Renew Ticonderoga

Several years ago, I have heard that Ticondroga Class would equipe SeaRam in first decade of 21 centry. Now the time has passed half of the decade, I have knonw first block of Ticonderoga Class have retired. Who would tell me whether the plan that SeaRam equipe on Ticonderoga Class is still going to be?
Anyway, the Tic carry more weapon than Burke Class, some of the latter even has no hangar and less 30 cellings at least compair with Tic. So why the US navy let Tic retire so early even which still are newer.

The Arleigh Burke class ships are destroyers, where the Ticonderoga class is a cruiser. That's why they carrier more weapons. The Flight IIA Burke's have a hangar. It was only the first 28 that didn't.

The first 28 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have a helicopter deck but no hanger or embarked helicopters. Ships in production Flight IIA, starting with USS OSCAR AUSTIN (DDG-79), also have landing and hangar facilities for operation of two multi-purpose Light Airborne Multipurpose System LAMPS MK III helicopters. This capability will be added for the remaining 29 ships of the class. The modifications require removal of Harpoon missile capability. The addition of a helicopter hangar and the upgraded baseline 6.1 AEGIS Combat System are two of the most significant upgrades. Also beginning with this ship, the number of VLS cells will be increased from 90 to 96, and the Phalanx close-in weapon system will be replaced by vertical-launched the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles when they become available.

www.fas.org...

As far as the Ticonderoga goes, the first ones were getting old, and couldn't take several important upgrades. The retired cruisers were the very early versions that still had rails for their missiles and not the vertical launch system, which is much faster and more capable. CG47-50 have been decomissioned, with CG51 to be decomissioned. It's too expensive to modernize them to VLS and make all the other upgrades.

There are several upgrades to go with Searam, starting this year with CG52.

I think CG52 is belong to Burke Class. I need to know which one of the Tic Class will upgrade to fitting Searam version

No, the CG are the Ticonderoga Cruisers. The Burkes are DDGs.

CG is for Guided missile Cruiser, and DDG is for Guided missile Destroyer. DD is destroyer, C is cruiser.

[edit on 2/7/2006 by Zaphod58]

Ok, I am sorry, would you mind give me some link to prove Searam will be equiped on Tic.Class since CG52

Oops, that was my mistake. From what I can find the CG/DDGs will NOT be getting the RIM-116 systems. They are being installed in ships that DON'T have a missile capability like the CVN carriers, the smaller Amphibious Carriers, older Destroyers, etc. It's called Ship Self Defense Systems (SSDS). The CG/DDG ships already use the Standard Missile which was developed specifically FOR the Aegis system.

RAM weapon systems are integrated with the AN/SWY-2 combat system on certain ships and as part of the Ship Self Defense System (SSDS) on other ships ('___'-41 class ships at this time). The AN/SWY-2 is comprised of the weapon system and the combat direction system. The combat direction system employs the existing Mk 23 target acquisition system (TAS) radar and the AN/SLQ-32(V) electronic warfare support sensor together with threat evaluation and weapons assignment software resident in the Mk 23 TAS to accomplish threat detection, correlation, evaluation, and engagement. With SSDS, RAM is part of the engagement suite. For example, on '___' 41-class ships, a typical SSDS engagement suite includes RAM, the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System Block 1A, and the decoy launch system. SSDS further integrates the AN/SPS-49(V)1 radar with the medium PRF upgrade, the AN/SPS-67 surface search radar, the AN/SLQ-32(V) sensor, and the CIWS search radar.

navysite.de...

This is the upgrade for the CG ships. It will be starting with CG-71 USS Cape St George. I assume because she is the first scheduled for maintenance, and it's something they'll do as they come into drydock.

In 2006, cruisers will begin the process of being upgraded through the Cruiser Modernization program. Cruiser Modernization is a cost effective means to sustain or increase force structure and deploy new vital capabilities sooner. All cruisers in the fleet with the exception of CGs 47-51, will eventually go through modernization. Cruiser Modernization will improve warfighting capability by providing systems upgrades including Cooperative Engagement Capability and the AN/SQQ-89A(V)15 with Multi-Function Towed Array. Cruiser Modernization also provides a viable platform for future Ballistic Missile Defense missions. A comprehensive service life extension work package, which includes the All-Electric Modification, SMARTSHIP upgrades, hull, mechanical, and electrical system upgrades, and a Type Commanders maintenance work-package, is included in modernization.

