger radar. The Navy is throwing a fit about it but Congress doesn't appear to be budging.

Do you even read your own links? 10 Tico's have already been modernized and the rest will be modernized over time to replace the 11 used to escort the 11 CVN's as they age out.

As for an actual replacement, Ingall's already has that covered (SPY-3 and 288 VLS cells).

>>31493693
>>31494020
Flight III Burkes pretty much max out the hull capacity.

File: distributed7.jpg (168KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1920x1080px

>>31494219
>The US does not and never will kill ships with their own ships

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EylIBFjuZ-c

>>31493603
>Less cells than a destroyer
>>>>>>>>>>Cruiser

File: 1474475137747.jpg (41KB, 283x352px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 283x352px

>>31494219

>The US does not and never will kill ships with their own ships

Just wait till LRASM gets deployed.

>>31496429
>>31494219
This may be a dumb comment but,
Wait whats wrong with cruise missiles?
Small payload?

File: san_giorgio.png (89KB, 1000x1250px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1000x1250px

>>31493650
Agree with you on China. They make half the steel in the world, and their populace would be very angry if the steel mills shut down.

OTOH in the U.S. people are infuriated if you suggest they work with a lathe instead of an office.

>>31493650
Russia was never good at blue water naval projection though. And the Japanese took that overconfidence into the Pacific War and got comprehensively BTFO.

File: arleighburke zumwalt.jpg (59KB, 800x405px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 800x405px

>>31496386
>less cells that are capable of more powerful missiles
>ignore everything else besides VLS cell count

>>31496446
Nothing, they just have to have a targeting system capable of going after ships.

A volley of data linked Block IV Tomahawks timed to match up with a AShM/HARM strike from a carrier air wing is a huge get fucked to any Chinese or Russian fleet.

>>31494371
>>31494313
>>31494285
I think it's important to keep in mind that a CSG in wartime is going to be spread out over hundreds of nautical miles, and the Chinese might not even know where the CVN is, let alone where it will be by the time any ships or aircraft they send after it reach their target.

>>31496446

The LRASM is going to be tailored to defeating enemy radar and CIWS while dealing the largest bang for the buck.

Cruise missiles are fantastic, especially in the numbers a CSG is capable of deploying, and they are fantastic multi-purpose weapons, but are relatively easily shot down, compared to the capabilities the LRASM is designed to have.

Also, the LRASM is replacing the Harpoon, and will be able to be launched by F-35's and F/A-16's, which cruise missiles are not.

>>31496606
tomahawk is not much larger/heavier than an LRASM...

>>31496640

But is not designed to be fitted to and fired from the F-35 and F-18

The LRASM is.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>31493017
Sell some of those sexy beasts to us

>>31493569
>Congress doesn't appear to be budging.
Politicians come and go.

>>31497247
Ships age doesn't change when politicians swap.

>>31493066
I get stealth and all that, but all these edgy looking military vehicles are starting to get to me.
>Stealth MRAP when