Anti-Missile Ship Planned
The Navy - in part due to congressional pressure - is examining the possibility of a large, 25,000-ton missile cruiser with nuclear propulsion. Details of the proposals and analyses were revealed this week by Christopher P. Cavas in Defense News and Navy Times.
Two cruiser designs are being considered. The first is a new warship based on the controversial DDG 1000 (Zumwalt class) destroyer, which features the controversial “tumblehome” hull. This design is being called an “escort cruiser” to protect aircraft carrier strike groups. It would have gas turbine propulsion, as do all other U.S. cruisers, destroyers, and frigates.
The second cruiser would be a much larger, 25,000-ton, nuclear-propelled ship with a more conventional hull featuring a flared bow. This ship would be optimized for the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) mission.
Reportedly, five nuclear-propelled CGN(X) ships and 14 escort cruisers designated CG(X) would be built to fulfill the cruiser requirement in the Navy’s 30-year, 313-ship plan. These ships would be, in part, a replacement for the 22 remaining Ticonderoga (CG 47) missile cruisers, completed between 1986 and 1994.
These cruiser concepts are taking shape as part of an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA), due to the Navy’s leadership this fall from the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) in Arlington, Virginia. While details of the AoA have been closely held, sources confirmed to Mr. Cavas that two different designs are being considered. They also say the analysis will recommend dropping the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) from the CG(X) program.
The KEI is a large BMD missile under development by Northrop Grumman as a ground- or sea-based weapon to intercept ballistic missiles in their boost, ascent, and midcourse flight phases.
The KEI is much larger than the SM-3 Standard missile developed by Raytheon to arm Navy cruisers and destroyers for the BMD role. The 40-inch diameter KEI is nearly 39 feet long, while the 21-inch diameter SM-3 stands just over 21 feet tall. Both missiles use a kinetic energy warhead, intended to ram an enemy missile.
Sources said a missile launch tube for a KEI missile would take the place of six SM-3 launch cells in a surface ship.
The CNA team is said to be firm in its recommendation for the smaller escort cruiser. Details are less developed on the nuclear-powered variant, sources said.
-- Norman Polmar
Post a comment
I'm a softie for big surface ships but frankly, the US carrier-based surface fleet & its escorts are rapidly becoming defunct. They're too vulnerable to swarm attacks, wave attacks & advanced (but relatively cheap) diesel-electric submarines with heavy ordnance, especially in conjunction. Our nuclear submarine fleet is by far our greatest tactical and strategic (especially with the converted SSGNs & the somewhat ironically named USS Jimmy Carter--a Seawolf-variant with intelligence-gathering and SEAL-deployment capability).
But just for the sake of argument, let's say we want to build some CGNs. I would model them in part on Germany's WWII light battleships/pocket battleships & partly on the big cruisers Russia built towards the end of the Cold War--a big ship that can take care of itself in all three dimensions.
Requirements:
1) Enough mass (including old-fashioned armor, particularly along the belt & especially in the bulge) to provide littoral survivability.
2) Good speed & an off-the-shelf reactor, if there is such a thing. Nuclear ships DO tend to be lower maintenace when it comes to fuel over the long haul. Anyway, I'd say 31 knots or so would be fine. That's fast enough to act as a fleet escort & command ship. In littoral waters, speed is not essential for a big ship.
3) Less gee-whiz tech. More off-the-shelf affordability. Look, there ain't nothing wrong with using stuff we've got. And if we can reduce the radar or sonar signature some, groovy. But not if it makes the ship less survivable or so expensive that we can't afford to risk it. Get serious about off-the shelf.
4) Heavy ASW battery & helo complement & a heavy SAM/AA array--go for volume here. Fancy missiles get expensive when you get into power projection roles. You also run out of them real fast.
(The Russians were REALLY thorough in this department--especially ASW--because they knew our sub fleet was lethal. We're at risk now from the new diesel-electrics. We might even want to consider something along the lines of the re-designed Hyuga & Ise...the WWII hybrid BB/carriers. Anything this big out to be versatile. At the least it ought to have a stretch aft & a healthy number of ASW helos).
5) Land attack ability. This means guns folks, preferably guns with a large ammo capacity and ROF. And enough dumb rounds to make fire support affordable. The biggest practical guns available, please. That might mean 155s, with twin or triple turrets (two or three) that would make for some decent NGFS.
Shoot, one might consider ML rocket platforms like the Chinese 52B destroyers for indirect fire. The multi-rocket missile platform was one of Stalin's better ideas. Never seems to get old. Be creative here.
6) Adequate ASM capability backed by rapid-firing secondary armament (navalized 30 mm bushmasters?) for dealing with swarm attacks & small boats. I'm just shooting from the hip at this point.
7) Hardened electronics & command capabilities.
8) Rapid production & reasonable unit cost. I believe the estimate for a total overhaul of Wisconsin and Missouri came to 1.5 billion each. If we get into DD(X) range & 10 year deployment ranges, then we might as well trust re-vamp the old wagons with more ASW & SAM capability.
I'm just brain-storming. Feel free to nitpick. Or email at grahamcstrouse@yahoo.com. Give me a holler. We can design the perfect CGN. Then we sell it to the Navy, get rich, move to Russia and buy out the oligarchs. ;)
-Graham
Posted by: Graham Strouse at September 4, 2007 02:00 AM