CG modernization begins in FY 2006. The first ship scheduled to undergo modernization is USS Cape St. George (CG 71). The remaining 21 baseline 2, 3 and 4 cruisers have varying capabilities. The cruiser conversion program will result in all 22 ships having a common warfighting baseline. Improvements include quality of life initiatives, better weapon systems, SmartShip upgrades, remote monitoring capabilities, force protection upgrades, optimal manning, open architecture, and many other improvements.

www.globalsecurity.org...

By the way, no need to say sorry. You don't learn by not asking, and there's no need to apologize for what you don't know, or aren't sure of.

[edit on 2/7/2006 by Zaphod58]

Emile,

Why would /anyone/ want to put SeaRAM on a ship if they could have ESSM with the datalink or Aster?

RAM is nothing more or less than a cheap means to avoid close-aboard saturations by starting the inner zone where Standard (VLS especially) leaves off, around 2-4 miles.

It's basically an S2A ARM with a backup optical head for terminal plume handover and it's _never_ been tested against supersonic threats.

And, IMO, it never will be because the missile is too slow and has too little aero (and no shuntmotor options) to make the kinds of cross-track 'adjustments' it needs to in tracking very fast, sub horizon, threats.

Indeed, it's basically just a Sidewinder motor plugged into a Stinger-POST/ADSM derived seeker and as such it's primary utility lies in it's ability to be used aboard generally dumbfire ships like the Assaults and the Fleet Train.

Where we were too cheap to give anything remotely resembling real air defense capabilities.

Mind you, CIWS is not any better (1,500m terminal defense, what a crock) on the 'real' warships but given the 'see to shoot' cell-box launch mode for RAM, I don't see how you could integrate it with a VLS any way (I have seen drawings of a RAM replacement module on a Mk.15 turret).

What we NEED is Sealite and the SM.6. The one to handle threats coming over a 6-12nm local horizon at Z-TOF rates. The other to put the seeker on the missile where it should be and hit threats if not shooters well out in the transit/midcourse phases.

Of course that in turn means that SPY-1 and 2 are little more than 'here I am!' lighthouses as the best illuminator system available would be a remote HALE sensor craft that could provide basin-wide coverage.

And now you see why overloading a stretch-Spruance hull and 'calling it a Cruiser' (when in point of truth the only value to a CG is if it has an _N_ attached to provide continual goalkeeper escort in case a CV has to really beat feet at 40-45 knots) is more or less an anachronism. Because the hull is nothing if not the opportunity to bring the weapons system into play and the weapons system is /conceptually/ dated.

We need a class of ship that uses SWATH or SLICE technology to provide good seakeeping along with sustained 50 knot 'supercruise' and about 50-100 men aboard, tops. It needs to have modular mission systems to support the SWO daddies and a _DEEP_ VLS capacity to accomodate a range of new missions, not least of which being over the horizon Air Defense and Hypersonic Cruise.

Most importantly, it needs, either in and of itself or through theater based HALE options, the ability to self-target across a 1,000nm wide sphere of influence without the support of a big deck. i.e. a deep reaching, jet speed, VTOL, RISTA drone.

And we will never get it so long as the CMICs are allowed to run a piloted navy. And the Air Farce hogs everything related to C4ISR.


KPl.

Originally posted by ch1466
We need a class of ship that uses SWATH or SLICE technology to provide good seakeeping along with sustained 50 knot 'supercruise' and about 50-100 men aboard, tops. It needs to have modular mission systems to support the SWO daddies and a _DEEP_ VLS capacity to accomodate a range of new missions, not least of which being over the horizon Air Defense and Hypersonic Cruise.

Most importantly, it needs, either in and of itself or through theater based HALE options, the ability to self-target across a 1,000nm wide sphere of influence without the support of a big deck. i.e. a deep reaching, jet speed, VTOL, RISTA drone.

Sheesh, while your at it, why don't you add in a matter/anti-matter reactor, particle beam weapons, deflector shields and photon torpedoes......



Platforms are designed and built as dictated by the threat. The CG-47 was specifically designed to address a threat that no longer exists, which is part of the reason they are being decommisioned.

