Does /k/ like CG's? >dat latest AEGIS revision >dat

The CG replacement program needs to get going soon.

>>32967629
Why can't they make a Flight II of the Ticos like they are with the DDG-51 Flight III's?

>>32968031
The hull design is from the 60s. It's time for something new.

>>32968093

Build it on the hull of the Zumwalt. There is plenty of extra room.

>>32968358
If the Navy will only build 3 DDG-1000s, what makes you think they'll build 22 even bigger DDG-1000s?

>>32968408
Why would it need to be bigger? The hull space for the area search radar is still there, and they've got more than enough C4SIR processing and workspace for a command staff.

>>32968573
But not enough for more missles, why have all the downsides of a bigger ship without all the upside?
Zumwalts already have less VLS cells than a burke

>>32968602
The VLS cells are also larger. When you've got fully networked air command in fleet defense on the Zumwalt, it doesn't really matter which ship the VLS cells are on. Load up the air defense CG Zumwalt variant cells with larger, longer range SAMs with a few cells reserved for quad packed short range stuff, and keep the Burkes with their mix of SM-6, SM-3 and ESSMs. Spread land attack and AShMs throughout the fleet.

What you're missing here is that theoretically what the Zumwalt loses in total numbers of cells it makes up for in effective engagement range (not to mention survivability, etc.). Also, with a fully networked fleet defense, everything is talking to everything else - that means that it doesn't matter who actually takes the shot. See:
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-moment-pilots-first-realized-the-f-35-was-something-extraordinary/
>We came in with Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), Industry, Big Navy to perform a demonstration in September out of White Sands, NM. The F-35 performed an engagement with that combat system through a gateway that allowed us to talk via Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) to the AEGIS combat system and engage the target.
>We talked electronically to the AEGIS combat system, like a remote sensor, and AEGIS engaged the airborne target successfully.
>And when I say engaged successfully, it was a metal on metal engagement from a significant range. I’d say more than a tactically significant range. It was a very, very impressive shot.
Can you talk about the interface for that kind of targeting?
>It is super simple.
>It is targeting the way we target any of our own weapons and it is passed off.
>There is really no difference, it is just a battle management issue as to who is going to engage.

CONT

>>32968602
>>32969126
All this means that as long as AWACS, F-35, Burke, Tico, Zumwalt, whoever sees the target and has good track on it, anyone can engage it. Whoever is in best position/best magazine state/etc. launches on it. The best command ship then becomes not one with the most VLS cells, but the one with the best processing, comms bandwidth and command facilities.

The Zumwalt having slightly fewer VLS cells but the future potential for much longer range AShMs and SAMs is a huge engagement envelope advantage weighed against a very small magazine size disadvantage. Sensor fusion and integration means you need fewer munitions on target to successfully engage/intercept that target, after all.

>>32968408

The DDG-1000 hull is already plenty big to serve as the basis for a cruiser.

>>32968573
>>32968602
>>32969126
>>32969140
>>32969203
Remove deck gun, add more VLS.

Make the tower have a central void, with VLS.

>>32969394

You wouldn't even need to remove the guns completely, just scale them down to the standard 5-inch guns (127 mm) used by other American destroyers.

>>32969394
>>32969531
Nah. 80 cells is enough. These cruisers need two railguns instead.

>>32967629
Convert LPD-17 hull to CG.

Done.

>>32969897
I vaguely remember a plan for using the San Antonio hulls for the basis of a future SUW class.

Ah, here we are:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-plans-huge-ballistic-missile-defense-ship-14920

Though a 25kton cruiser seems like overkill to me, especially as we would need at least 15-19 of them to serve as fleet defense flagships for all the CSGs and detached LHD/LHAs, and even then they'd be worked very hard.

>>32969897

An LPD hull would not be nearly fast enough to serve as the basis for a cruiser. Any ship that is going to be part of carrier strike groups needs to have a top speed of 26 knots at absolute minimum. And a cruiser would definitely need to be even faster than that.

>>32969976
Good point.

>>32969976
Would it be that hard to upgrade the power plant in the process?

Especially if it used electric propulsion, which is probably going to become standard if no major issues crop up in the ZumZum?

>>32970278
Just like in aeronautical engineering, hull shape determines and limits best efficient cruise speed and top speed to a much greater extent than installed power.

The answer is almost always a more efficient hullshape for the desired speed over just throwing more SHP at the problem. Especially when designing a very long endurance military ship like a cruiser.

>>32970278

No. Hull-shaping limits speed regardless of what propulsion system is used. The Supply-class fast combat support ships had a top speed of 25 knots, so I'm going to say that's the minimum speed for operating with a carrier group. The Sacramento-class had a slightly faster top speed at 26 knots. But a cruiser would need to be faster than those ships.