In the near future, the DD(X) and LCS will address the threats the US Navy faces today and expects to face in the future very nicely.

For some technical accurracy, the early Tico Class cruisers had 2 Mk26 launchers, with a combined magazine capacity of 80 missiles. (Standards only, no ASRoc or Tomahawk.)

The Arliegh Burkes, however, have a Mk41 and a Mk41a launcher, with 61 and 29 cells respectively. That's 90 missiles, and they can be SMs, Tomahawks, VLAs, and now Sea Sparrows.

More cells, and a greater variety means the destroyers are far more powerful warships than the first few AEGIS cruisers.

That's the big reason that CG47-51 are being retired. It would cost too much to upgrade the launchers/magazines, and the rail system was just too slow compared to the VLS.

Orangetoms are there any new Cuisers being built or on the design board? will they be more powerful than than the current ones? are they planned to be stealth? cannons?

nope, the US Navy isn't building any cruisers right now, and isn't planning on starting anymore untill about the time the first DD(X)s hit the fleet.

There is a CG(X) on the drawing boards. They're planning to build 8 and use them for a theater missile defense role.

The concept of Sea Based Theater Air and Missile Defense (TAMD) is founded on emerging concepts related to Network Centric Operations (NCO). TAMD is based on enduring naval roles (forward presence, deterrence, crisis response, and projection of combat power) and on synergism that arises through the networking of complementary offensive and defensive capabilities. It builds combat power from the rapid networking of geographically dispersed warfighters, capitalizing upon significant improvements in weapons, sensor and information technologies to achieve non-linear increases in defensive capability.

Under the March 2005 version of the Navy's 30-Year Fleet Plan, the Navy plans to operate1 8 CG(X) cruisers, a derivative of the DD(X) devoted to ballistic missile defense. The CG(X) will be required to create the missile-defense force structure for the next 20 to 30 years. CG(X) is on the horizon in about 10 years as the next step in the process.

The CG(X) cruiser will replace the Ticonderoga class AEGIS cruisers. The CG(X) will provide an “umbrella” of air and missile defense with longer -range missiles, protecting carrier strike groups and the other DD(X) vessels. It will also be able to track and engage ballistic missiles hundreds of miles inland. Currently the CG(X) is in the design phase. Like the DD(X), CG(X) will have many advanced features not found on present Navy vessels.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Well, I suspect strongly that M61 that I am sorry I forgot the name of it can protect US fighting ship from some supersonic s2s missile as SS-N-22 Sunban. If US NAVY has no capability to defend such simple attack, how can I image they can defend many attacks from many aspects that we couldn't image now. I don't want US lose the war happened between them with an autarchy as PLA. We all know US delegate democracy and freedom!

The SM-2 Block IIIA and Block IIIB are actually quite capable against low level high speed targets. The SM-3 has successfully destroyed an ICBM warhead outside the atmosphere, and the next generation SM-6 ERAM will have an AMRAAM seeker on the SM-2 Block IV body.

Block IIIA, a modification to this version, extends capability to even lower altitudes. RIM-66C Block IIIA includes a new warhead that imparts greater velocity to warhead fragments in the direction of the target.

Block IIIB is the next step in the continuing evolution of the Standard Missile family, incorporating an infrared (IR) guidance mode capability developed in Missile Homing Improvement Program (MHIP) with the radio frequency (RF) semi-active guidance system of the proven SM-2 Block IIIA. The MHIP dual-mode RF/IR guidance capability is being incorporated to counter a specific fielded and proliferating electronic warfare systems in existing aircraft and ASCM threats. OPEVAL of SM-2 Block IIIB was conducted during April 1996, with missile firings by an Aegis cruiser that was completing workup training for deployment. Based on OPEVAL results, SM-2 Block IIIB is operationally effective and suitable.

www.globalsecurity.org...

SM-3

On 24 February 2005 the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Weapon System and Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) destroyed a ballistic missile outside the earth's atmosphere during an Aegis BMD Program flight test over the Pacific Ocean. The Feb. 24 mission -- the fifth successful intercept for SM-3 -- was the first firing of the Aegis BMD "Emergency Deployment" capability using operational versions of the SM-3 Block I missile and Aegis BMD Weapon System. This was also the first test to exercise SM-3's third stage rocket motor (TSRM) single-pulse mode. The TSRM has two pulses, which can be ignited independently, providing expansion of the ballistic missile engagement battlespace. The SM-3 was launched from the Aegis BMD cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) and hit a target missile that had been launched from the U.S. Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii.

www.globalsecurity.org...

[edit on 2/8/2006 by Zaphod58]

>>
Sheesh, while your at it, why don't you add in a matter/anti-matter reactor, particle beam weapons, deflector shields and photon torpedoes......
>>

Matter-Antimatter. Not necessary. The Sea Cat cruises at 45 knots on two water jets with conventional diesel-electric propulsion.

Artificial Lightning? I suppose if you want to have arcing effects in highly ionized, wet, air near the surface of a giant grounding source. I have seen conceptual demonstrations of plasma-arc antennas which can be used to shunt RF lobes at _very_ high rates. But you can keep the particle weapons.

Deflector Shields. Probably closer than you think. Pulsed Water Wall is an excellent means of deflecting sea skimmers and it may be the only thing available for awhile that can kill supercavs.

>>
Platforms are designed and built as dictated by the threat. The CG-47 was specifically designed to address a threat that no longer exists, which is part of the reason they are being decommisioned.
>>

The F6D was developed as a cheap FADF-only platform whose use was denied because it wasn't a fighter in a role for which (blue water bomber killer) there truly was no need. It could carry as many as 8 AAM-N-10 VLRAAM along with a 60" radar array able to guide them over 200km, twice the distance at which Phoenix could effectively reach. The TFX-111 only carried four AIM-54 (though it might have done six with some more mods to the weapons bay) and came closer to meeting it's spec than the F-4 ever did on both radius, station time, and approach speeds. It also beat the F-14 in all but the last. The VFMX carried 6 Phoenix only from land bases. It's single engine climb was deficient with even 4. So that a platform designed to be a 'Fleet Defender' became a poor Air Superiority fighter with typically just two AIM-54 aboard in all missions.

What does this mean? Egos drive development. Egos which want things to change but only in ways that supports a given operational doctrine that is 'familiar' to it's owner.

The irony being that the late 50's and early 60's were a time when nuclear war, especially at sea, was really something of a given. Both socially and by doctrine. And the Soviet AVMF bomber/missile threat was very real, albeit armed mostly with early weapons in the AS-2 class.

While the reality of engineering towards that spec created a monster that could not be stopped or even /modified/ to a more appropriate strike-too role in the later 60's and early 70's when supersonic kill vehicles and ever increasing standoff made the number of shots that ANY fighter could carry inadequate relative to what a surface ship could achieve, even with Mk.21/.22 and later .26 launchers. And a large (airborne) radar platform able to steer them.

A platform which still resembled the F6D (as a 40,000ft and 6-10 hr loiter platform) far more than any '1hr and done' FORCAP fighter farce.

MORAL OF STORY: Don't assume your design threshold is good enough to meet today's threat 'with tomorrows naval architecture' when you don't even have a good handle on the relevance of your doctrinal relevance in the present tense with yesterday's engineering.

>>
In the near future, the DD(X) and LCS will address the threats the US Navy faces today and expects to face in the future very nicely.
>>

And is there some reason why it would be unwise to both enter and leave inshore operations zone quickly? Is there some particular shortcoming to a SLICE hull that, because it can also operate in SS5-7 at speeds of 20-25 knots, it is 'inappropriate' for shallow water ops, despite having a draft less than any conventional hull?

A little lesson in naval engineering:

1. Naval Platform scale and power loading are 'optimal' (compared to any other mission system) for generation-1 of ANY new technology you choose to incorporate. Where this applies to 100KW-1.2MW COIL systems or even Diode Pump technology, you also offer the chance to NAIL THE COFFIN SHUT on an enemy seeking to develop 'generation next' of supersonic CMs and possibly even guided TBMs which would otherwise threaten not just the asset but the entire FORCE construct around which 'littoral' ops are designed to be targeted as much as supported, from conventional air.
2. Frequently the conditions of operation are such that you CAN employ ranged weapons fires without worry over morality of misses IF you design the primary mission role to itself force the enemy to come get you. If you have to go inshore to get to /him/ your targeting or your fires if not both are off.
3. A ship design that is vulnerable to anything from 5,000 dollar rigid inflateables to 200,000 dollar converted cigarrete racers as 'PCI EBooten' (mines and tubes) is never a wise choice for NGS or support of Snakeeaters in inshore ops. On a Gulls swarm the Sea Eagle basis. When it is in fact a 200 MILLION or 1.4 BILLION dollar asset (LCS vs. DDX) it is beyond /stupid/.
4. You cannot assume things which make small scale operations work with 'big deck backup' will always do so. Overhead may be lost. TBMs may drive the naval or even landbased airpower component of ISR so far into the deep blue that entire sea basins (SCS or Yellow) are lost to effective SUPPORT of nominally smaller mission platforms. Role diversity at this point is not helpful if it doesn't include the basics of first securing the ships presence in the theater on it's own, alone and unsupported. And second it's being able to leverage legacy missions which are still valid but only if the way is opened for them by virtue of point-attack _in depth_ on threats which previously were considered 'off limts' as a function of R&M separate hunting preserves.
5. There is nothing worse than building a corvette and frigate navy only to discover you are pinned to the coast by a blue water force that chooses it's moment of engagement. Just ask the Russians. They had an excuse: namely a naval system designed around denial of SLOC ops. Since we have to swim to every battle field, what's our excuse?

CONCLUSION:
It's all there. But none of it is integrated. Because we live in a world where conservatism now means sticking our necks out 'in the same old way' rather than grabbing the bull by the horns and saying "Yes, we recognize that the littorals are where it's at, but we're NOT going inshore to dominate them. Here's how as much as why."

That kind of thinking is what makes YOU 'a threat'. As soon as you stop driving the enemy by reacting to 'what he can do in the next-X years' you set yourself up to be the one suffering the convenience of someone else' whiphand.

If we fail to recognize the true psychology behind 'good enough' as a function of /trodden ruttism/ we doom ourselves to losing the next war by virtue of not setting it's engagement conditions through our own choices of technology coming into them.

LCS and DDX are little more than inshore firesupport vessels and that's just WWII pathetic as a vision for how small combattants SHOULD be employed.


KPl.

LCS is intended to get in close to the shore for missions that must be performed there, but which are unachievable, or not cost effective for something like a DDG. Missions such as clearing mines from shipping/landing zones, or hunting subs trying to hide in shallower waters, to annihilating small boat raids before they can pose a threat to the fleet operating further out. (defence in depth) Though I have my differences with some aspects of the LCS, the mission is defined clearly enough that I believe it to be a useful addition to the fleet.

DD(X) is a little further down the road, and is being designed with more of a mindset "okay, our DDGs are the most powerful surface combatants in the world, what do we want to already have once the rest of the world catches up?"

I know some kind of systom sounds called Tunguska which combined gun and missile is really powerful and accurate. But why US has no such superior weapon? I am not sure whether kilov has installed this advanced weapon, but I am sure some Russia fighting ships has already installed such system, PLA navy also has made out the some one.

[edit on 9-2-2006 by emile]

The DD(X) team is developing a rocket propelled shell for the 155mm guns that it will use for shore bombardmant. It's called Long Range Land Attack Projectile. It's a 155mm guided shell with a range of about 60 nautical miles. They've done sucessful test firings with it.

The DD(X) National Team and the Navy conducted the third consecutive successful guided-flight test of the 155mm Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) June 16.

Preliminary results indicate the munition successfully conducted preplanned maneuvers along a 60 nautical mile flight path during the 280-second flight.

“This important test highlights another successful milestone to develop and field long-range, GPS-precise gun munitions for our fleet,” said Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton, the program executive officer for ships. “The success of LRLAP is vital to our efforts to deliver DD(X) to the fleet as planned. Each one of these shots brings us closer to that goal.”

“The DD(X) development team, both in the Navy and industry, continues to make major strides to demonstrate critical new capabilities such as LRLAP for DD(X),“ according to Capt. Charles Goddard, the DD(X) program manager. “Our rigorous development and test program is focused using prototype systems to fully evaluate and mature these technologies for DD(X) and other future ships.”

www.defensetech.org...

www.navweaps.com...
www.ddxnationalteam.com...
www.irconnect.com...

[edit on 2/9/2006 by Zaphod58]